Recipient: Jeff Prestemon
jpye@fs.fed.us
This message is being sent to you from a form on the Southern Forest Resource Assessment web site designed specifically to allow visitors to send Assessment comments to your email address without needing to use their email client. Your comment form is located at: http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/xprestemon.htm
I'm sending you this message to: 1. alert you that the comment form is operational, 2. show you what messages look like from this source, 3. make sure that these messages also get logged on the web server, viewable at: http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/qmform.txt
I'll be sending you a followup email shortly to make sure you received this. If you've any questions, you can reach me at jpye@fs.fed.us /s/ John Pye (webmaster for the Assessment)
"jpye@fs.fed.us","This message is being sent to you from a form on the Southern Forest Resource Assessment web site designed specifically to allow visitors to send Assessment comments to your email address without needing to use their email client. Your comment form is located at: http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/xprud`homme.htm I'm sending you this message to: 1. alert you that the comment form is operational, 2. show you what messages look like from this source, 3. make sure that these messages also get logged on the web server, viewable at: http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/qmform.txt I'll be sending you a followup email shortly to make sure you received this. If you've any questions, you can reach me at jpye@fs.fed.us /s/ John Pye (webmaster for the Assessment) ","Bruce Prud'homme" "jpye@fs.fed.us","This message is being sent to you from a form on the Southern Forest Resource Assessment web site designed specifically to allow visitors to send Assessment comments to your email address without needing to use their email client. Your comment form is located at: http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/xrummer.htm I'm sending you this message to: 1. alert you that the comment form is operational, 2. show you what messages look like from this source, 3. make sure that these messages also get logged on the web server, viewable at: http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/qmform.txt I'll be sending you a followup email shortly to make sure you received this. If you've any questions, you can reach me at jpye@fs.fed.us /s/ John Pye (webmaster for the Assessment) ","Bob Rummer" "jpye@fs.fed.us","This message is being sent to you from a form on the Southern Forest Resource Assessment web site designed specifically to allow visitors to send Assessment comments to your email address without needing to use their email client. Your comment form is located at: http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/xtarrant.htm I'm sending you this message to: 1. alert you that the comment form is operational, 2. show you what messages look like from this source, 3. make sure that these messages also get logged on the web server, viewable at: http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/qmform.txt I'll be sending you a followup email shortly to make sure you received this. If you've any questions, you can reach me at jpye@fs.fed.us /s/ John Pye (webmaster for the Assessment) ","Michael Tarrant" "jpye@fs.fed.us","This message is being sent to you from a form on the Southern Forest Resource Assessment web site designed specifically to allow visitors to send Assessment comments to your email address without needing to use their email client. Your comment form is located at: http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/xward.htm I'm sending you this message to: 1. alert you that the comment form is operational, 2. show you what messages look like from this source, 3. make sure that these messages also get logged on the web server, viewable at: http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/qmform.txt I'll be sending you a followup email shortly to make sure you received this. If you've any questions, you can reach me at jpye@fs.fed.us /s/ John Pye (webmaster for the Assessment) ","Denny Ward" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Roger, a few minutes ago I sent you a message from your Assessment comment form that gave you an incorrect address for that form. The correct address is: http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/xboykin.htm /s/ John Pye","Roger Boykin" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Oops. The correct address for your comment form on the Assessment site is: http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/xabt.htm PS I'm at home at the moment but will be heading in to the office shortly.","Karen Abt" "jpye@fs.fed.us","This is another test from the Assessment web site. Your contact page was incorrectly logging comments to you. This will hopefully confirm it's fixed. Forward to me please.","Jeff Prestemon" "jpye@fs.fed.us","This is another test from the Assessment web site. Your contact page was incorrectly logging comments to you. This will hopefully confirm it's fixed. Forward to me please.","Jeff Prestemon" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Your comment form on the Assessment site was not properly logging contacts. This will hopefully confirm that it is now working. Please forward this message to jpye@fs.fed.us when (if) you get it. Thanks!","Wayne Owen" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Your comment form on the Assessment site was not properly logging contacts. This will hopefully confirm that it is now working. Please forward this message to jpye@fs.fed.us when (if) you get it. Thanks!","Wayne Owen" "rdm@green.gov","just a test","Jeff Prestemon" "rdm@green.gov","Just a test - please ignore --rdm","Margaret Trani Griep" "rdm@green.gov","Just a test - please ignore --rdm","Margaret Trani Griep" "rdm@green.gov","Just a test - please ignore --rdm","Margaret Trani Griep" "rdm@green.gov","just a test - please ignore","Jeff Prestemon" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","Karen Abt" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","Roger Boykin" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","Roger Conner" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","Ken Cordell" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","Stephanie Fulton" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","James Granskog" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us (and thanks for your patience, Margaret)","Margaret Trani Griep" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","Terry Haines" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us PS I don't yet have your Bio to post on the web, did it get lost in transit?","Andy Hartsell" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","Jim Herrig" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us PS I don't yet have your Bio to post on the web, did it get lost in transit?","David Hoge" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","Joseph Johnston" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","David Loftis" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","Eva Long" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","John Marlar" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","Jennifer Moore" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","Wayne Owen" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us (yes, another test)","Jeff Prestemon" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","Bruce Prud'homme" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","Bob Rummer" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us","Michael Tarrant" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us PS I did locate and post your most detailed work plan but have not found a Bio for you. Do Dave or John have that somewhere?","Denny Ward" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us PS Logging was erratic yesterday so contact pages were revised. This is the test of those changes.","David Wear" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Assessment web form test: Please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us PS I have not gotten a bio from you, might it have gotten misplaced?","Ben West" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Wayne, I've revised your comment page on the Assessment web site to now point to your Lotus Notes address. Please confirm it's working by forwarding this message to jpye@fs.fed.us. Also, your