United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-670

March 2006

The Pacific Northwest

Research Station’s

Biodiversity Initiative:

Collaborating for

Biodiversity Management

Peter Nelson, Rachel White, Randy Molina
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests

and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly

greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and

where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)

795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.

Authors

Peter Nelson is a graduate student, College of Forest Resources and Evans

School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA

98195. Rachel White is a science writer and Randy Molina is a research

botanist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400,

Portland, OR 97205.
Abstract

Nelson, Peter; White, Rachel; Molina, Randy. 2006. The Pacific Northwest

Research Station’s Biodiversity Initiative: collaborating for biodiversity management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-670. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 32 p.

The Pacific Northwest Research Station launched a Biodiversity Initiative

to assist natural resource professionals in integrating complex biodiversity

concepts into natural resource management processes. We canvassed clients

from various affiliations to determine the main challenges they face in biodiversity management, to define their information needs, and to understand

how best to deliver biodiversity information within a collaborative framework. The biodiversity management challenges that emerged included (1)

the lack of well-defined biodiversity management policies, (2) understanding

and quantifying the interaction effects between a number of factors (e.g.,

disturbance types, management practices) and biodiversity, (3) the lack

of applied biodiversity monitoring strategies, (4) difficulty in locating and

accessing biodiversity information, and (5) balancing conflicting values

relating to biodiversity. We also list the biodiversity information product

needs of clients, as well as preferred technology transfer methods, and we

discuss the future direction of the Biodiversity Initiative.

Keywords: Biological diversity, natural resource management,

biodiversity information, information needs assessment, resource managers,

Pacific Northwest.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.

.
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

1

Introduction

In summer 2004, the Pacific Northwest Research (PNW) Station launched a

Biodiversity Initiative as part of the mission of the Focused Science Delivery

(FSD) Program (see sidebar). The goal of the initiative is to provide synthesized and policy-relevant biodiversity information products to FSD clients and

other information users. This goal will be achieved in two phases. The initial

scoping phase, reported in this document, involved working collaboratively

with diverse clients and stakeholders to identify biodiversity management

challenges and to assess biodiversity information needs. This scoping phase

informed the direction of the second phase of the initiative, in which management tools and information products are being developed to assist clients in

meeting their biodiversity management challenges. We discuss the impetus

and background for the initiative and then describe the results from our

scoping phase. We also provide a framework for setting priorities and implementing product development for the initiative.

Why a Biodiversity Initiative?

The concept of biodiversity is increasingly applied as a factor of interest and

analysis in natural resource management. Biodiversity is an overarching

concept, and thus acts as a crosscutting theme in natural resource management, spanning technical and social realms. If biodiversity can be construed

as the variety of life and the processes that shaped them, and biodiversity

management can be understood as value-based human interactions with those

organisms and processes, we quickly realize that we are dealing with a vast

and complex topic area. The interaction between biological and social complexity makes biodiversity management a formidable challenge. Essentially

we are discussing the application of a conceptual framework to the grounded

realm of natural resource policy and management. And although the term

“biodiversity” is increasingly found in resource management scenarios and

issues, we struggle with the application of the concept. The Biodiversity

Initiative seeks to help bridge this gap; to make conceptual information

on biodiversity topics available for practical application in management

scenarios.

Scope and Direction of the Initiative

To capture the breadth and depth of biological and social issues surrounding

biodiversity management, the Biodiversity Initiative focused on meetings with

Biodiversity is an

overarching concept,

and thus acts as a

crosscutting theme

in natural resource

management,

spanning technical

and social realms.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

2

a diverse range of clients and stakeholders in Oregon and Washington

(including federal and nonfederal land managers, private landowners, forestry

practitioners, scientists, and other natural resource professionals) to determine

the range of challenges faced in managing for biodiversity and the information

tools and products needed to meet those challenges. The initiative has sought

input from diverse clients with a wide variety of viewpoints to promote mutual

learning and understanding of the issues. We summarize client and stakeholder input from these meetings and synthesize that input into two main

sections: (1) primary biodiversity management challenges and (2) requested

biodiversity information products and technology transfer methods.

Since the initial scoping activity, the Biodiversity Initiative has focused on

developing working groups of collaborators and partners who will determine

the final products and work toward their completion. We realize that managing

biodiversity is a huge topic area with many interested clients, each with unique

information needs. A critical first step is working with our partners is to pare

down an overwhelming list of information needs to a priority set of tools and

products that resonate with a cross section of clients and can be accomplished

within the initiative’s timeframe (through 2006). Our progress in this vein is

presented here.

The mission of the Focused Science Delivery Program is to enhance

the usefulness of scientific information. High-quality research already

exists, but often in a scattered array of sources. We pull together isolated

pieces of information and synthesize them into a whole conceptual

framework. We work closely with a wide variety of clients, and

promote partnerships and collaboration. By compiling information

specific to clients’ needs, we hope to strengthen decisionmaking processes by ensuring that policy decisions are based on an integrated

body of thought. Finally, we strive to identify ways to increase cooperation among researchers, political leaders, management specialists, and

the public as they search for solutions to complex resource management

problems.
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

3

We also recognize that information needs and tools for biodiversity management will continue well beyond the program’s timeframe. We hope that

many of the new working groups and partnerships will continue once they

have gained significant foothold and realize the benefits of collaboratively

provided, policy-relevant biodiversity information. Thus, the initiative will

make a significant effort to facilitate the building of lasting partnerships and

collaboration among the diverse set of stakeholders.

What Is Biodiversity?

Short for “biological diversity,” the term was formally introduced during the

first National Forum on BioDiversity in Washington, D.C. 1986 (Wilson 1997).

In a technical and empirical sense, biodiversity refers to the diversity of life in

all its forms and all its levels of organization, from fungi to western red cedar,

from microbes to mountain lions. Biodiversity includes an intricate array of

ecological patterns, processes, and contingent interactions. The complexity of

biodiversity makes it a conceptual entity—virtually impossible to define in its

entirety—yet it has emerged as an important issue in the conservation, management, and legislation of natural resources (McIntosh 2002).

According to Noss (1990), “A definition of biodiversity that is altogether

simple, comprehensive, and fully operational (i.e., responsive to real-life

management and regulatory questions) is unlikely to be found.” Noss suggested that instead of attempting to restrict the term via definition, we should

construct a “characterization of biodiversity that identifies the major components at several levels of organization.” Such a construct conceptualizes

biological diversity within a nested biological hierarchy that ranges in order

from genes, to species, to biotic communities or ecosystems, to landscapes. As

genes make up the details of a species, species make up the details of biotic

communities and so on. In this sense, biodiversity implies a holistic conceptual framework that stands in contrast to more traditional “species-by-species”

or “element-by-element” approaches of viewing the natural world and interpreting natural phenomena (Noss 1990).

