UPEP 2023 Executive Summary

Utah\u27s people and environment are currently experiencing significant changes as the population continues to grow, droughts and flooding pose threats to agriculture, air quality leads to health concerns, energy needs rise, and public lands see increased use. Action is needed to address these changes, especially given how rapidly they are occurring. Political leaders, environmental organizations, Tribal Nations, and universities play a critical role in ensuring Utah’s environment, economy, workforce, and underserved communities have a sustainable path forward. Understanding residents’ views, values, and concerns can help better craft the policy, inform infrastructure, and identify the services needed to do so. With this goal of understanding in mind, Utah State University\u27s Community & Natural Resources Institute (CANRI) launched the Utah People and Environment Poll in spring of 2023. The following summarizes some of the notable results of the survey

University of Nebraska-Lincoln Agricultural Research Division 121st Annual Report. July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007.

Our Mission..... 4 Foreword..... 5 Research Highlights..... 6 Faculty Awards and Recognitions....14 Graduate Student Awards and Recognitions...17 Undergraduate Honors Student Research Program...22 Variety and Germplasm Releases....23 Patents.....24 Administration.....25 Administrative Personnel....25 Organizational Chart....26 Administrative Units....27 IANR Research Facilities....28 Faculty.....29 Agricultural/Natural Resources Units....30 Education and Human Sciences Departments...39 Off-Campus Research Centers....40 Interdisciplinary Activities....41 Visiting Scientists/Research Associates....42 Research Projects.....47 Agricultural/Natural Resources Units....47 Education and Human Sciences Departments...52 Off-Campus Research Centers....52 Interdisciplinary Activities....53 Publications.....55 Agricultural/Natural Resources Units....60 Education and Human Sciences Departments...82 Off-Campus Research Centers....85 Research Expenditures....8

University of Nebraska-Lincoln Agricultural Research Division 122nd Annual Report July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008

Our Mission ..... 4 Foreword..... 5 Faculty Awards and Recognitions.... 6 Graduate Student Awards and Recognitions...10 Undergraduate Honors Student Research Program...14 Variety and Germplasm Releases....15 Patents.....17 Administration..... 18 Administrative Personnel.... 18 Organizational Chart....19 Administrative Units....20 IANR Research Facilities.... 21 Faculty..... 22 Agricultural/Natural Resources Units... 23 Education and Human Sciences Departments...33 Off-Campus Research Centers....34 Interdisciplinary Activities....35 Visiting Scientists/Research Associates....36 Research Projects..... 43 Agricultural/Natural Resources Units... 43 Education and Human Sciences Departments...48 Off-Campus Research Centers....49 Interdisciplinary Activities ....50 Publications.....51 Agricultural/Natural Resources Units... 57 Education and Human Sciences Departments...77 Off-Campus Research Centers....80 Research Expenditures....8

Strategy for postharvest fisheries research in Asia

"Describes the results of a regional postharvest fisheries research workshop held in Cochin, India, Mar. 1994""Report prepared for SIFR by the NRI with support from ODA of the UK

Non-equilibrium ecosystem dynamics: management implications for Oregon

The project focuses on nonequilibrium ecosystem dynamics, a body of scientific research that characterizes and interprets ecosystem change. INR summarizes knowledge from this field, describes ways in which the current management framework may be inconsistent with scientific findings, and helps identify options for future management. This paper is designed to be a starting place for a dialog between policy makers, scientists, managers and others that will lead to improved policies and practices

Port of Portland: long-term environmental goals briefing document

The purpose of this briefing document is twofold: (1) to provide a general overview of key environmental issues at the global, regional, and local levels; and (2) to provide examples of long-term environmental goals that have been adopted by businesses, governments, and other organizations. This document is not meant to be comprehensive or representative of all publications assessing environmental issues at the global, regional, or local levels; nor the myriad of organizations that have established environmental goals. Rather, its intent is to serve as an abbreviated, easy-to-read background brief for Port leaders and OUS academics participating in the project as they convene to discuss potentially-adoptable long-term environmental goals for the Port of Portland

Policy cornerstones and action stategies for an integrated ecosystem marketplace in Oregon