Bio page is online now with the updated address. Sorry that posting it took so long. You can find the page at: www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/owen.htm Holler if you need anything updated on it.","Wayne Owen" "jgreen@vdacs.state.va.us","I am very much interested in your assessment findings for primary and secondary forest products in the international market place. Specifically, I am interested in the effects that different degrees of value adding might have on timber markets. It may be interesting to predict how adding value to wood products we offer to international buyers might affect both resource avalibility and product marketability. Since most aspects of working with wood products are fairly labor intensive, especially for unskilled labor, how can we encourage value adding when other countries will, in the short term at least, be able to be much more competitive with our labor market for these types of activities. This will continue to put much pressure on our markets to export more primary products, such as logs and wood chips. In 1999 export figures show $498.6 million worth of wood products (This includes only HS code 44 exports.) were shipped through Norfolk, Virginia ports. What impact does this have on private woodlot owners, and others, in the region? ","Jeff Prestemon" "cbailey@acesag.auburn.edu","This version is an improvement in that it includes the issue of distribution of benefits from the industry. However, given that this is to be a science-driven study, I am disappointed that an enormous literature on the social and community consequences of resource dependency are not reflected in these questions. I would be happy to provide you with a long list of citations, but for starters here are two: Bliss, John C., Tamara Walkingstick, and Conner Bailey. 1998. Sustaining Alabama's Forest Communities: Development or Dependency? Journal of Forestry 96(3):24-31. Joshi, Mahendra L., John C. Bliss, Conner Bailey, Larry J. Teeter, and Keith J. Ward. 2000. ""Investing in Industry, Under-Investing in Human Capital: Forest-Based Rural Development in Alabama."" Society & Natural Resources 13 (5). (Forthcoming July-August 2000.) Conner Bailey Alumni Professor of Rural Sociology Auburn University","Karen Abt" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Jim, I have changed your Assessment web site comment form to send comments to your Lotus Notes inbox, and am using it for this message. Please confirm that this has reached you by FORWARDING it to me at: jpye@fs.fed.us","Jim Herrig" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Ken, I've changed your Assessment comment form to send comments to your Lotus Notes address. That's what I'm using here. Please confirm that it actually arrives there by FORWARDING this to: jpye@fs.fed.us","Ken Cordell" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Ken, I've changed your Assessment comment form to send comments to your Lotus Notes address. That's what I'm using here. Please confirm that it actually arrives there by FORWARDING this to: jpye@fs.fed.us","Ken Cordell" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Bruce, this is that test message I promised you by phone a few minutes ago. It is being sent from the Assessment's web site, specifically: www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/xprud`homme.htm So I know this arrived OK, please FORWARD this message to: jpye@fs.fed.us ","Bruce Prud'homme" "tmor22@hotmail.com","Water quantity should be evaluated as well as quality. As the cummulative effects from deforestation, forest conversion and roading increase within drainage basins, stream hydrology will be altered. A system for developing limits of acceptable change in seasonal flow regimes should be developed for streams within ecoregions. What are the cummulative effects of these types of activitities on seasonal flow (peak storm water flows as well as summer time low flows) and how much human alteration in the basin can a particular watershed handle without major shifts in species, population dynamics and stream geomorphology. ","John Marlar" "","Stephanie, Sorry for the delay in replying to your call, I was out of the office Friday. As to your question about the data, I believe Andy Hartsell mentioned he had data available for their states in an Oracle database, and had the user manual available also listing the variables collected. As for our (SE) states, we're in the process of putting together a list of variables in addition to those in the Eastwide database. These additional variables would cover the last 2 surveys of each state, except Kentucky. Once the data have been extracted and compiled, they would then be added to the Eastwide format, along with definitions and info. on how they were collected. Hopefully that will occur no later than the end of March. A preliminary list of variables we're trying to add is below. The potential use of some of them may not be apparent without definitions but will give you an idea of what we plan to make available. I hope this helps. Roger Conner Variables for SE states not on the EW: stand age landuse (forest and nonforest codes) plot coordinates percent forest (from photos) past treatment and disturbance operability accessibility access road size & shape of forest condition (photos) old stand size, ownership, and site productivity wetlands land cover and type diversity vegetative concealment remnant trees forest edge landscape characterization growing season people use distance to primary water water on acre soil:depth of litter & humus, soil texture, erosion invasive plants new tree height tree cavities ","Stephanie Fulton" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Bruce, this is now going to your OpenMail address, right? Please forward to jpye@fs.fed.us","Bruce Prud'homme" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Jennifer, I've modified your comment form on the Assessment web site to point to your NC State email address but PLEASE CONFIRM that this message is getting to you by forwarding it to me at: jpye@fs.fed.us ","Jennifer Moore" "marlar.john@epa.gov","A test message","John Marlar" "","","Jim Herrig" "mgriep@fs.fed.us","test comment for receipt","Margaret Trani Griep" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Denny, please FORWARD this message to jpye@fs.fed.us or phone me at (919) 549-4013 so I know this message is reaching you. I have no other way of knowing whether I've set up the Assessment comment form correctly. It IS logging comments OK on the web server, but without confirmation that it's also getting email to you I'll again have to remove the form. Thanks for your help. /s/ John Pye","Denny Ward" "jpye@fs.fed.us","David, I can't recall that we've confirmed that your comment form on the Assessment web site at www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/xhoge.htm is actually getting comments through to you. Would you please FORWARD this message to me at jpye@fs.fed.us so I know it's working? Thanks! /s/ John Pye","David Hoge" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Denny, I'm typing this message into your revised comment form on the web server, specifically at www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/xward.htm Could you please FORWARD this message to jpye@fs.fed.us so I know it's reaching you OK?","Denny Ward" "roger_lord@bc.com","Work Plan looks good, Jeff. I'd suggest that there be consistency where possible with results of RPA's Timber Market Model projections for the 2000 RPA report, or at a minimum an explanation of why there are differences in any projections (assuming of course that RPA makes progress this spring/summer). Lots of work and review has gone into that modeling effort and it ties to national markets. Should also tap work by the Forest Products Lab (Peter Ince, Henry Spelter et. al.) through RPA process on projected technological changes and impacts on fiber supplies and utilization. Should capture that work. On the issue of chip exports from the South, conventional wisdom among consultant community and newsletter-writers says that the exports to Japan have peaked and volumes will gradually decline over the next 5 to 10 years as Japanese increase reliance on South American and other sources. Southern US is a high cost source for them. They are also trying to move away from reliance on native forests. Data from Carol Hydahl shows export volume peaked in 1996 and have been steadily declining since. This is a key issue tied to chip mills and could use verification and discussion.","Jeff