Southern Forest Resource Assessment led by the USDA Forest Service's Southern Region and Southern Research Station in collaboration with the USEPA, US Fish & Wildlife, TVA, and state forestry agencies of the Southern United States

Notes from Assessment Team Meeting

October 11-12, 2000
Atlanta, Georgia

Welcome/Introductions

Assessment Co-leaders John Greis and Dave Wear and Facilitator Nancy Walters

Purpose

Question Managers to report on the progress on answering their respective question, general information-sharing with Q&A sessions; assessment co-leaders will query and prompt the QM’s during their progress reporting

General Update

• John and Dave briefed the Council of Environmental Quality in Washington, D.C. recently. 
• Currently are organizing a Sustainability Conference in Durham on November 7-8, 2000 with 35 presentations with fairly broad audience of public with researchers, designed as an information-sharing format. Schedule and abstracts for this conference will be available on the web in the next 2 weeks for review before the conference. 
• GIS sub-committee has made progress and some information is already available on the web. 
• Forest History Society contract will be finalized this next fiscal year as research link

Status of Assessment

Handout on the draft SFRA Publication Time Line; currently QM’s are in the midst of writing the technical reports with first draft due the end of December 2000, with subsequent peer review by March 2001. Milestones include May 15, 2001 of releasing draft reports on the web to begin public review and November  2001 for publishing the final report.  Need to think about how to close out the writing phase of the Assessment, in generating effective linkages in datasets, threaded discussions on the web, protected areas of the web for QM’s to view specific portions of publication during their writing.  Bob Biesterfeldt  has been hired as editor.   

Miscellaneous Information

Call for papers for an upcoming conference to be held in Atlanta, the Southern Forest Science Conference, due by November 1, 2000; information available at www.southernforestscience.net.  Focus will be on contributions for the last 100 years for the new millennium.  This will provide nice timing for presenting the SFRA publication