This report derives from two policy work sessions, one in January 2008 and one in May 2008, which explored policy cornerstones and action strategies to bring an integrated ecosystem marketplace to fruition in Oregon. The report takes an initial look at ways in which current state policies and practices either promote or inhibit developing a robust ecosystem marketplace. With input from agency heads and staff, it identifies specific strategies agencies can employ to meet the objectives required to develop an integrated marketplace. In many cases, these strategies are already in some stage of development, trial or implementation in Oregon. The report highlights these and compiles examples from across the state to demonstrate the range of experimentation already underway with market incentive mechanisms.This report is one component in a series of roundtables, workshops, and working groups funded in part by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation exploring opportunities and issues for ecosystem services markets. The paper draws on two workshops. The first, entitled “Building an Oregon Ecosystem Services Marketplace: Policy Focus Session,” was held in Portland on January 18, 2008. The ideas, suggestions and examples shared at the workshop provided the foundation for a draft of this document that was then discussed at a second workshop, held May 8, 2008, with state agency directors and staff

Science Review of the Oregon Department of Forestry’s Proposed Species of Concern Strategy and the Board of Forestry’s State Forests Performance Measures

On behalf of the Board of Forestry (the Board), the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) approached the Oregon University System’s (OUS) Institute for Natural Resources (INR) to conduct an independent, outside review of the body of science ODF considered as it evaluated forest management plans and developed the Species of Concern (SOC) Strategy. Two products developed by ODF staff were the focus of this science review: The Influence of Modeled Management Scenarios on Habitat for Species of Concern (ODF, 2009a; hereafter referred to as “SOC analysis”) and the Board of Forestry State Forests Performance Measures: An Evaluation of the Achievement (ODF, 2009b). The purpose of the review and this Science Advisory Team report is to: (1) characterize the environmental, economic, and social analyses that were conducted by ODF in 2009 and discuss whether ODF analyses were consistent with best available science in each field; (2) identify and discuss gaps; (3) discuss the range of uncertainty of expected outcomes as detailed in the ODF reports; (4) present other ways to conduct analysis or think about the questions, if applicable; and (5) recommend, if necessary, performance measures for measuring environmental, economic, and social outcomes

North Coast Basin prototype website : project completion report

Development of the prototype website is an integral part of OWEB’s strategy for information systems development. Specifically, the Board, INR, and the Department of Administrative Services Information Resources Management Division (DAS) were directed by the Legislature to develop a statewide information system for natural resources. In addition, the Oregon Geographic Information Council (OGIC) adopted the “Oregon Strategic Plan for Geographic Information Management” in June 2001. This plan called for enhancing interactive mapping services and developing a state-of-the-art data repository that effectively stores framework and other designated data using modern relational database architecture and Internet tools. In December 2002, OGIC acknowledged that the Oregon Plan and OWEB Information System Strategy meets the objectives of the State GIS plan and voted to formally endorse the OWEB strategy.OWEB Grant Number 204-926Keywords: North Coast Explore

Regional biodiversity monitoring partnership workshop : final report

The Biodiversity Monitoring Workgroup (Appendix 1)—which consists of federal, state, university, NGO’s, and private landowner stakeholders who are involved in aspects of monitoring biodiversity in the states of Oregon and Washington—conceived of the idea of exploring the possibilities of creating a Regional Biodiversity Monitoring Partnership. The Workgroup’s idea of hosting a workshop to explore such possibilities is grounded in a shared vision that recognizes the underlying value of biodiversity and relies on the compiling, managing, and sharing of biodiversity information in the region that will ultimately inform management and conservation efforts and decisions, and identify gaps where new efforts might be needed. The overall effort is sponsored by the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station as part of the Focused Sciences Delivery Program’s Biodiversity Initiative and facilitated by the Institute for Natural Resources at OSU. Workshop participants greeted the idea and need of having a partnership with warm regard. Many regarded it as an essential component to extending and elevating the presence of monitoring regional biodiversity efforts. While participants spoke well on behalf of a partnership, this document focuses on the issues that individual participants and break-out groups thought needed to be addressed to create a viable, accessible, and sustainable regional biodiversity monitoring partnership. The issues and recommendations listed throughout the document reflect the range of views of individuals and break-out groups and do not reflect a consensus by all participants