To consider the variations and interactions among this hierarchy, Noss

incorporated three ecosystem attributes: composition, structure, and function.

Composition refers to distinct species, populations, or communities. Structure

refers to patterns or physical arrangements of systems across a landscape, for

example habitat complexity in the form of snags and down logs in a forest
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

4

stand. Function refers to the processes that shape compositional and structural attributes, such as natural disturbances, gene flow, and nutrient cycling.

Table 1 illustrates the relations between the nested biological hierarchy and

the three ecosystem attributes.

Noss’ conceptual biodiversity framework encourages a comprehensive

approach to biodiversity management and helps highlight the relationships

between the component parts. In addition, and relevant to this assessment, a

conceptual framework of biodiversity can provide guidance in highlighting

and categorizing information needs as well as assisting in biodiversity program implementation (e.g., in determining which attributes of an ecosystem

should be monitored) (Peck 1998).

Methods

We employed two information gathering approaches in the client scoping

phase by combining independent conversations with select clients (and

small groups of clients), and structured, interactive workshops attended by

representatives of diverse client groups. We chose to conduct a combination

of individually based conversations and workshops to provide a diversity

of interaction environments. Each format provides unique strengths in terms

Coral fungus (Ramaria araiospora). Fungi provide just one example of the variety and

complexity of life forms, and play an integral role in ecosystem processes, such as nutrient

cycling and decomposition.

Randy Molina
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

5

of information gathering. For example, whereas individual conversations allow

for detailed discussions of client information needs, workshops provide

opportunities for group interaction and more synergistic idea generation.

Throughout our interactions with clients, we deliberately refrained from

providing an “official” definition of biodiversity. We opted to leave clients free

to use their own conception of the term as they encounter it in their work.

Individually Based Conversations

Seventy-eight informal conversations were conducted with 99 individuals via

telephone or in person with clients from a variety of sectors involved in natural

resource management.1 Clients were selected based on (1) existing relationships with the FSD Program and other Biodiversity Initiative partners and (2)

a “snowball” approach that allowed participating clients to recommend additional relevant stakeholders for participation. These selection methods allowed

us to interact with a broad range of clients and stakeholders from a network of

individuals involved in Pacific Northwest biodiversity management issues. We

felt that the conversations constituted a fair representation of the range of biodiversity management issues within a stakeholder network, and allowed us to

gather enough information to put forward meaningful and useful information

products.

 Clients and stakeholders represented the following sectors: (1) industrial

private forest-land owners, (2) nonindustrial private forest-land owners, (3)

timber-related interest groups, (4) timberland investment groups, (5) conservation-oriented interest groups, (6) federal (Bureau of Land Management and

1

 For logistical reasons, some conversation sessions included multiple clients from a single

sector.

Table 1—Compositional, structural, and functional biodiversity at multiple biological

hierarchies 

Biological level Ecosystem attributes

of organization Structural Compositional Functional

Landscape Landscape pattern Landscape types Landscape processes

Ecosystem Habitat structure Communities, Interspecific

 ecosystems interactions

Species Population structure Species, populations Demographic

processes

Genetic Genetic structure Genes Genetic processes

Source: Noss 1990.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

6

Forest Service) managers and natural resource specialists (i.e., biologists and

ecologists) at the forest and district levels as well as within the regional or state

offices, (7) members of Oregon and Washington “Biodiversity Councils,” and

(8) individuals from state-level natural resource management agencies in

Oregon and Washington (e.g., Washington Department of Natural Resources,

Oregon Department of Forestry, and Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife).

Conversations were generally unstructured to allow clients freedom to

articulate their specific interests and issues regarding biodiversity management. In addition, we sought more focused information on the following topic

areas in order to better understand clients’ biodiversity management challenges and information needs:

• Use, definition, and perception of the term biodiversity

• Views on the role and importance of biodiversity in natural resource

management

• Consideration of the most important issues relating to biodiversity and

natural resource management

• Current sources and use of information on biodiversity management in

daily work and decisionmaking

• Descriptions of current biodiversity information needs

• Knowledge of research activities and products by U.S. Forest Service

PNW Station scientists relating to biodiversity management

• Informational and organizational impediments to accessing and applying

biodiversity information for decisionmaking

• Relationships of federal managers with nonfederal stakeholders with

regard to biodiversity management

Extensive notes were taken during conversations with clients and subsequently analyzed to identify and characterize common themes and issues.

Those common themes and issues are discussed below.

Workshops

Four workshops were held, two each in Oregon (Bend and Eugene) and

Washington (Wenatchee and Olympia). We purposely chose locations on the

east and west sides of the Cascade Range to explore potential regional differences in terms of management challenges and geographically unique biodiversity information needs. Although the primary objective of the workshops

was to hear the management challenges and information needs from diverse

clients, a secondary objective was to promote mutual learning among clients

by encouraging active listening to divergent viewpoints on the issues. Thus,

Although the primary

objective of the workshops was to hear

the management

challenges and

information needs

from diverse clients,

a secondary objective

was to promote

mutual learning

among clients by

encouraging active

listening to divergent

viewpoints on the

issues.
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

7

we invited clients who could represent many of the viewpoints that had been

articulated in our previous, individually based discussions. Fifty individuals

representing 25 organizations from the sectors noted above participated in the

four workshops. We do not view these 25 organizations as inclusive of all

interest groups or stakeholders involved in biodiversity management issues.

However, we felt that it was a fair representation of the range of interests that

would allow us to gather the needed information to meet the objectives of the

scoping phase.

A professional facilitator conducted the workshops and provided a

nonadversarial environment for all clients to articulate their biodiversity

management challenges and information needs. Participants were informed in

the beginning that the workshops were not intended as forums to debate

issues, but instead were a means to gather information and promote partnerships to address biodiversity management challenges and solutions. Workshops addressed four primary questions: What are the main challenges you

face in managing for biological diversity? Where do you currently obtain your

science resources on biodiversity management? What information and specific

management tools do you need to meet the challenges you noted? and How

can we best work together to develop these products and continue to share

information on biodiversity management?

Workshops provided a forum for a wide variety of clients to voice the challenges they face

in managing for biodiversity, and to brainstorm ideas about what types of information

products would be most useful to them.

 Randy Molina
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

8

An informal voting exercise was conducted at the end of each workshop

to help identify priority biodiversity information products from a list of topics

generated throughout the session. Notes were taken throughout the meetings

on flipcharts and by independent recorders. We summarized notes in terms of

common themes and issues across all the workshops and integrated them with

the results from the individually based conversations. Those common themes

and issues are discussed below.