Prestemon" "rjfledd@westvaco.com","John, In the products of the work plan there should be something about the affects of legacy pollution on current water quality. Much of the topsoil in the South was lost due to poor agriculture practices in the 19th century. We are seeing high sediment levels in many streams because the topsoil is now in the stream channels. I suggest you add a map of watersheds (11 digit HUCs) that are likely affected by legacy pollution. Similar maps could be developed for streams that were impacted by splash dams that were used to move logs downstream in the last century. Nothing but time will cure the impacts of these long ago practices. It should be explained that there is little we can do with current practices to fix the problems caused by these past abuses. There also should be something in this report about the relative impact of different land uses, that is compare urban with row crop ag with animal ag with forestry. The product should provide information about the effectiveness of BMPs in protecting water quality from each of these land uses. One of the issues of concern is clearcutting. Your report should compare the impacts of selection harvest versus clearcutting on water quality when appropriate BMPs are applied. (This may be more appropriately addressed in the BMP section but I'll let you question managers work that out.) Bob Fledderman Environmental Manager Forest Resources Division Westvaco Corp. ","John Marlar" "rjfledd@westvaco.com","Eva, One of the products, ""Map presentation of the evaluation of fate of forested wetlands for the South"" is right on target. However, it seems like a pretty tall order. If it proves to be too much I suggest that you pare it down somewhat and concentrate on just the flood plains of the major rivers. Even if the map you suggest is doable it may be good to add another product that focuses on the flood plains of the major rivers. I suspect that a lot of the wetlands loss can be accounted for in the major river flood plains. We know that much of the lower Mississippi River flood plain was converted to ag in the 50's and 60's. (By the way, because NWI maps were developed in the 70's, they may be an inappropriate base; hydric soils maps may be a better base.) If you have to settle for just statistical information (instead of geographical information) FIA should be able to provide good information about the fate of bottomland hardwoods (bottomland hardwoods seems to be a substitute for wetlands in floodplains and is what much of the concern about excessive harvesting is about anyway). The maps of ""forests recoverable"" should be a good product. I'm surprised EPA is not working on this project outside the Southern Forest Assessment. This would be a good starting point for targeting mitigation banking efforts. Again, I think most of the concerns of the public can be met by focusing on the flood plains of major rivers. (I also think that NWI loses a lot accuracy outside the flood plains when it tries to delineate the ""drier"" wetland types, so focusing on flood plains may provide a subset of more accurate information.) I hope that helps. Thanks for listening. Bob Fledderman Environmental Manager Forest Resources Division Westvaco Corp. ","Eva Long" "rjfledd@westvaco.com","Stephanie, One of the problems with analyzing the water quality problem is the lack of monitoring. I suggest that you add to your GIS coverage a map showing the 11 digit HUCs (14 digit HUCs would be better if available) that have a water quality monitoring station (and those that do not). Code this by some indication of the frequency of sample collection. One product listed is a table of 303(d) listed waters that are listed for nutrients, TSS, and sedimentation. Since this is a forestry study this table should also indicate which streams are listed because of forestry impacts (since many of these streams are impaired because of ag inputs, a table without some indication of cause in a forestry report could indicate that forestry is more of a problem than it is). Also I believe this product would be would be more effective as a map. Hope this is helpful. Thanks for listening. Bob Fledderman Environmental Manager Forest Resources Division Westvaco Corp. ","Stephanie Fulton" "rjfledd@westvaco.com","Bruce, NCASI (the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement) has published a lot of research on BMP effectiveness. Make sure you include it in your literature search. A good contact is Jim Shepard at 352-377-4708 Ext.227. There should be some product in the report about the effectiveness of BMPs. This could be an analysis of BMP compliance vs. water quality problems. There may be a possible link here with the water quality question (Aqua3). Hope this helps. Bob Fledderman Environmental Manager Forest Resources Division Westvaco Corp. ","Bruce Prud'homme" "rjfledd@westvaco.com","Jim, I suggest that you add Ben Wigley (864-656-0840) of NCASI (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement) to your list of collaborators and sources. Ben's not a fisheries person but he should be able to put you in contact with a lot of people who are, who also are familiar with forest management. One of your products reads like you will be generating a map of watersheds likely to be affected by forest management that have imperiled species. I suggest that it should read, ""a map of watersheds where forest management is likely to affect imperiled species."" Hope this is helpful. Bob Fledderman Environmental Manager Forest Resource Division Westvaco Corp. ","Jim Herrig" "campsafe@cyberlink.bc.ca","Just letting you Know that I sent you via email a suggestion and a computerized image of CAMPSAFE. I hope I sent to the proper email (roger boykin@fs.fed.us)address. Dale Atwood 250 427 2478 ","Roger Boykin" "mbranch@smurfit.com","[forwarded by John Pye] My name is Mike Branch, I am a forester for Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, in Fernandina Beach, FL. Most all of the questions look very good, however I do have a comment. I have heard a great deal about the GAP model. My comment is to please make sure the model is ground truthed for vevatation and wildlife habitat.","Margaret Trani Griep" "mbranch@smurfit.com","[forwarded by John Pye] My name is Mike Branch, I am a forester for Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, in Fernandina Beach, FL. Most all of the questions look very good, however I do have a comment. Remember that the Southeast has filled with people, and our history had few. Please be careful to not miss the monoculture of much of the ""old growth forest"". I love to look at it, but it is a monoculture. ","Wayne Owen" "mbranch@smurfit.com","[forwarded by John Pye] My name is Mike Branch, I am a forester for Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, in Fernandina Beach, FL. Most all of the questions look very good, however I do have a comment. Question AQUA-5 lacks the statement ""due to forestry opperations"". Thank you for allowing the public to submit their thoughts.","Jim Herrig" "jpye@fs.fed.us","David, I received the forwarded copy of the test message I sent a month ago to dhoge/r8@fs.fed.us, which indicated the comment form I'd yanked back then was actually working. That form is back online now at: www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/xhoge.htm and is the way I'm writing this message to you. Visitors can reach the comment form from your Bio page, work plan page and main page for question SOCIO-4, although the former two are so far still waiting for content.","David Hoge" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Dave, please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us to confirm that your Sustainability web site comment form now correctly points to your Lotus Notes address. Thanks! /s/ John Pye","David Hoge" "jpye@fs.fed.us","John, please forward this message to me at jpye@fs.fed.us so I know this form is working OK. /s/ John Pye","John Greis" "danna@dogwoodalliance.org","Roger Boykin RE: TERRA-4, SFRA Mr. Boykin, Thanks you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed work plan. As a coalition of 60 organizations across the South concerned about the proliferation of chip mills and the expansion of industrial forestry, we are particularly concerned with the cumulative effects of increasingly intensive forest management practices on landscapes and terrestrial ecosystems. First, we have read through all the work plans for the Terrestrial/Landscapes broad category, and it appears that there