1. Biodiversity Potential in the Pacific and Inland Northwest: Phase II – Applications to Industry Planning Areas Since the workshop on Boise: Now 16 months into 3-year study Evaluated bird data and predictor data for all sites Preliminary analyses of year 1 sampling Detailed discussions with each site on local sampling Group development of NFWF proposal Y2Y proposal submitted. Transborder grant funded ($3,000) Two large NASA grants funded for North America

2. NASA Grants Funded Waring, R., N. Coops, and D. Fan. Predicting Tree Species Diversity Across The Contiguous U.S.A. From Seasonal Patterns in Photosynthesis Derived with Satellite-Driven Models. NASA. $600,000 for 2004-2006. Hansen, A.J., L. Phillips and R. DeFries. Testing Biophysical and Land Use Controls on Biodiversity using MODIS and AMSR-E Products. NASA. $600,000 for 2004-2006.

3. Biodiversity Potential in the Pacific and Inland Northwest: Phase II – Applications to Industry Planning Areas Goals of this meeting Finalize experimental design for obj 1 (regional) and for obj 2 (sites) Finalize sampling effort for each site Discuss logistics for each site Address/resolve any issues of concern.

4. 9:00-9:15Introduction Welcome from Host (Loren) Meeting Goals (Andy) Meeting Schedule (Andy) 9:15 – 10:15Discussion of overall study Objectives and Rationale (Andy) Experimental Design (Jake) Biodiversity data collection (Jake) Predictor data layers (Linda) Statistical analyses (Andy) 10:15 – 10:45Preliminary Results – Cle Elum Site (Jake) 10: 45 – 11:15Southeast US Biodiversity Study (Craig) 11:15 – 11:45 Site level Planning (plan for each site’s experimental design and logistics) General logistics (Jake) Boise (Brian, Bob) Springfield (Tony, Jake) Cle Elum (Loren, Jake) Thompson River (Henning, Jake) 11:45-1:00 Lunch 1:00 – 2:45 Site Level Planning (continued) 2:45 – 3:00Schedule for 2004 3:00Meeting Close Agenda

5. 1. Evaluate fundamental controls on biodiversity by testing hypotheses on the relative contributions of vegetation structure (stand and landscape) and “place-based” variables (biophysical) in explaining biodiversity along a gradient from maritime, west- side forests to more continental east-side forests. 2. Extrapolate biodiversity potential across forest industry planning areas based on locally-derived “best” statistical models, analyze spatial patterns of biodiversity in the context of industry objectives, and work with industry to derive biodiversity management strategies to achieve industry objectives. Objectives

6. Rationale Energy theory is hot among continental biodiversity crowd:

8. Phase I Results First study to test “place” portion of structure vs place hypothesis Abiotic Conditions harshfavorable Place concept Forest structure concept East sideWest side Influence on Biodiversity

9. Best Model: R 2 =.79 precipitation, slope, VPD land cover heterogeneity, richness Precipitation, breeding season Eastside harsher ecoregions R 2 =.54 cm Best Model: R 2 =.49 NPP, GPP, elev Precipitation, breeding season Westside mesic ecoregions R 2 =.10 richness cm Best Model: R 2 =.49 precipitation, slope, VPD forest habitat type heterogeneity, Major implication: Effective management varies along biophysical gradients.

11. 1. Test structure vs place hypothesis and provide a basis for crafting management to local biophysical conditions 2. Do landscape scale analysis and mapping for each ownerships in a way that integrates structure and energy. Phase II Will:

12. Products  Guidelines for stand and landscape-level biodiversity management across large timber-industry planning areas in the Pacific and Inland Northwest.  Two workshops for forest managers on the results of the study and guidance for landscape analysis and implementation.  An article in the Journal of Forestry that exports the management guidelines to the larger forestry community.  An article in Conservation Biology on the theoretical the relative effects of forest structure and biophysical factors on bird biodiversity in this region.