Question Managers’ Progress Reports

Progress Reports submitted by Question Managers

• Bob Rummer (FS Auburn, Alabama):  robust bibliography 90% complete; need to compile labor and TPO (timber product output) data; initiating cost and cost trends survey in November (should be summarized by December); describe technology-management interaction (basic relationships); describe ecology impacts; address accessibility of technology to various groups.  Questions of clarification on landowner attitudes, tract size, types of ecological impacts.
• Vic Rudis (working with Margaret Griep):  selected wildlife habitats (forest neighborhood, forests near water, types of optimal habitats [secluded/interior environments, edge environments], tree habitat indicators, forest type and stand-diameter, disturbances); recreation opportunities (scenic forest land, near water, spectrum of experiences [primitive, rural], access/demand/activity indicators); maps (on hunting in forests showing restricted use, activity, potential need [of additional hunting]; on percent forest land with trash).  Question on determining hunting activity areas.  Much of the data presented doesn’t address Vic’s specific questions but is offered as input for other question managers.
• Margaret Griep (working with Vic Rudis):  creating summary maps, figures, and tables; synthesis will begin then the writing stage; completing tables of listed species by state and beginning associated figures; creating maps of avian species diversity and species hotspots; initiating synthesis of literature on factors that historically and currently imperil a variety of southern species; in describing history and status, reference factors influencing those trends; examining forest data on oak distribution and abundance; completed land ownership summaries by state and physiographic province; completed figures illustrating the proportion of land in National Forests and other public ownership by state; compiled tabular information on US Park Service and USFWS lands; developing maps depicting the distribution of public lands in the South; compiling descriptions of habitat conditions required by a selected species or species association are being complied from recovery plans; producing range maps for selected species of concern; continuing compilation of Partners in Flight physiographic plans for identifying species and habitat needs in the southeast; initiating syntheses of literature on critical habitats and habitats requiring restoration.  Questions on time line, contribution of industry lands, any focus on species not in decline, recreation opportunities tying into the overall question of terrestrial, impacts on mussels, residential needs of migratory birds.
• Roger Conner (Forest Service):  information/data compilation (files of compatible data from earlier surveys; tables of county level area, volume, growth, mortality, and removals data in most states) for a detailed analysis for the last 4 surveys back to 1960’s-1970’s and generalize years before this timeframe; fragmentation data will be heavily reliant on information gathered by Vic Rudis/Margaret Griep; looking at 9 categories of ownership (corporate ownership reliant on information gathered by Jacek Sirey); timber/forest resource information heavily reliant on information gathered by Jeff Prestemon.  Questions of clarification on definition of “corporate” ownership, on data reliability (statistics), pulling new data for South Carolina.
• John Marlar (EPA):  anticipating heavy reliance on existing data and summarized data on water quality.
• Ben West (EPA, working with Stephanie Fulton): handout with tables on 1998 report of all states of rivers and streams of the total number of miles, of these supporting or impairing designated uses by silviculture or other land uses; hoping to final GIS work; Stephanie Fulton is compiling literature survey, more thorough analytical review is questionable.  Questions on tying in tables into watershed question with FIA data, on time line.  Offers of collaboration with Bob Rummer and Dave Wear to facilitate findings and data review.
• Jim Herrig (Forest Service, Cherokee NF):  species tracked by The Nature Conservancy/Natural Heritage Network, looking at levels G-1 (< 100 in population), -2 (secured), -3 (secured but less populated); maps of two-digit watersheds, of aquatic species, of each species group (amphibians, bivalves [mussels], crustaceans [crayfish], fish, gastropods (aquatic snails [the most impacted group]), insects, and reptiles; will further define the “hot spots” of these imperiled species.  Questions on impact on mussels, discrepancy in numbers of species from one state to the next, on location and type of water source studied.
• Denny Ward (Forest Service):  identified 9 cover types/species of trees (including white pine, hemlock, longleaf, bottomland hardwood, live oak and others) impacted by 9 diseases and 11 pests identified (e.g., gypsy moth); have received 4 reports by contacted experts to date; requested risk assessments of pests from FIA.  Questions of using exotic plants as pests, on time line, on reviewing all 40 years of data on each pest of ecological impact.
• Tom Holmes (Forest Service):  Sub-question 1--Elaboration of all benefits of forests (timber [employment and income], recreation [employment and income], fish and wildlife, aesthetics [health and integrity]); sub-question 2. Link between forest dependency and quality of life; sub-question 3--do so at sub-regional and community scale [at county level]; 50-75% of completion of collecting data on 3 major factors (forests, industry, socio-economic); develop 3 indices (forest character, industrial character, socio-economic character); identify clusters (spatial, conceptual; sub-question 4. forest products industry contribution to rural and community development (review of literature, historical perspective related to Southern U.S.); sub-question 5. how economic structure is influenced by different uses of forests (examine index correlations).  Question of clarity on sub-question 5 of intention of question, on “willingness to pay” values vs. other values and comparable economic value, on Southern Appalachian study as a literature resource.