Results and Discussion

This section summarizes and discusses the results of our individually based

discussions and workshops, and is divided into two main sections: (1) primary

biodiversity management challenges and (2) requested biodiversity information products and preferred technology transfer methods.

Clients articulated a range of challenges associated with biodiversity

management. We broadly categorize the most frequently cited challenges in

this section as follows:

• The lack of well-defined biodiversity management policies, including:

• Biodiversity mandate in federal land management policies

• Biodiversity mandate in private land management policies

• Understanding and quantifying the interaction effects between a number

of factors (i.e., disturbance types, management practices) and biodiversity.

These factors include:

• Resource management practices

• Invasive species

• Fire, forest health, and postfire logging

• Restoration activities

• The lack of applied biodiversity monitoring strategies

• Difficulty in locating and accessing biodiversity information

• Balancing conflicting values relating to biodiversity

Challenge 1: Lack of Well-Defined Biodiversity Management

Policies

There are currently no clear policy mandates that direct the management of

biodiversity. This was a frequently cited biodiversity management challenge.

Public and private forest managers face a variety of federal, state, and local

land management policies (i.e., statutes, regulations, planning documents)

that refer to the identification, conservation, or maintenance of biological

resources; yet there is no explicit mandate for “biodiversity management”
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

9

per se. Across the mosaic of ownerships, landowners establish different management objectives and goals for their lands ranging along a gradient from the

production of primarily economic goods to complete preservation of ecosystems. Variation in land management goals and objectives leads to variation not

only in the types of problems and decisions managers encounter, but also a

diversity of information needs and decision-support tools (i.e., program

evaluation and monitoring tools).

In addition, land management philosophies are changing and becoming

more complex than they were a generation ago as science begins to probe and

unravel the interactions between human and ecological systems (Thomas

1999). This socioecological complexity has an impact on laws, regulations,

court decisions, and public perceptions. The lack of policy coherence on

biodiversity management leaves resource professionals to puzzle over disparate strategies for achieving social, ecological, and economic conditions.

Biodiversity mandates in federal land management policies—

Certain federal statutes and accompanying regulations contain provisions

that pertain, albeit somewhat indirectly, to biodiversity management. Clients

frequently cited both the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and, less

frequently, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as providing some guidance as

to biodiversity policy. Yet these statutes do not explicitly compel federal managers to conduct biodiversity management per se—instead, they tend to focus

on the species level within the biological hierarchy.

Congress passed the ESA in 1973 to strengthen the government’s ability

to protect imperiled wildlife and the habitat on which they depend.2

 Although

it represents a landmark in natural resource policy, it embodies a species-byspecies approach that may now seem outdated (Norton 1998). In the years

since the passage of the ESA, an emphasis on habitats, ecosystem dynamics,

and complex interactions has substantially expanded our understanding of the

complexity of managing for natural resources (Norton 1998). Indeed, many

clients expressed dissatisfaction with single-species oriented policies, saying

these strategies oversimplify or even contradict the conceptual principles of

biodiversity management. Protecting individual species remains important,

but recognition that species exist within and interact with larger systems and

interconnected communities also has become important.

2

 Endangered Species Act legislation can be accessed at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

ESA.html.

The lack of policy

coherence on

biodiversity management leaves resource

professionals to

puzzle over disparate

strategies for

achieving social,

ecological, and

economic conditions.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

10

The statutory requirements of the NFMA mandate the Forest Service to

provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities within a multiple-use

framework.3As such, NFMA provides management safeguards for species at

risk of extinction or extirpation on Forest Service land. The diversity requirements of NFMA (along with ESA and other statutes) were a fundamental

policy component in the debate over the conservation of late-successional

forest ecosystems and appropriate levels of federal timber harvest in the Pacific

Northwest in the 1990s (Robbins 2004).4

 The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)

sought to resolve that debate over competing values by balancing commodity

production with the conservation of forest ecosystems.5

 The conservation

strategies of the NWFP could be construed as de facto biodiversity management in that various attributes of ecosystems and species were addressed at

3

 National Forest Management Act legislation can be accessed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/

nfma/index1.html.

4

 NFMA, the primary statute governing the administration of national forests, mandates the

assessment of forest lands and the development of a resource management plan based on

multiple-use, sustained-yield principles for each unit of the National Forest System. In

December 2004, the Forest Service released a final rule on NFMA that shifts conservation

emphasis from a species focus to an ecosystem focus. For more information on the new

NFMA rule see http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index2.html.

5

 Northwest Forest Plan documents and related information can be accessed at:

http://pnwin.nbii.gov/nwfp.html.

Blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus). Although protecting individual

species is still important, effective biodiversity management recognizes that each species exists within a larger ecosystem in connection

with many other species and processes.

Stuart White
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

11

several spatial scales. The NWFP ecosystem approach is notable for its creation of expansive landscape-scale reserve networks, its advocacy for adaptive

management schemes, its social and ecological monitoring frameworks, and

for its encouragement of interagency cooperation and planning. Also included

in the NWFP was a key provision that charged agency managers with evaluating the site-level impact of management activities on rare and little-known

species associated with late-successional forests. The survey and manage

program was cited by some clients as a valuable contributing factor to a more

comprehensive biodiversity management strategy found in the NWFP.6

Biodiversity mandates in private land management—

We learned that clients from the industrial and nonindustrial private forestland sectors consider (1) state forest practices acts and rules (2) forest

management certification programs and (3) Habitat Conservation Plans

(authorized under the ESA) as providing policy direction on biodiversity

management issues.7

 As is the case with federal lands, various regulations and

programs for private land address disparate elements of biodiversity, but there

is no explicit, comprehensive biodiversity management policy mandate.

States differ in the extent of their regulatory programs, with the Pacific

Northwest demonstrating the most extensive reliance on comprehensive forest

practices laws (Moffat and Cubbage 2001). Yet, although state forest practice

regulations are tending to become more complex for landowners, these

regulatory frameworks tend to focus on traditional strategies to conserve

resources such as soil, water, and wildlife. In Washington state, for example,

debate continues over proper regulation of logging as it relates to northern

spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) habitat and the economic costs of

setting aside riparian buffer zones. Comprehensive biodiversity planning, for

the most part, has not entered state forest practices policies.

Forest management certification programs may be emerging as the most

pertinent sources of explicit direction on biodiversity management. Landowners and timber companies can seek certification through several independent organizations such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or the

6

The survey and manage program was removed from the NWFP in March 2004.