is currently no plan to assess the impacts of intensive forest management on soil nutrients. As you know, soil health is critical to the long-term productivity and ecological sustainability of the South's forests. A study conducted by the USFS found that intensive, short-rotation clearcutting places ""demands upon the soil that may exceed the natural supplying capability of the system"" and that new practices in forestry have ""increased removal of nutrients from the soil and may demand more from the soil than the system can supply."" (Wells & Jorgensen, ""Effect of Intensive Timber Harvesting on Nutrient Supply and Sustained Productivity"" Southeast Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service) At the experts meeting in Atlanta in February, this issue was raised and it was agreed that the appropriate place for the analysis of soil nutrient sustainability would be in the Terrestrial/Landsacapes broad category. We hope that this critical issue will not be overlooked in the SFRA. We also hope that this section of the SFRA will address the past and future trends of pine conversion and its effects on terrestrial ecosystems, including the increasing use of herbicides and fertilizers. Finally, we encourage you to specifically identify clearcutting (and other forms of even-aged management), pine conversion and select cutting in the organization of the martix. This section should be specifically linked to the Timber Markets Broad Category (to determine how existing mills, changes in markets and changes in forest practices affect terrestrial ecosystems at the landscape level). We appreciate your work on this most important assessment of southern forests and hope you find these comments useful. Sincerely, Danna Smith Director of Programs Dogwood Alliance danna@dogwoodalliance.org ","Roger Boykin" "danna@dogwoodalliance.org","David Hoge USDA Forest Service Southern Region April 24, 2000 Dear Mr. Hoge, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the work plan for SOCIO-4: ""What motivates private forest landowners to manage their forestland and how are their management objectives formed?"" As a coalition of 60 organizations across the South concerned about the proliferation of chip mills and the expansion of industrial forestry, we are particularly concerned about the relative lack of public access to information about forest management options other than clearcutting and pine conversion. We do not see in you work plan, any attempt to evaluate how current state forestry agencies influence landowner objectives. We frequently get calls into our office from frustrated landowners who have spoken to a state forester about a forest management plan and been told that their only option is clearcutting. An objective and critical analysis of current state forestry agencies' landowner programs would be useful in determining how landowners' management objectives are formed. An article that appeared in the September/October 1999 issue of Forest Landowner magazine entitled ""Alternative Silvicultural Systems for Managing Your Forest"" acknowledged that ""private landowners as a group rank timber income behind such amenities as wildlife, aesthetics, personal recreation and satisfaction of ownership as a reason for owning land."" The article acknowledged that uneven-aged management (select cutting) results in a forest ""more natural in appearance compared with even-aged (clear-cut) systems."" The article outlined the positive features of uneven-aged management including: · A significant stand of timber is always present. Instead of clearcutting, timber is harvested periodically by individual tree or group selection. · Timber quality is improved during scheduled harvests. Selection harvesting removes trees of poor growth and form, which in turn results in accelerated growth of the best trees. · The process requires little capital and provides periodic income while the stand is being improved. · Volume production is concentrated in valuable sawtimber trees. · Regeneration costs associated with even-aged management are less with uneven-age systems. · Stands are not as vulnerable to complete destruction by wildfire, ice storms, hurricaines, disease and insects as are even-aged stands. · Long-term uneven-aged management results in conditions somewhat similar to old-growth forests. The article explained how uneven-aged management requires particular thought and consideration as ""decisions on which trees to cut and which to leave require the land manager to look at each tree in the stand, its relative position, health, dominance and rate of growth and determine how it’s presence or absence will affect landowner objectives."" In the same article, it was acknowledged that perhaps the biggest obstacle to private landowners for employing uneven-aged management is the difficulty in ""locating a forester that has the experience and willingness to implement [it]."" In addition to looking at the kind of advice state forestry agencies are giving to landowners, an analysis of what kind of management advice industrial foresters are giving to landowners would also be helpful in determining the motivations of landowners. For both public and industry foresters, what percentage of the land management plans they write includes a prescription for clearcutting and/or pine regeneration? We also do not see any plan to analyze the relative availability of information related to the long-term economic tradeoffs of clearcutting vs select cutting. Lack of access to this kind of information may influence landowners to choose clearcutting over select logging. Do landowners have adequate access to information about how to produce nontimber products from their forests (i.e. ginseng, native plants etc.)? We encourage the study team to look at owners' perspectives on the use of the forests for recreation and other uses. We would like these ""other uses"" to include standing forest values such as biodiversity, views, fishing, hunting, nontimber forest products, carbon sequestration, pollination and pest control, wildfire control, water filtration, and other forest amenities. We would also like the perspectives of adjacent land owners on these values to be considered, as well as the costs incurred from the loss of these values due to clearcut logging. We are interested in what you mean under ""Products"" --when you refer to landowners who are ""not propoerly managing their forest resources"" and what you mean by ""real or perceived obstacles to proper forest management"". We are encouraged by your acknowledgement that this section should be linked to the Timber Markets broad category. How does the location of a particular type of mill (i.e. saw mill vs chipping facility) influence the forest practices a landowner employs? When a new mill is constructed in an area, what is the procurement strategy and how does that affect private landowner decisions? Finally, we are interested in the list of landowner associations and landowners listed as Collaborators in your work plan. Do these landowner associations typically represent landowners who manage forests for timber production? for pulp production? What percentage are managing forests in planted pine? Do you have a balance of representative landowners who manage for quality, hardwood sawtimber, nontimber products, recreation and aesthetics? We appreciate your work on this most important assessment of southern forests and hope you find these comments useful. Sincerely, Danna Smith Director of Programs Dogwood Alliance danna@dogwoodalliance.org ","Michael Tarrant" "danna@dogwoodalliance.org","April 24, 2000 Mr. James Granskog, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the work plan for SOCIO-3: "" How do current policies, regulations, and laws affect forest resources and their management?"" As a coalition of 60 organizations across the South concerned about the proliferation of chip mills and the expansion of industrial forestry, we are particularly concerned about current policy that encourages industrial forestry practices. It is not clear from your work plan whether you intend to provide an objective critique of how current forest policies operate to encourage landowners to manage their forests for timber/pulp production over wildlife habitat, water quality and other nontimber products. For example, current state ""present use"" tax valuation policies require landowners to cut timber in order to receive the reduced tax valuation. It is not clear whether these kinds of issues will be part of your analysis. We also note