• Jeffery Prestemon (Forest Service):  Evaluating supply/demand for all species and timber products; examine effects of population growth and land use change on timber supply; evaluate the linkages to international markets; address the impacts of changing management intensity and productivity; evaluate market linkages within the U.S.; address changing technology and new products.  Data has been compiled of Southern area compared to other U.S. areas in sawtimber harvest volume on FS lands.  SRTS data will be available soon, have test run data now.  Information available on website http://www.srs.rtp.fs.fed.us/econ/ and select data & tools.
• Karen Lee Abt (Forest Service):  have data on sub-questions a, b, d, and some on c but need input from Socio-1, Socio-6, and Timber-1.  Need data if available on e.  Data on f on IRS website is only on the national level, so will be limited.  Data summary from 1977, 1985, 1993, 1997; on geographic level; on several variables including employment, etc. 
• Jennifer Moore (Forest Service):  working with assistance of three other analysts in the Global Change Program.  Current and predicted future estimates of O3 concentrations; climate change-results from forest ecosystem models for current/future estimates of net primary productivity under varying climate scenarios; linkage between temperature and/or precipitation change and extreme weather events; linkage between increased CO2 and O3.  Carbon sequestration-use models to understand and estimate C storage under different land-use scenarios.  Soil compaction, erosion, nutrient status-collection of soil compaction research from Bob Rummer, et al.; limited amount of research at the regional level.  Collaboration needs have been identified with Denny Ward.
• Jim Granskog (Forest Service):  Study on effects of federal income tax incentives-this particular case study will be modifications of earlier studies done by John Greene; federal estate tax study-a national survey has already been completed, data compiled, do not know if the national figures can be broken down for the South.  Analysis of state forestry cost-share programs by Terry Haines on Jim’s staff: completed state agency cost-share administrator contact list; in progress are summaries of c/s programs developed based on Haines (1995).  Current use property valuation-updating previous compilation of forestry current use property tax laws.  Conservation easements work added; will extract data on Southern states from Haines’s database, draft manuscript is available.  Forest-related ordinances-have beginning draft from previous reporting by Haines.  Collaboration on water quality law and policy with Tulane University (directed by Steverson Moffitt).  Question on why laws addressing public lands are being omitted.
• Ken Graham (FWS):  Joe Johnson has been the principle but has time limitations.  In literature and data search phase, hope to construct table on pests effecting Southern forests.  Literature on birds in Southern forests is scarce.  Could facilitate the construction of a table on urbanization of Southern forests over time.  Basically, literature in general and nationally is good, but specifically to the Southern forests is not.  Wear/Greis confirmed that Graham will research wildlife effects of land-use changes.
• Dave Wear (Forest Service):  land use changes in the South on country levels.  Collect historical/data, use in modeling in explanatory and forecasting analysis.  Land use forecasting modeling being studied from rural and urban perspectives.  Steps:  1.  compile/analyze historical data on land use changes in the South. (cropland, pasture, forest, urban and other at state level and county level); anticipating not using 1997 NRI data (still not available).  2.  Compile historical data on driving variables (county level data for population density, household income, personal income, housing values, agriculture senses).  3.  Compile forecasts of driving variables (county level projections on population density and income variables).  4.  Develop county-level forecast changes.  5.  Examine urban:rural condition of forests (data on forestland area and population density).  6.  Fragmentation analysis (coverage of various fragmentation measures are available, working with Dr. Kurt Riitters in compiling various measures of landscape structure from the MRLC data set for ecoregions and for counties).  Question on distinction of urban vs. rural.
• Jacek Siry (North Carolina State University):  Forest management surveys on FI, TIMOS, and NIPF lands; information compared to date are forest lands distribution, management intensity; distribution charts show similarity in FI and TIMOS surveys; 3 classes of management intensity are standard, superior, and high yield.  Planted pine dominates FI and TIMOS land; upland hardwood dominates NIPF lands; conversion to planted pine continues.  Genetic improvement, fertilization, and competing vegetation control results in increased productivity.  Intensified management yields 70% more volume than traditional management.
• Michael Tarrant (University of Georgia, working with Ken Cordell).  Objective to describe social, economic, and demographic characteristics of southern residents from 1980-1990, ArcView project at county level prepared, descriptive report in progress; distinguish between public values of private and public forests; examine public attitudes toward environmental protection and private property rights; evaluate public attitudes and values; analysis and report is complete.  Suggest potential broad changes in public attitudes and values toward forests and their management; literature review in progress.