7

 Authorized under the ESA, Habitat Conservation Plans are agreements between landowners

and the federal government in which landowners agree to conservation measures in exchange

for a permit to “take” listed species in connection with economic activity. Thus, the

biodiversity components of Habitat Conservation Plans mimic those of the ESA policy

mandate, cited above.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

12

Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI).8 Certification establishes a chain of

custody and assures consumers of compliance with various forest stewardship

standards and stipulations, at times including provisions for the conservation

of forest biodiversity. For example, an SFI objective regarding biological

diversity states that participating landowners shall: “Manage the quality and

distribution of wildlife habitats and contribute to the conservation of biological

diversity by developing and implementing stand- and landscape-level measures that promote habitat diversity and the conservation of forest plants and

animals including aquatic fauna” (SFB 2004).9

 As we will discuss in later

sections, determining whether management activities are contributing to the

conservation of biological diversity is no simple task, and greatly depends on

what aspects of biodiversity one chooses to measure. In addition, the SFI

objective serves as a good example of how management strategies choose to

focus on select biodiversity attributes at select spatial dimensions.

Private forest owners and timber companies enter into these planning

activities for social and regulatory purposes. Certification and associated

biodiversity conservation measures can demonstrate publicly the compatibility

of corporate management activities with publicly valued ecological goals.

Secondly, corporations may see certification and Habitat Conservation Plans as

an opportunity to attain greater management flexibility than under traditional

regulatory frameworks (Loehle et al. 2002). But as our clients pointed out, the

benefits of undertaking such planning activities are not always clear, especially

in terms of financial return. Entering certification programs or Habitat Conservation Plans can be expensive and difficult to develop and implement. In

addition, confusion has built up around the fact that biodiversity requirements

differ between certification programs, and that these programs do not always

match up with state regulatory guidelines (Moffat and Cubbage 2001). These

problems are sufficiently pervasive as to potentially thwart biodiversity planning efforts.

8

 For information on the FSC see http://www.fscus.org/. For information on the SFI see

http://www.aboutsfi.org/.

9

See http://www.aboutsfb.org/generalPDFs/SFBStandard2005-2009.pdf.
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

13

Challenge 2: Understanding and Quantifying the Interaction

Effects Between a Number of Factors and Biodiversity.

Much of the challenge in incorporating biodiversity into management and

planning lies in understanding the complex relationships between disturbance

processes and biodiversity. Our clients discussed anthropogenic and “natural”

forces as factors that impact biodiversity. Many of these conversations can be

summed up as: “What is biodiversity? How are we impacting it? And, how do

we quantify that impact?”

Forest management practices—

We learned that many clients do not have a clear idea of the interaction

effects between forest management practices and biodiversity. This ambiguity

is certainly driven by the above discussion on conceptual complexity and

biodiversity policy mandates–absent a mandate, a manager, landowner,

or practitioner may not consider biodiversity as an element of concern in

resource management decisions. That being said, clients articulated a need for

policy-relevant information on the appropriate role of active management in

the conservation, restoration, or maintenance of biodiversity. The answers are

largely unknown and immensely complex. Natural resource issues tend to be

systems problems—complex and unpredictable, with multiple causes—and

tend to span both natural and social spheres (Holling et al. 1998). Whether the

Private forest owners may join a forest certification program to demonstrate

publicly the compatibility of their management activities with ecological goals.

Tom Iraci
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

14

impact of a management action, such as timber harvest or grazing, poses a

“threat” to biodiversity is unknown unless one has adequate information,

including the capacity to assess the status of biodiversity prior to the management action. Thus, questions concerning the impacts of active management

on biodiversity essentially become monitoring, experimental, or prediction/

forecasting questions. A state employee involved in timber harvest programs

captured this sentiment: “We need clear information on the risks of managing

for simple (forest) structure and short rotations, and the effects on soil

productivity and (biodiversity).” And because of the inextricable link between

social and ecological values inherent in active management, interdisciplinary

modes of inquiry into the combined systems of nature and humans are needed

to gain enough information to formulate policy (Holling et al. 1998).

Invasive species—

We found that clients are challenged in understanding and quantifying the

interaction effects of native species and biodiversity. Invasive species may

have negative impacts on native biodiversity and ecosystem stability. Many

invasives possess adaptations that allow them to be superior competitors; and

they have been known to impact such ecosystem functions as productivity,

soil fertility, disturbance regimes, nutrient cycling, and decomposition (Peck

1998). Resource managers face information challenges regarding community

resistances, competition with native species, eradication options, and how

different disturbances impact an area’s susceptibility to invasives.

Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.). Resource managers need more information on how invasive species affect

biodiversity, and what can be done about them.

Steve Sutherland
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

15

Fire, “forest health” and postfire recovery—

According to clients from all sectors, significant uncertainty surrounds the

relationship between wildfires, fire management practices, and elements of

biodiversity. Information deficits were noted in the following management

areas: fuels management/reduction, postfire logging, and fire suppression.

And although many managers and practitioners were cognizant of departures

(structural, compositional, and functional) from historical fire conditions,

many were uncertain how these changing ecological conditions affect the

complex components and elements of biodiversity.

For private landowners with commercial management goals, pressing

issues of “forest health” overlap with biodiversity questions, particularly on

drier landscapes east of the Cascade Range crest. Many clients manage their

lands under the premise that uncharacteristically large or severe fires pose a

threat to forest biodiversity, yet there are vast information gaps in this topic

area. When asked what issues “biodiversity” brings to mind, a member of

an east-side collaborative management group said: “Concern over fires, forest health and fuels reduction.” According to this participant, collaborative

decisionmaking groups need biologically relevant definitions of “forest

health” along with cogent and usable explanations of how various fire management practices affect biological diversity. For example, how can managers

develop effective fuels treatment plans that incorporate relevant information

on the impacts to biological resources?

As mentioned above, some clients viewed “biodiversity management” as

a potential threat to “forest health,” particularly if it meant adopting a “handsoff” (no active management) approach. In managing for pest and disease

outbreaks or reducing the fire susceptibility of a forest stand, managers

believed there may be tradeoffs between levels of biodiversity and amounts

of “risk,” often expressed in terms of possible economic loss. We found that

managers are seeking usable information on the appropriate balance (the

range of costs, benefits, and tradeoffs) between maintaining or restoring

natural ecological processes and managing for other values including timber.

Managers are looking to science to help explain and synthesize the differences

between “natural” and “unnatural” disturbance events in terms of their impacts

to biodiversity. A participant who works on the dry forests in Washington gave

voice to these types of questions:

We have changed natural forest structure and composition.

There are consequences in fire behavior associated with these

changes. What are the appropriate structures, proportions and

Managers are looking

to science to help

explain and synthesize the differences

between “natural” and

“unnatural” disturbance events in terms

of their impacts to

biodiversity.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

16

arrangement of forests? What are the ranges of carrying

capacities for a particular plant association? What are the

appropriate species and stocking levels for those sites? What

should landscape succession look like? We need a better way

to infer what direction we are heading.