that tax subsidies and incentives for new or expanding wood-consuming facilities is not yet a part of your policy analysis. An evaluation of current federal and state policies (i.e. Community Block Development Grants, tax incentive packages etc.) that assist the construction and expansion of existing wood consuming facilities is a critical part of this question. This analysis should be linked to the Timber Markets broad category to detrmine how tax subsidies inluence the location of particular mills which in tern influence forest management. We also do not see in you work plan, any attempt to evaluate how current state forestry agency policies influence forest resources and their management. We frequently get calls into our office from frustrated landowners who have spoken to a state forester about a forest management plan and been told that their only option is clearcutting. An objective and critical analysis of current state forestry agencies' landowner programs would be useful in determining how landowners' management objectives are formed. An article that appeared in the September/October 1999 issue of Forest Landowner magazine entitled ""Alternative Silvicultural Systems for Managing Your Forest"" acknowledged that ""private landowners as a group rank timber income behind such amenities as wildlife, aesthetics, personal recreation and satisfaction of ownership as a reason for owning land."" The article acknowledged that uneven-aged management (select cutting) results in a forest ""more natural in appearance compared with even-aged (clear-cut) systems."" The article outlined the positive features of uneven-aged management including: · A significant stand of timber is always present. Instead of clearcutting, timber is harvested periodically by individual tree or group selection. · Timber quality is improved during scheduled harvests. Selection harvesting removes trees of poor growth and form, which in turn results in accelerated growth of the best trees. · The process requires little capital and provides periodic income while the stand is being improved. · Volume production is concentrated in valuable sawtimber trees. · Regeneration costs associated with even-aged management are less with uneven-age systems. · Stands are not as vulnerable to complete destruction by wildfire, ice storms, hurricaines, disease and insects as are even-aged stands. · Long-term uneven-aged management results in conditions somewhat similar to old-growth forests. The article explained how uneven-aged management requires particular thought and consideration as ""decisions on which trees to cut and which to leave require the land manager to look at each tree in the stand, its relative position, health, dominance and rate of growth and determine how it’s presence or absence will affect landowner objectives."" In the same article, it was acknowledged that perhaps the biggest obstacle to private landowners for employing uneven-aged management is the difficulty in ""locating a forester that has the experience and willingness to implement [it]."" Finally, an analysis of the policies underlying the ESA, NEPA and CWA should be given equal consideration to any analysis of state policies that encourage timber cutting. How do these laws, which are intended to protect the environment, influence forest management? We appreciate your work on this most important assessment of southern forests and hope you find these comments useful. Sincerely, Danna Smith Director of Programs Dogwood Alliance danna@dogwoodalliance.org","James Granskog" "danna@dogwoodalliance.org","April 24, 2000 Dear Karen Abt, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the work plan for SOCIO-5: "" What role do forests play in employment and local economies in the South?"" As a coalition of 60 organizations across the South concerned about the proliferation of chip mills and the expansion of industrial forestry, we are particularly concerned about the potential economic tradeoffs of the continued expansion of industrial forestry. Any assessment of the economy's response to changes in timber-production levels should reflect a realistic appraisal of the relative importance of the services and commodities derived from the forest and acknowledge the economy's dynamic character. Applications of the economic-base model that consider timber production as fundamentally more important to the economy than the services derived from southern forests should be abandoned. Many researchers have shown that businesses and individuals will locate to forested areas because of the high quality of life associated with standing forests (see, Ernie Niemi and Ed Whitelaw, Assessing Economic Tradeoffs in Forest Management. Revised. PNW-GTR-403 (Portland,OR: Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1999), 78 p., for example). Therefore, we would like your work plan to include an overview of the entire economy in the South, preferably using REIS data. This analysis should be done at a county level, and include personal income and employment statistics, as well as transfer payments. This information will show us the sectors of the economy related to direct use of forests, but also the sectors related to indirect use, existence value, etc. We support the study of the impacts of forests and forest activities on the non-measured (nonmarket) economy, including impacts on stocks and flows (services) of air, water and carbon sequestration. However, we also want to see the costs to communities and individuals from intesive timber production on other non-measured values such as loss of biodiversity, views, fishing, hunting, nontimber forest products, pollination and pest control, wildfire control, etc. We would also urge the researchers to look at the economic report published March 2000 by John Talberth and Karyn Moskowitz entitled, The Economic Case Against Logging National Forests, available from the Forest Conservation Council, 505-986-1163 for additional information on non-measured or nonmarket values of standing forests. An analysis of the economic contributions without an equally thorough analysis of the costs will result in the gross overstatement of the timber industry's overall economic contributions in the South. We also hope you will link this section to the Timber Markets broad category. Who benefits and who loses when a decision is made to locate an industrial-scale, wood-chipping mill in an area? What is the net economic effect of such a decision, given the opportunity costs (i.e. tradeoffs in value-added, solid wood manufacturing industries, forest-based recreation and tourism, water quality costs, the ability of a community to attract other businesses, etc.) Other costs that should be considered include tax supported financial subsidies used to attract chip mills and industrial forestry operations to a community, including transportation, road maintenence and construction, education, tax incentives, etc. In addition to defining tax revenues generated by forest and wood products operations, we would like the study team to provide the same overview for industries that depend on forests standing, such as recreation, tourism, nontimber forest products, fishing, hunting, etc. Finally, the socio-economic implications of continued expansion of industrial forestry need to be addressed. Studies at Auburn University specifically looked at the impacts of industrial logging on the economic well-being of rural communities. One study found that the rural counties most dependent on the timber industry were economically worse off than other rural communities, having higher rates of infant mortality, unemployment and poverty and lower expenditures on public education. Another study conducted by the USFS Southern Research Station, entitled ""Forest Dependence and Community Well-Being: A Segmeneted Market Approach (see Dogwood’s comments dated September 14 for citation) recognized that the relationships between forest dependence and community-well-being are complex and in need of further study. It found a negative relationship between per capita income and timberland concentration. It pointed out that further study of the relationships between industrial forestry and community well-being ""must be informed by important characteristics such as type of forest industrialization and level of timberland, not just the number of people employed in the greater forest sector."" It went on to recognize that forest dependence and well-being ""cannot be measured by employment or earnings in wood products and associated