SFRA Publication

Dave Wear, Bob Biesterfeldt

Publication Specifications – 3 publications will be produced, namely:

• Technical Report:  containing a report for each of the 23 questions plus a report on fire; total 500 pages.
• Summary Report:  containing a synthesis of the 24 reports and a report by ecological province; total 60 pages.
• Executive Summary:  containing the synthesis alone, with a compact listing of overall findings; total 20 pages.

Chapter Outline - organization of each chapter in the technical document will follow the outline below:

• Questions addressed by the chapter
• Key Findings
• Introduction
• Methods
• Data Sources
• Results
• Discussion and Conclusions
• Needs for additional research

Publications Team:  Bob Biesterfeldt Louise Wilde, Rod Kindlund, John Pye

Mail writing to Bob Biesterfeldt as early as possible for early editing; note if any statements in manuscript are opinion; suggest shortened version of the question in text because of page limit for each report (approximately 20 pages).  Contact:  RBiesterfe@aol.com, 828-254-3523; manuscripts may be emailed to rboozer@fs.fed.us. [Note: we've revised the procedure since the workshop, Renee Boozer will coordinate manuscript collection and distribution, there will also be an option to submit via FTP]

Louise Wilde (Forest Service, SRS Communications Staff):  styling guidelines will be posted on the web along with the templates within 1 week (already formatted for use), will have samples of report formats, graphs, maps, bibliography, etc., within 2 weeks, will use English units of measurement (decision), write out percent vs. symbol in text, state postal abbreviations, cite authority with first reference to genus species, use math type for equations [note: optional], ½ point lines in tables [note: no longer true] and tables in separate file, naming convention will be established for chapters, figures, tables, etc…, discourage wide tables to prevent scrolling, no smaller than 8 point in tables, any cross reference should be in format of the chapter/section numbering as there are no page numbers in the html format, glossary will be used and QM’s should update (John Pye will post current one available), define acronyms.  Final publication will be completed in Pagemaker.  Contact:  Louise Wilde at 828-257-4391, mailto:lawilde@fs.fed.us

Rod Kindlund (Forest Service, SRS Communications Staff):  graphics guidelines will be posted, [note this part no longer true: "use Delta Graph preferably for figures and graphs for ease and less time consumption to complete publication in Pagemaker, figures will be in pdf format,"] will work with using Excel for conversion to use in Pagemaker, photographs could be high quality black/white or 35mm color slides.  Contact:  Rod Kindlund, 828-259-0560, rkindlund@fs.fed.us. Will follow up on the choice/distribution of graphics packages.

John Pye (Forest Service, Southern Research Station):  while Bob B is editing manuscript, figures should be submitted as well and if changed because of editing, these changes need to be reflected (includes table numbers), early submission preferred; longer lists or lengthy tables should be submitted to John Pye for review.  Contact:  John Pye at 919-549-4013, jpye@fs.fed.us

Publications Team will have posted the following in the very near future:  instructions to QM’s, samples of maps, charts; color pallets; sample templates to meet standards.

Sub-Regional Focus Areas

John Greis

New Estimated Timeline:                

November 2000: Criteria final
January 2001: Open for area proposals
February/March 2001: Areas chosen

Feedback on draft criteria (September 2000) from QM’s and public

• Consider adding 1-2 water-related criteria focused at watershed level
• Concern over potential variability in the scales of selected areas
• Consider areas that are experiencing positive changes as well
• 3^rd criteria is just a subset of #2, don’t need it
• Need to focus on the successes too and focus on what contributed to the positive things that happened
• Focus on positive things that might remedy risks elsewhere
• Eliminate the 3^rd criteria to broaden focus to include positive
• Add behind experiencing in criteria #2 “or with a high likelihood of experiencing measurable change”
• Add either positive or negative
• #3 gets at the results of change, #2 gets at the change itself; they are different criteria; combining #3 and #2 may not help us get at the impact of change
• “Measurable” in #2 captures that (preceding bullet)
• #1 should say “areas large enough” not “forested areas”
• Careful not to assume that presence of threatened and endangered species means there is something wrong in that area—may indicate that this is a remnant area.

Criteria and Indicators

Mary Carol Koester (Forest Service)

Review of Montreal process of addressing criteria and indicators (C&I).  Linkage to be completed in conjunction with the RPA assessment in 2003, either feeding into the national report or two separate reports.  Purpose:  looking for feedback from C&I draft work Mary Carol has completed since July assessment team meeting; strengthen the 2 documents. 

Do not expect the technical reports to cite the C&I; linking the assessment will strengthen the C&I.  Contact:  Mary Carol Koester at 828-257-4298, mkoester@fs.fed.us

Wrap-up

Dave Wear, John Greis

• Summary Document:  publication timeline shows mid-January through end of April; need to convene a 2-3 day synthesis/writing session with QM’s of their key findings on January 17-19, 2001; this will guarantee consistency across chapters; core times and location TBD (Paul on the 19^th)
• Peer Review Process:  will be similar to peer review for a journal submission for technical accuracy, breadth, verify validity, John/Dave review then to QM’s to respond/counter/change; suggestions of peer reviewer candidates immediate from QM’s and public, send names, affiliation, expertise, phone, address to Dave Wear or John Greis; need a stronger than usual commitment from candidates; issue of quality control/quality assurance should be addressed;
• Coordination between QM’s needs to be emphasized in final stages of writing.
• November Conference:  agenda available, encourage reservations as soon as possible, working on participant listing, most speakers are set for the three colloquia (forest management, policy, science)
• Notes/Documentation:  notes from this team meeting will be posted, QM’s provide written outline by Friday, October 20, 2000 and any absent QM’s need to provide further detailed information

Agenda | Meetings | Assessment Home

  modified: 8-JUN-2001
  created by: Dave Wear