Practitioners need current high-quality information about disturbance

dynamics as they work to achieve an effective balance between biodiversity

management and active management.

Clients indicated that they are also lacking pragmatic and usable information on the impacts of postfire logging on elements of biodiversity, particularly

in areas of high biological and social value such as late-successional and oldgrowth forest stands. In many of these cases, the questions revolved around

how the removal of burned material would impact structural, compositional,

and functional elements of those stands and landscapes. An Oregon conservation advocate said, “In terms of on-the-ground issues, salvage logging, particularly within legacy rich young stands, is critical. These stands are rare at

the landscape scale and are being converted to a common habitat type.”

Certain structural elements are commonly cited as important for biodiversity

including cavity trees, coarse woody debris, spatial heterogeneity in the overstory and understory, and legacies (Carey 2003), yet many of these studies

have been conducted in wet, less fire-prone forest types, making their applicability to dry forest types uncertain. On a postfire landscape, a manager proposing a salvage logging operation may not have the appropriate (or relevant)

information to justify potential impacts to these habitat elements. Federal managers expressed the concern that they do not have the proper tools to understand and prioritize these types of complex decisions. One participant said,

“How have we changed the system? How will it respond? If you stay within

the range of natural variability, the system will function. How do you translate

these issues to the ‘frontlines’ (i.e., to managers in the field)?”

Restoration activities—

Clients described challenges that accompany efforts to restore biodiversity

within forest systems. Managers are challenged in their attempts to design

silvicultural prescriptions that will restore various elements of biodiversity

to forest stands and landscapes. In some cases, the restoration objective is

not always clear—for example, how does a manager address the variability

ranges for specific biodiversity attributes? Any restoration target will fluctuate

within a range, and defining an appropriate range is a tricky and subjective
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

17

process (Peck 1998) that can be better informed by science but not necessarily “solved.” One manager captured the sentiment of those involved in

emerging biodiversity management questions: “How do we restore habitat

types to achieve landscape diversity? How do we restore late-successional

forests? We have a lot of learning to do.” Still, results from experimental

manipulations of forest stands have been promising. Research has shown

that intentional landscape management can provide a strategy for restoring

ecosystems and conserving biodiversity (Carey 2003). The key is to conduct

relevant research and then to provide that information to those seeking to

implement strategic restoration efforts across forested landscapes.

Results from experimental manipulations of forest stands have shown that

careful landscape management can help restore ecosystems and conserve

biodiversity.

Tom Iraci

Challenge 3: The Lack of Applied Biodiversity Monitoring

Strategies

Many managers echoed a familiar sentiment when attempting to implement

biodiversity management strategies, “How do we know if our goals are being

met? How do we know what to measure?” We found that managers feel that

they lack sufficient tools and information including biodiversity management

standards (goals and objectives), benchmarks for establishing trends or assessing ecosystem condition, and effective biodiversity monitoring tools.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

18

Biodiversity monitoring allows managers to assess the effectiveness of

biodiversity conservation strategies and measure their performance. Biodiversity monitoring has been tangentially emphasized under federal land

management plans such as the NWFP, and is relevant across all land ownerships and sectors. A regional Forest Service employee familiar with NWFP

monitoring explained the gap in biodiversity monitoring information, as

follows:

We are doing a lot of things that would be considered as

biodiversity monitoring. What is missing is the overall framework. We need to make biodiversity concrete. Ecosystems are

complicated. We need to break it down into pieces. We don’t

know enough to monitor all the pieces. We need to say: “this

is what we think constitute all the elements of biodiversity”

and develop that framework, from genes to communities to

landscapes.

Clients outside the federal sector also cited the need for flexible and

effective biodiversity monitoring strategies. A state employee with a natural

resource agency in the state of Oregon said: “What we are looking for in the

big picture is a coarse-filter/fine-filter approach with indicators that allow us to

look at all species, not just a selected subset . . .Where are the holes in the big

picture?”

The “big picture” includes numerous biological components arrayed and

layered throughout multiple spatial and temporal scales. Many of our scoping

conversations revolved around (1) the lack of a standardized process and set

of tools for biodiversity monitoring and (2) uncertainty as to the most appropriate spatial scale for monitoring biological phenomena. How should managers select reasonable biodiversity indicators? Can indicators be used to assess

ecosystem functionality? What is the utility and potential role of habitat

surrogates? Our conversations and workshops left many of these types of

questions unanswered, and exposed a clear need for specific guidance on

biodiversity measuring, monitoring, and assessment systems.

Challenge 4: Difficulty in Locating and Accessing Biodiversity

Information

In terms of data management, managers relayed that there were no consistent

standards across management units and between agencies, making biodiversity management and information sharing a challenge. Data and other

types of information on the vast range of biodiversity elements could be
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

19

considered patchy at best. The existing data and information are housed in a

scattered array of sources and expressed in differing metrics. When asked

where they currently seek information on biodiversity topics, clients listed a

wide range—from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, to an assortment of

publicly available databases, to university extension services, to in-house

corporate or agency data sources.

The complex nature of biodiversity information comes from the underlying intricacies of the biological elements and processes involved in its expression—all of which continually evolve and interact. The biological informational complexity is compounded by the complexity of human systems used to

manage it. The mechanisms used to organize, store, present, and deliver data

and information can be nearly as diverse as the ecological components they

seek to document and explain. In addition, biological data can involve conflicts of interest, or can get mired in political or commercial entanglements

(Schnase et al. 1997). The lack of cooperation between various agencies was

identified at our workshops as being a hindrance to managing for biodiversity.

For an information system to be useful and effective, it must efficiently manage complexity while delivering information within an accessible framework.

Challenge 5: Balancing Conflicting Values Relating to Biodiversity

We found that the social dimension of biodiversity presented challenges for

clients as they sought to balance often competing sets of values. We heard that

the concept of biodiversity has become a “conservation tool” that is used in

polarizing debates over natural resource management decisions. A timber sale

planner on a national forest stated: “We hear the term biodiversity from (interest) groups. The term has a sociopolitical meaning. It drives agendas.” Another

participant put it bluntly: “Biodiversity management shuts down forests,

period.” Although these statements are difficult to interpret, it is clear that the

term biodiversity can connote powerful reactions in certain stakeholders.

Where biodiversity management is understood as the equivalent of “no active

management,” it becomes a threat to other social values.

Biodiversity management attracts a certain amount of conflict by being

both a scientific concept and a social cause for conservation (Takacs 1996).