manufacturing"" and that ""the portion of land in timber and the type of mill are also important indicators."" [emphasis added] Finally, the USFS acknowledged that in order to accurately assess the relationship between industrial forestry and community well-being, that careful consideration needed to be given to ""noneconomic aspects"". None of the issues relating to community well-being as it relates to industrial forestry are included in the revised questions. As the industry looks to southeastern forests as the primary source for expansions over the next several decades, an understanding of the impacts that this expansion will have on community well-being becomes critical. We appreciate your work on this most important assessment of southern forests and hope you find these comments useful. Sincerely, Danna Smith Director of Programs Dogwood Alliance danna@dogwoodalliance.org ","Karen Abt" "danna@dogwoodalliance.org","Dear Ken Cordell, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the work plan for SOCIO-5: "" What are the supplies of and demands for forest based recreation and other noncommodity uses of forests in the South?"" As a coalition of 60 organizations across the South concerned about the proliferation of chip mills and the expansion of industrial forestry, we are particularly pleased that this question is a part of the SFRA. There does not appear to be a clear plan for evaluating the economic values of the nonmarket goods and services derrived from standing forests (i.e. water and air filtration, carbon sequestration, hydrological moderation and scenic beauty.) While timber values (and to some extent recreation values) are readily available to study team researchers, so-called ""noncommodity"" values seem to be more difficult to unearth. However, there are many standard economic textbooks that provide guidelines on how to do original research on these values, as well as articles and publications that provide examples on completed research. In any case, while these values are more difficult to calculate, they should not be considered in any way less important. We would like to offer the study team a holistic approach to studying these noncommodity uses of forests. When quantifying the economic benefits of natural forest ecosystems, it is necessary to talk about the ""Total Economic Value"" of the forest. One helpful way of looking at this total value is to split the values into seven categories, as defined by Peter Morton, a resource economist with the Wilderness Society in Denver, Colorado. The values are presented in order of decreasing ""tangibility"" of value to individuals: • Direct Use: This includes recreation, human development, cultural heritage, and commercial; • Community Benefits: This includes subsistence use, non-recreation jobs, retirement income, non-labor income and recreation jobs; • Scientific Benefits: This includes research, education, and management; • Off-Site Benefits: This includes off-site hunting, scenic viewsheds, higher property values, increased tax revenue, and off-site consumption of information in books and magazines, and scenic beauty in photos and videos; • Biodiversity/Conservation: This includes direct use, genetic and intrinsic values; • Ecological Services: This includes watershed protection, nutrient cycling, carbon storage, pest control, and pollination; and, • Passive Use Benefits: This includes option value, bequest value, and existence value. Peter Morton has written extensively about noncommodity uses of forests in the South in the publication, Peter Morton, The Living Landscape: Charting a Course: National Forests in the Southern Appalachians. Volume 5 of 5, (Atlanta, Georgia: The Wilderness Society, 1994). We have noticed that there are quite a few experts with high levels of experience assembled for this study team. However, we believe that the study team would benefit tremendously from having an ecological economist on board. The Forest Service has access to individuals with this type of expertise. Finally, we would like the study team to either explain or erase this quotation from the study plan: ""Recreation uses of forests is fast becoming a dominant use in some areas of the South. Especially on public lands and in the Southern Appalachian and Interior highlands, this domination can results in limitations on management options."" We see this quote as a clear indication of a bias toward logging. Therefore, we request that it be removed from the work plan language. We appreciate your work on this most important assessment of southern forests and hope you find these comments useful. Sincerely, Danna Smith Director of Programs Dogwood Alliance danna@dogwoodalliance.org ","Ken Cordell" "danna@dogwoodalliance.org","Dear Ken Cordell, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the work plan for SOCIO-5: "" What are the supplies of and demands for forest based recreation and other noncommodity uses of forests in the South?"" As a coalition of 60 organizations across the South concerned about the proliferation of chip mills and the expansion of industrial forestry, we are particularly pleased that this question is a part of the SFRA. There does not appear to be a clear plan for evaluating the economic values of the nonmarket goods and services derrived from standing forests (i.e. water and air filtration, carbon sequestration, hydrological moderation and scenic beauty.) While timber values (and to some extent recreation values) are readily available to study team researchers, so-called ""noncommodity"" values seem to be more difficult to unearth. However, there are many standard economic textbooks that provide guidelines on how to do original research on these values, as well as articles and publications that provide examples on completed research. In any case, while these values are more difficult to calculate, they should not be considered in any way less important. We would like to offer the study team a holistic approach to studying these noncommodity uses of forests. When quantifying the economic benefits of natural forest ecosystems, it is necessary to talk about the ""Total Economic Value"" of the forest. One helpful way of looking at this total value is to split the values into seven categories, as defined by Peter Morton, a resource economist with the Wilderness Society in Denver, Colorado. The values are presented in order of decreasing ""tangibility"" of value to individuals: • Direct Use: This includes recreation, human development, cultural heritage, and commercial; • Community Benefits: This includes subsistence use, non-recreation jobs, retirement income, non-labor income and recreation jobs; • Scientific Benefits: This includes research, education, and management; • Off-Site Benefits: This includes off-site hunting, scenic viewsheds, higher property values, increased tax revenue, and off-site consumption of information in books and magazines, and scenic beauty in photos and videos; • Biodiversity/Conservation: This includes direct use, genetic and intrinsic values; • Ecological Services: This includes watershed protection, nutrient cycling, carbon storage, pest control, and pollination; and, • Passive Use Benefits: This includes option value, bequest value, and existence value. Peter Morton has written extensively about noncommodity uses of forests in the South in the publication, Peter Morton, The Living Landscape: Charting a Course: National Forests in the Southern Appalachians. Volume 5 of 5, (Atlanta, Georgia: The Wilderness Society, 1994). We have noticed that there are quite a few experts with high levels of experience assembled for this study team. However, we believe that the study team would benefit tremendously from having an ecological economist on board. The Forest Service has access to individuals with this type of expertise. Finally, we would like the study team to either explain or erase this quotation from the study plan: ""Recreation uses of forests is fast becoming a dominant use in some areas of the South. Especially on public lands and in the Southern Appalachian and Interior highlands, this domination can results in limitations on management options."" We see this quote as a clear indication of a bias toward logging. Therefore, we request that it be removed from the work plan language. We appreciate your work on this most important assessment of southern forests and hope you find these comments useful. Sincerely, Danna Smith Director of Programs Dogwood Alliance danna@dogwoodalliance.org ","Ken Cordell" "danna@dogwoodalliance.org","April 