Debate over often competing activities such as public lands recreation, resource use and jobs for people, the preservation of wildlife habitat or endangered species, or commercial development are infused with social values and

can create resistance or divisiveness in natural resource and biodiversity
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

20

management. Therefore, although the idea of consciously managing for

biodiversity is evolving in our natural resource professions, there is dispute

over why or how to accomplish this, given widely varying human ideals,

preferences, and needs (Norton 2000). This variation in values adds complexity to management and complicates the formulation of policy.

Social debate over how land should be used—for recreation, preservation of wildlife habitat, or commercial development, for example—can cause divisiveness in

natural resource and biodiversity management.

Mark Reid

We found that many clients from the private sector are interested in the possibility of creating market-based economic incentives to meet society’s demand

for biodiversity values. For example, landowners could receive compensation

for creating monetized units of biodiversity in the form of tax credits. Yet

creating market-based biodiversity incentive systems is certainly both theoretically and pragmatically challenging, particularly the pricing of biodiversity

values. One participant involved in creating biodiversity market incentives

asked: “How do you monetize the biodiversity values that you are creating

(through forestry)? What are the appropriate metrics for creating a market?”

The limiting factor, common to many biodiversity challenges, lies in identifying practical and effective ways to characterize, measure, and catalog elements

of biodiversity.

For clients representing the commercial forestry sectors, biodiversity

management was often construed as a constraint on economic objectives.
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

21

Private landowners also told us that, given the vast range of biodiversity

elements, different components of biodiversity should be provided by different landowners according to their management objectives. For example,

landowners with economic management emphases could provide biodiversity

values associated with managed forests. One private timberland manager

captured the tone of these discussions:

We must deal with [biodiversity] within legal, political, and

social contexts. We need to understand the tradeoffs, and the

values that managed lands contribute to biodiversity conservation. People [disregard the role that] intensively managed

lands [play in] protecting rare species, species sites, and

species diversity. There is a much larger role for intensively

managed stands than can be understood by scientists, conservationists, and the public.

Emerging research is beginning to look at the contribution of managed

lands to the maintenance and conservation of biodiversity. A number of

clients named this research area as their primary biodiversity information

need. One method of delineating the role of managed lands in resource management is through the use of Habitat Conservation Plans, in which small

landowners have developed rating systems that recognize the value of different forest management strategies in terms of biodiversity conservation. Yet

there remains a need for policy-relevant scientific information on the contributions managed lands make to overall biodiversity. Nonindustrial private landowners are unsure as to where they stand in the evolving resource management trend toward biodiversity management—they recognize that small

private forest lands, in sum, provide a rich vein of biodiversity, particularly

through recent policies that have set aside riparian areas and listed species

habitat. Yet they are fearful that biodiversity management could threaten them

commercially. One participant said, “Private landowners are confused by the

term biodiversity. What does this mean in terms of new rules, new restrictions?

For fiber producers, does this mean we will need to do an inventory of all

plants and animals?”

Larger private landowners share the same concerns over the implications

of biodiversity management. For the private forestry sector, the dilemma

revolves around how they can contribute to biodiversity conservation while

surviving in the forestry business. For example, landowners and researchers

associated with the Sustainable Forestry Initiative are conducting studies and
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

22

compiling information to assess how industrially managed lands contribute to

biodiversity conservation. At this time, an effective and usable set of biological criteria to make this assessment is lacking. And for private landowners,

whose livelihoods can depend on the resources in these forests, biodiversity

management must be made practical for it to be effective.

Workshop participants frequently stated that barriers to biodiversity

management are more social and economic than biological. To address this,

some clients requested that the Biodiversity Initiative begin to quantify some

of these social and economic values. Ideally this would also involve integrating local and traditional knowledge—perhaps by partnering with local groups

such as tribal agencies, watershed councils, or conservation districts—which

would allow the initiative to tap into the social capital available through

grassroots networks.

Information Product Needs

One of the main goals of the Biodiversity Initiative is to devise, develop, and

deliver products that will be accessible to diverse social worlds and fulfill the

information requirements of each. Several information products were repeatedly requested during our information-gathering phase, although there was

not always a comfortable fit between the products requested and the capabilities of this initiative. Therefore, based on available resources, client interest,

and opportunities for collaboration, we have condensed the list of requested

products to those the initiative may effectively address.

Central Web-Based Clearinghouse for Biodiversity Information

and Resources

To address the challenge of information management, many people requested

a single point of access to biodiversity information and associated resources.

This point of access, which would most likely be Web based, could include

the following types of resources and information:

• Current biodiversity literature, databases, and Web sites

• A master list of institutions, researchers, agencies, and groups working on

biodiversity issues

• Information on funding sources and available grants

• Species and population information (natural history, geographical range,

distribution, rare and lesser known species, species viability, specieshabitat associations)

• Spatially explicit data on community/ecosystem condition and trends

One of the main goals

of the Biodiversity

Initiative is to devise,

develop, and deliver

products that will be

accessible to diverse

social worlds and

fulfill the information

requirements of each.
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

23

Syntheses on Specific Biodiversity Topics

Clients, particularly managers involved in implementing biodiversity management strategies, requested summarized and synthesized information on a

variety of biodiversity management topics. The following information need

areas were mentioned:

• Natural history, abundance, and risk status of various species

• Genetic information on organisms in the Pacific Northwest

• Information on how to propagate endangered plants

• A synthesis of survey and manage program findings

• Summaries and syntheses of existing biodiversity literature, research

topics, and research activities

• Summaries of broad areas of agreement and disagreement on critical

biodiversity topics

• Interim reporting on biodiversity research efforts, prior to publication

• Syntheses of biodiversity conservation and management strategies

• Issues specific to the east side of the Cascade Range: range management,

invasive species, fragmented habitat, habitat degradation, successional

changes, fire, sage grouse

• Highlights of on-the-ground success stories, especially those that show

relations among economics, social issues, environmental health, and

biodiversity

• Case studies or models of projects

Information on Disturbance Effects

Clients expressed the need for concise, reliable, and policy-relevant syntheses

on disturbance-biodiversity interactions including, but not limited to:

• Invasive species

• Fire—historical range of variability; identification of fire-associated

species; the impacts of suppression, prescribed burning, and postfire

logging (salvage) on measurable/observable elements of biodiversity

• Effects of thinning and other silvicultural methods on biodiversity

elements including species groups and landscape condition

• The implications of “no management” for elements of biodiversity

• Mitigating the stressor effects of logging on elements of biodiversity

• Using silvicultural methods to restore particular elements of biodiversity

(i.e., developing late-successional characteristics)

• Socioeconomic/biological tradeoffs involved in active management within

disturbance-based ecosystems
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

24

Development of Monitoring Metrics and Assessment Tools

Clients are seeking specific scientific guidance on biodiversity monitoring,

measuring, and assessment techniques. The Biodiversity Initiative planning

team acknowledges the capacity challenge in formulating such a complex and

multilayered monitoring module and currently lacks the resources to take this

on. However, smaller steps can be taken, and the initiative could take on a

facilitative role in this respect. Some examples of potential starting points

include:

• Cataloging, summarizing, and analyzing existing biodiversity monitoring

systems and strategies

• Generating and defining specific indicators for biodiversity monitoring

• Creating opportunities to collaborate with various agencies to explore

issues involving monitoring and assessment, such as hosting client

workshops or fostering cooperative efforts

• Creating tools that assist in the development of metrics for measuring,

assessing, and monitoring biodiversity

• Customize those tools to proper spatial scales

• Customize those tools for different land ownerships

• Provide analyses and evaluation of how the NWFP and other federal land

management plans are performing in terms of biodiversity management

Implementation Tools

Clients are seeking information products that will support the implementation

of biodiversity planning and management strategies. This includes frequent

requests for the following types of information subjects:

• Existing templates and case studies of applied biodiversity management

• Tools that allow managers to assess the efficacy of existing biodiversity

strategies with benchmark strategies

• Implementing the “fine/coarse filter” biodiversity management approach;

analyze the effectiveness of the survey and manage program as a

biodiversity management approach; provide biodiversity conservation

strategies and recommendations for the NWFP area; discuss a replacement

for the fine-filter survey and manage approach; address biodiversity

management within the Special Status Species Program

• Provide specific decision-support tools for national forest planning that

address biodiversity management
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

25

Quantification of Social and Economic Values

As discussed above, social and economic concerns are intertwined with the

technical aspects of biodiversity management. Clients requested information

products and support in designing and quantifying variables associated with

these values. They asked specifically for:

• Focused information on “market-based” (nonregulatory) biodiversity

conservation programs

• Information on the economic aspects and benefits of biodiversity

• Traditional biodiversity knowledge or conservation methodologies

outside the conventional scientific literature

• Tools and models that are able to quantify the biodiversity value of

different land ownerships

Technology Transfer Methods

We found that clients prefer a variety of information products and delivery

methods including the following.

Workshops, Field Trips, or Panels

Managers and practitioners believe face-to-face interactions with scientific

information providers provide them with the opportunity to hear summaries

and interim reporting on biodiversity studies. Direct interaction with researchers is particularly useful because managers often seek information on

timelines that are shorter than the typical schedule of research, printing, and

dissemination of research results. Clients also believe that face-to-face interactions allow researchers to interact with one another to discuss and indicate

where there are issues of agreement as well as disagreement on biodiversity

management issues.

Traditional Printed Materials

Many clients favored the access and utility of written materials and requested

biodiversity literature in a variety of published formats including peerreviewed scientific and professional journals, Science Findings, Science

Updates, and General Technical Reports. Some clients requested more

simplified information products such as brochures, fact sheets, posters,

and children’s education materials.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

26

Models and Decision-Support Tools

Computer models can be useful in addressing single or multiple species, for

projecting disturbance regimes, or in decision support. The following types

were requested:

• Conceptual ecological and socioeconomic evaluative planning models

(see the Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study10)

• Risk assessment tools, methods, protocols, and approaches for

biodiversity management

• User-friendly, effective, habitat models relating to the status of

biodiversity

• Models associated with dead wood management as it relates to

biodiversity management (such as DECaid11)

Biodiversity Management Implementation Tools

Many clients requested decision-support tools to facilitate and improve the

implementation of biodiversity management strategies. These tools include

such things as biodiversity monitoring protocols, “biodiversity management”

(i.e., taxonomic) checklists, model user guides, and NEPA biodiversity checklists and prioritization schemes for biodiversity restoration activities. Also

requested were summaries of biodiversity definitions as well as conceptual

portrayals of biodiversity.

Initiative Direction

In February 2005, we held a biodiversity workshop with invited speakers to

synthesize several of the issues presented above. Proceedings of review

articles from this workshop will be published in the journal Northwestern

Naturalist in 2006.12

Another product of the workshop was a poster, shown at a biodiversity

conference in France in April 2005. Our coordinated scoping and comprehensive vision of biodiversity appears novel worldwide. Advances made by the

PNW Station Biodiversity Initiative will likely be of great interest to developing global programs.

10

See http://www.fsl.orst.edu/clams/.

11 See http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf.

12 This should be one of the first products available from the initiative.
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

27

In April 2005, we held a followup workshop to present the results of our

scoping activities to a representative group of clients and stakeholders to

solicit input on a set of potential collaborative activities and products. It is

important to realize that the PNW Station does not have the capacity to take

on each of the managerial challenges and related products. The major objective of this followup workshop was to select some key focus areas for product

development. After considerable discussion, the clients agreed to pursue the

following issues.

Small Woodlot Owner Concerns

This client group, which includes nonindustrial private landowners, is diverse

and experiences unique challenges associated with biodiversity management.

Given the thousands of potential constituents, it is important to work closely

with representative groups or associations as well as with the Oregon and

Washington State Extension Services. Our strategy is to convene a small

workgroup to explore more closely the biodiversity information and product

needs of this client group and, most importantly, decide on a strategy to

develop and disseminate information. We anticipate possible workshops and

short synthesis publications uniquely catered to meet their needs.

Central Clearinghouse or Web Portal for Biodiversity

Information

This product, which would collect, classify, and distribute biodiversity information, was requested at all client workshops. We have organized a workgroup to examine this need, with Oregon State University’s Institute for

Natural Resources (http://inr.oregonstate.edu/) taking the lead. The major

objective of the institute is to deliver science information to Oregon’s leaders

and publics to help inform decisions on management of the state’s natural

resources. The institute also houses Oregon’s Natural Heritage Program. Thus,

the institute is uniquely suited to lead the effort for a biodiversity information

clearinghouse. The workgroup will explore potential ways to organize and

frame biodiversity information and then actively seek collaboration among the

dozens of groups involved in biodiversity management projects in Oregon

and Washington to ensure widespread participation and usefulness.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

28

Monitoring

Developing biodiversity monitoring approaches and strategies represents a

difficult challenge for practitioners involved in biodiversity management.

Biodiversity management objectives vary widely among clients, often differing substantially in scope and scale. We will convene a workgroup to discuss

common interests and share information on current biodiversity monitoring

activities, particularly by Oregon and Washington state agencies. The workgroup will explore the development and use of biodiversity monitoring

approaches. It will also consider if multiple groups with multiple management objectives could operate under one biodiversity monitoring framework.

Collaboratively understanding how various ownerships, from private to state

and federal, contribute to present (and future) regional biodiversity is an

opportunity worth pursuing.