24, 2000 Bob Rummer, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the work plan for TIMBR 1: ""How might existing and new technologies influence forest operations and resultant conditions of forests? "" As a coalition of 60 organizations across the South concerned about the proliferation of chip mills and the expansion of industrial forestry, we are particularly concerned about how existing and new technologies influence forest conditions. It is not clear from your work plan whether or to what extent you will address changes in processing technologies (i.e. increased use of hardwoods in paper manufacturing, the increased use of small diameter hardwood trees with the replacement of plywood with OSB) and the resultant changes in forest conditions. We hope you will address the increased use of in the woods chippers and the resultant impact on woody debris and that you will link this analysis to the Terrestrial/Landscape broad category. We also hope you will address increased mechanization and link this analysis to the Socio-economic analysis, so it's effect on employment can be addressed. Under ""Products"" you state that the ""overall goal is to provide a picture of how forest management is implemented in the South and the evolutions of technology to improve the attainment of management objectives."" We encourage you to change this to read ""and the evolutions of technology and its effect on forest management"". Words like ""improve"" and management objectives"" imply a bias towards industrial forest management over other, lower-impact forest management practices. We appreciate your work on this most important assessment of southern forests and hope you find these comments useful. Sincerely, Danna Smith Director of Programs Dogwood Alliance danna@dogwoodalliance.org ","Bob Rummer" "danna@dogwoodalliance.org","April 24, 2000 Bob Rummer, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the work plan for TIMBR 1: ""How might existing and new technologies influence forest operations and resultant conditions of forests? "" As a coalition of 60 organizations across the South concerned about the proliferation of chip mills and the expansion of industrial forestry, we are particularly concerned about how existing and new technologies influence forest conditions. It is not clear from your work plan whether or to what extent you will address changes in processing technologies (i.e. increased use of hardwoods in paper manufacturing, the increased use of small diameter hardwood trees with the replacement of plywood with OSB) and the resultant changes in forest conditions. We hope you will address the increased use of in the woods chippers and the resultant impact on woody debris and that you will link this analysis to the Terrestrial/Landscape broad category. We also hope you will address increased mechanization and link this analysis to the Socio-economic analysis, so it's effect on employment can be addressed. Under ""Products"" you state that the ""overall goal is to provide a picture of how forest management is implemented in the South and the evolutions of technology to improve the attainment of management objectives."" We encourage you to change this to read ""and the evolutions of technology and its effect on forest management"". Words like ""improve"" and management objectives"" imply a bias towards industrial forest management over other, lower-impact forest management practices. We appreciate your work on this most important assessment of southern forests and hope you find these comments useful. Sincerely, Danna Smith Director of Programs Dogwood Alliance danna@dogwoodalliance.org ","Bob Rummer" "danna@dogwoodalliance.org","April 24, 2000 Bruce Prud'homme, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the work plan for TIMBR 1: ""What are the implementation rates and effectiveness of BMP's in the South? "" As a coalition of 60 organizations across the South concerned about the proliferation of chip mills and the expansion of industrial forestry, we are particularly concerned about the impacts of increased logging on water quality. It appears that your analysis is based almost exclusively on state BMP compliance rates. We are concerned that these compliance rates will be taken as accurate and that no critique of the process for measuring compliance will be undertaken. This is of serious concern to us as we have identified serious flaws in the measure of BMP compliance rates in the South. One concern we have is that BMP compliance standards are performance based. We have serious concerns that BMP compliance rates are often inaccurate and overstated since identifying violations of performance-based standards only works if there are mechanisms in place to accurately monitor compliance through timely inspections. For example, the NC Division of Forestry Resources (NCDFR)just completed the draft of a study on compliance with the state's Forest Practice Guidelines dealing with water quality. The draft suggested that an average of 95% of the logging sites inspected were in compliance with FPGs. Yet, in the absence of information about how many total sites were harvested and where the inspections took place it is difficult to arrive at a statistically accurate compliance rate. As outlined in the FPG study, NCDFR ‘s current methods of identifying when and where harvests are occurring are insufficient to ensure that DFR is indeed inspecting a statistically significant number of harvest sites. We have similar concerns with the methods used for measuring BMP compliance in other southern states. In addition, the NCDFR report failed to take into account NCDFR's failure to consistently conduct inspections on active harvest sites. There is evidence to suggest that NCDFR conducts inspections several months or even years after logging has been completed. Data collected from inspections conducted months after logging has occurred is insufficient since it is widely recognized that the most significant water quality impacts from logging occur during and shortly after harvest. In the absence of information about the timing of the inspections, claims that 95% of logging sites are in compliance are meaningless. The site evaluation records prepared by NCDFR do not contain any information about whether the inspection occurred before, during or after the harvest. We have reason to believe that this problem is not unique to North Carolina since few states in the South have prior notification laws that enable them to identify active logging sites. In addition, claims in NCDFR's report of a 95% compliance rate were inconsistent with other parts of the report that showed compliance rates of only 48% on those sites inspected as a result of citizen complaints in 1997 and 1998. This suggests that compliance rates are much lower on active logging sites and that the reported 95% compliance rate is grossly overstated. And while the draft report indicates that NCDFR intends to focus future inspections on active logging sites, it failed to acknowledge how the failure to focus on active logging sites during past inspections affected the accuracy of the reported compliance rate. The draft report also fails to indicate how DFR plans to identify future active logging sites in the absence of a pre-harvest notification requirement. When are BMP compliance inspections conducted in other states? For the above reasons, we are concerned that listed BMP compliance rates for other states may have similar flaws. We encourage you to conduct an objective and critical evaluation of each state's methods of summarizing BMP compliance rates to ensure that BMP compliance is not overstated. This analysis would affectively fall under the parameters of AQUA-4(e) ""Address the effectiveness of regulatory and nonregulatory state programs for protecting water quality."" We appreciate your work on this most important assessment of southern forests and hope you find these comments useful. Sincerely, Danna Smith Director of Programs Dogwood Alliance danna@dogwoodalliance.org ","Bruce Prud'homme" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Yet again, mind confirming this SoFRAs web comment form works, Karen? It now points to your Lotus Notes address. Forward to jpye@fs.fed.us please. /s/ John Pye","Karen Abt" "jpye@fs.fed.us","John, I've amended your SoFRAs comment form to point to your Lotus Notes address, which I'm using to get this to you. Mind confirming it's working by forwarding it to jpye@fs.fed.us? Thanks! /s/ John Pye","John Greis" "normr@iname.com","Is the bald