Workshops, Conferences, and Syntheses

We are in the beginning stages of identifying key issues around which to

organize additional biodiversity workshops and syntheses products. As we

work to build collaborative partnerships and capacity we expect our list of

biodiversity products to grow. At this time we are planning two major regional

meetings in 2006 to deal with many of the disturbance-biodiversity interaction

concerns voiced by our clients. One workshop, hosted by the University of

Washington, Department of Urban Horticulture, will focus on the impact

of invasive plant species on the biodiversity of Oregon and Washington. A

second, organized through Oregon State University, will examine crosscutting

themes of a variety of social, economic, and ecological factors (e.g., fire,

thinning, climate change, and disease) in relation to biodiversity management.

This conference will emphasize the availability of management tools and

showcase on-the-ground examples of managing to meet different biodiversity

objectives in Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Proceedings will follow from each

meeting so that the information will be available to a wide audience of professionals and the public.

We have also embarked on four synthesis products to meet several major

information needs. One piece will articulate biodiversity within a conceptual

framework. This includes providing clear, concise sets of key definitions

along with a list of potential indicators or surrogates for use in biodiversity

monitoring. As our scoping process revealed, defining and conceptualizing

biodiversity and related principles of biodiversity management is essential for

Collaboratively understanding how various

ownerships, from

private to state and

federal, contribute to

present (and future)

regional biodiversity

is an opportunity

worth pursuing.
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

29

effective communication and successful information transfer. A second synthesis will provide guidelines to managers and researchers on the use of

citizen volunteers to help in the actual monitoring of biological resources,

including biodiversity. Such inclusion of and participation by the public

provides excellent opportunities for developing shared visions of biodiversity

goals and ownership of management outcomes. A third synthesis will summarize the main outcomes and results from the survey and manage program.

Many valuable ecological and practical management lessons were learned

from this regionwide conservation program, and results will be important to

the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management programs for sensitive

and special status species. To further address the management challenges

brought forth from the survey and manage program, a fourth synthesis will

explore in detail alternative approaches for the conservation of rare or littleknown species. This book synthesis will have chapters on issues of species

rarity, the unique challenges of little-known species, social and economic

aspects of conservation management, legal considerations, setting goals and

objectives, descriptions of various approaches (e.g., fine- and coarse-filter

approaches, and combinations thereof) including their strengths and weaknesses, management implementation considerations, and finally a process to

help managers select an approach (or approaches) to meet their conservation

objectives.

The demand for natural resources, whether for economic or social gain, means a balance

must be struck between biodiversity objectives and maintaining values desired by the

public.

Tom Iraci
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

30

Concluding Remarks

As our results indicate, the challenges of managing for biodiversity are numerous and complex. Many of the challenges come from different perceptions

among publics about what “biodiversity” means and how the word itself is

used in a social or political context. Much of the complexity derives from the

daunting number of taxa, their interactions, and the functions they perform

in our diverse array of ecosystems. We know that we cannot measure and

monitor all organisms and ecosystem processes, so we are left to find a set

of indicators or surrogates that will provide meaningful information about

the large set of biodiversity attributes we seek to maintain. The demand for

use of our natural resources, whether for economic or other social gain,

means a balance must be struck between managing these resources to meet

biodiversity objectives and maintaining values desired by the public. We hope

our Biodiversity Initiative will provide an impetus to facilitate mutual understanding of our biodiversity goals and develop long-term partnerships to see

them through. Progress and results of the initiative will be posted at the PNW

Station Web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/).

Acknowledgments

Figure on cover was created by Kathryn Ronnenberg. We also thank Dede

Olson, Gary Benson, and Gordon Bradley for reviewing a previous draft of

this manuscript.

Literature Cited

Carey, A.B. 2003. Managing for wildlife: a key component for social acceptance of compatible forest management. In: Monserud, R.A.; Haynes,

R.W.; Johnson, A.C., eds. Compatible forest management. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 401-425.

Holling, C.S.; Berkes, F.; Folke, C. 1998. Science, sustainability, and resource management. In: Berkes, F.; Folke, C.; Colding, J., eds. Linking

social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge

University Press: 342-362.
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management

31

Loehle, C.; MacCracken, J.G.; Runde, D.; Hicks, L. 2002. Forest management at landscape scales: solving the problems. Journal of Forestry. 100:

25-33.

McIntosh, R.P. 2002. Ecological science, philosophy, and ecological ethics.

In: Ouderkirk, W.; Hill, J., eds. Land, value, community. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press: 59-83.

Moffat, S.O.; Cubbage, F.W. 2001. Regional forestry practices and forest

management certification. In: Pelkki, M.H., ed. Hardwoods—an underdeveloped resource? Proceedings, annual meeting of Southern Forest

Economics Workers. Monticello, AR: University of Arkansas, Arkansas

Forest Resources Center: 47-52.

Norton, B.G. 1998. Biological resources and endangered species: history,

values, and policy. In: Guruswamy, D.; McNeely, J.A., eds. Protection of

global biodiversity: converging strategies. Durham, NC: Duke University

Press: 247-264.

Norton, B.G. 2000. Biodiversity and environmental values: in search of

a universal earth ethic. Biodiversity and Conservation. 9: 1029-1044.

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical

approach. Conservation Biology. 4(4): 355-364.

Peck, S. 1998. Planning for biodiversity: issues and examples. Covelo, CA:

Island Press. 221 p.

Robbins, W.G. 2004. Landscapes of conflict: the Oregon story, 1940-2000.

Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 414 p.

Schnase, J.L.; Lane, M.A.; Bowker, G.C.; Star, S.L.; Silberschatz, A. 1997.

Building the next-generation biological-information infrastructure. In:

Raven, P.H., ed. Nature and human society: the quest for a sustainable

world. Washington, DC: National Academy Press: 291-300.

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative Sustainable Forestry Board [SFB]; the

American Forest & Paper Association [AF&PA]. 2004. Sustainable

Forestry Initiative Standard 2005-2009, Objective 4. Arlington, VA. 28 p.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670

32

Takacs, D. 1996. The idea of biodiversity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins

University Press. 393 p.

Thomas, J.W. 1999. Learning from the past and moving to the future. In:

Johnson, N.K.; Swanson, F.; Herring, M.; Greene, S., eds. Bioregional

assessments: science at the crossroads of management and policy.

Covelo, CA: Island Press: 11-25.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Final supplement

environmental impact statement on management of habitat for latesuccessional and old-growth forest related species within the range

of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]. 2 vol.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Record of decision for

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning

documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]. 74 p. [plus attachment A: standards and guidelines].

Wilson, E.O. 1997. The creation of biodiversity. In: Raven, P.H., ed. Nature

and human society: the quest for a sustainable world. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press: 22-29.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.

.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.

.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300