cypress tree protected from being cut down? The droppings from this tree in my neighbors yard is making my yard & pool a nightmare.","Roger Conner" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Roger, I've updated your email address on the Bio and Contact pages on the Assessment web site to point to rconner01@fs.fed.us I'm using the contact form to send this message -- please forward this to jpye@fs.fed.us so I know it's set up correctly. Thanks! /s/ John Pye","Roger Conner" "jennifer-west@webtv.net","Very impressive! I wish they DID have a photo to peruse... except then you'd be getting LOTS more e-mail like this! :-) Have a great day.","Ben West" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Jim, I've revised your Assessment comment form to send email to your Lotus Notes address and also updated your Bio there to reflect the change. If you can forward this message to jpye@fs.fed.us I'll know the system is working as planned. Thanks! /s/ John Pye","James Granskog" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Terry, I've revised your Assessment comment form to send email to your Lotus Notes address and also updated your Bio there to reflect the change. If you can forward this message to jpye@fs.fed.us I'll know the system is working as planned. Thanks! /s/ John Pye","Terry Haines" "rdm@green.gov","just a test","Terry Haines" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Terry, I've updated the email address in your comment form and in your Bio on the Assessment web site, and am using the revised comment form to send this to you. Please forward this message to me at jpye@fs.fed.us so I know I've got the page done correctly. Thanks! /s/ John Pye","Terry Haines" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Tom, this is a test of your comment form on the Assessment web site (www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/xholmes.htm). Please confirm that it has reached you by FORWARDING it to me at jpye@fs.fed.us","Thomas Holmes" "batmaste@aol.com","I am planning a trout fishing and prairie dog vacation to South Dakota and Wyoming. Do you have any suggestions regarding places to go or people to contact. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, RRM","Jim Herrig" "john.welker@canal-ind.com","Please let me know when this question has been formulated for it to be open to public comment. I was at the meeting in Atlanta and at the session where the request for this question was brought up. Therefore, I have some interest in following the formulation and narrative related to this question. If you have any questions of me, my phone number is (704) 5276780 Thanks, John Welker","Thomas Holmes" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Vic, this is a test message from the Assessment web site. I've posted your Biographical Sketch and made appropriate changes elsewhere (I think). From the Bio there is a link to a comment page which I'm testing with this message. Please confirm that this has reached you OK by FORWARDING it to jpye@fs.fed.us Thanks! /s/ John Pye","Vic Rudis" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Tom, are you actually receiving these messages from your web comment form? Please confirm when you get this. Thanks, John Pye","Thomas Holmes" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Tom, this is my second try at the comment form, this time sending it around noon. Please let me know when you get this so I know the form is fixed. /s/ John Pye","Thomas Holmes" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Vic, this is a test of your new comment form on the Assessment web site, at www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/xrudis.htm I tried it earlier today but I think that form was not set up correctly. Please FORWARD this message to jpye@fs.fed.us so I know it's working. Thanks. /s/ John Pye","Vic Rudis" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Dave, this is both a test and an alert. There's increasing sensitivity about privacy issues and government web sites, so I've added a link to a policy statement from the Assessment home page and from every page that collects information. This message is coming via your comment form, I'd ask that you visit that page, follow the link at the bottom to the privacy page, and read over it to make sure I haven't promised anything we're not delivering. When you've done so please drop me an email to that effect so I know you received this. Thanks! /s/ John Pye","David Wear" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Paul, this is coming to you from a comment form on the Assessment web site, a comment form which forwards comments to your email address. It's at: http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/xmistretta.htm At least, that's the plan. Please confirm that it worked by FORWARDing this to me at jpye@fs.fed.us Thanks! /s/ John Pye","Paul Mistretta" "","I wondered whether you had considered documenting old growth conditions from current surveys. I don't mean pre-European necessarily, but an estimate of maturity. One set of filters for the data are: minimum basal area per acre typical of 45-65 yr old hwd stands (and maybe 30-50 yr old pine stands), net growth approaching zero (senesence), and no recent disturbances. Another set is: standing dead tree density, live-to-dead tree ratio, and other disturbances, though these filters may not work for the entire South. References: Devall and Rudis (1991) Older stands characterized and estimated from sample-based surveys. & Rudis (in press) Composition, potential old growth, fragmentation, and ownership of MAV bottomlands. ","Andy Hartsell" "rjfledd@westvaco.com","Stephanie, Here is a contact for a watershed study in a forested (somewhat) watershed in Alabama. Graeme Lockeby Auburn Univ. 334-844-1054 My industry contact is Jenifer Christman of International Paper. Her e-mail is jenifer.chrisman@ipaper.com. She's been very much involved with this project since its beginning and probably knows more than Lockeby. The study is an intensive 3 year study of NPS in about watershed of several hundred thousand acres. It may be one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind in the South. Let me know if you need more info. I'm still working on another study in Arkansas. Bob Fledderman ","Stephanie Fulton" "jpye@fs.fed.us","Your Biographical Sketch and contact form are online on the Southern Forest Resource Assessment web site (www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/people/mistretta.htm). I am using the contact form at sustain/people/xmistretta.htm to send this to you. Please confirm that it is working OK by forwarding it to me a jpye@fs.fed.us. Thanks, Paul. /s/ John Pye","Paul Mistretta" "ulf.t.thoren@telia.se","Hej Mike! Hur mår du då? ~Ulf~","Michael Tarrant" "vrudis@usfs.msstate.edu","A follow-up to our conversation in Nashville about HUCs. 1) You were going to send me a *.shp file of the HUCs for the South. 2) I am assuming that your office will register the FIA lats and longs to HUC locations. You already have the lats and longs from the EW data base. If not, let me know. But see item #4. 3) I am guessing that for your modeling, FIA plots (not counties) should be assigned by HUC, so you can calculate % forest by HUC, then summarize your model results by ecosection. The error introduced by resolution changes probably is something you can live with--and document with a caveat in your write-up. 4) Exceptions to watch out for: regions or plots that FIA has a county expansion factor for, but no lats and longs. These are few in number, but are pseudolocations (with no lats and long values, or a zero value in EW) to account for the reserved acreage (problems in parts of AR, south FL, Okefenokee swamp, etc.) and some nonforest areas (coastal LA, west TX), and a few other locales. Also, if your model accounts for earth cover (rather than just land), FIA subtracts out census water areas as well by county. If you have questions or problems, let me know. --Vic Rudis 662-338-3109.","Ben West" "pfarr@itos.uga.edu","Dr. Tarrant: Our Webmaster received an email (below) re the HDF site, suggesting that the indicator ""special interest group(s)"" be changed to ""interest group(s)"". I thought you might be the person to pass the message along to. -pf Paul Farr Information Technology Outreach Services The University of Georgia ----------Original Message----------------- Subject: HDF website comment Resent-From: hdf@itos.uga.edu Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:41:38 -0400 From: ""David Rolloff""