Contact Information
SFFP
Forestry Sciences Laboratory
3041 Cornwallis Road
RTP, NC 27709
(919) 549-4011
Comments Received at Gainesville
The table below captures the comments collected during the breakout session at the Gainesville public meeting. Comments are grouped by major forces of change. Specific subregions of applicability are listed where provided.
| Comment | Subregion | |
|---|---|---|
Social |
||
| Consider population growth. New seasonal migration patterns.TN to FL back to TN | ||
| Consider income and wealth. Greater disparity between have and have nots. Increase homelessness among families | ||
| Consider age and interests of land owners. Size of ownership. Management options change with size. New-younger owners vs. traditional-older owners | ||
| Evaluate changing preferences for forest uses.Cultural differences. Age differences.Shifts in population:e.g., Caucasians to Hispanic or Asian | ||
| Assess forest values. Nature deficient, in disorder. Loss of connection to forests. What values have been lost? Opportunities to recreate outside in the woods have diminished | ||
| Assess changes in development patterns. Setting aside natural areas within the development. Need management options for them. Mitigation plans | ||
| Consider National Security effects on resource availability. If current energy sources decline how will this affect wood supplies | ||
| Consider the need to account for local decision making within a regional context. What are local land-use policies and how are they changing. Ordinances | ||
| Assess unique rural-character: unique communities and their sense of place | ||
| Evaluate Scale issues: Scaling up from local decisions to state to regional. How do you capture the heterogeneity of the coastal plain into one metric-- societal, cultural, economically and ecologically? | ||
| Evlauate ecosystem services,especially water. The importance of water quality and quantity | ||
| Assess management for desirable and quality recreational services | ||
| Assess wood certification processes, Green and FSC: Look at effect on demand | ||
| Evaluate production issues. With changes in genetic structure, conversion of forests and other factors, how is the growth of pine plantation affected? | ||
| Consider management options: Need education. Use of biocides, Prescribe fires, Harvesting techniques | ||
| Evaluate changes in biodiversity. What is recognized as loss by the common individual vs. the natural resource manager- e.g., otter vs. raccoon | ||
| Assess lack of resources to manage existing and future conservation areas. More demand on open spaces. Protection for species vs. opportunities for recreation | ||
| Consider changes in the type of recreation. Increase ORV and other high “stimulating” activities. Must compete with video game adrenaline rushes | ||
Economic |
||
| Consider the GNP | ||
| Consider global competition. Loss of manufacturing capacity.With globalization, fewer facilities are being built in the US. | ||
| Consider energy prices.New energy types:fusion. Infrastructure of moving materials (roads and bridges) and electricity (wires).Most of the infrastructure is in need of repair | ||
| Consider agricultural prices -Increased deforestation because crops are supplanting trees. | ||
| Consider economic options for forest management affected by age of population, cultural groups, and size of property. Costs increase. | ||
| Identify economic values of amenities from forests and ecological services. How much are these values and services worth? | ||
| Consider property taxes. Loss of taxable properties. Management options to meet needs: forest products and recreation. Need a full and integrated accounting of economic and social factors and costs when lands are designated for conservation | ||
| Identify feedback loops between social and economic factors as they affect natural processes | ||
| Evaluate long-term durations of recession/depression conditions. Future costs with entitlements will drain federal budget. Not enough money available to run the country, to meet infrastructure needs, and security costs | ||
| Consider that political decision making shifts from local to state to federal as problems become more national in scope | ||
| Consider the lack of speed in decision making | ||
| Consider NF utilization. NFs are not being fully utilized or managed economically or ecologically.Reciprocal effects of private lands (NFs competing with private lands) | ||
| Evaluate pressures on resources. Demands for timber, biomass, secondary products. Value of resource and availability changing which influences landowner's management and manufacturing.Federal and state subsidies affect resources.Cost shares usefulness questionable. Assess different conditions for different ownerships | ||
| Consider conversion of natural forests to plantations will increase demands. Use of natural forests. Location and markets become issues | ||
| Consider economic costs and benefits of genetic improvements. Link back to plantation conversions | ||
| Evaluate the impact of biomass: Threat to forest ecosystems. Removals may affect ecosystem integrity which can affect productivity. Unrecognized harvest pressures on pine plantations | ||
| Assess harvesting>growth. What is being tallied via FIA is not truly available for harvesting | ||
Land Uses/Timber |
||
| How are forces of change “weighted”? | ||
| Regional economy—shift in land exchanges…land markets stabilizing for now but subject to change | ||
| Assess regional economy—shift in land exchanges…land markets stabilizing for now but subject to change | ||
| How do land uses respond to business cycles | ||
| What are the expected changes in recreation demand (e.g. ORV) | ||
| Changes in certification programs? | ||
| Evaluate storm events | ||
| Plantation vs naturally regenerated forests—distinctions need to be made in statistics (growth: removal) | ||
| How will future tax policy influence TIMO's and REIT's (size/#) | ||
| What are the effects of more fragmentation-smaller tract sizes? | ||
| Consider that management is less likely—tend more to recreation | ||
| How will real estate speculation drive transactions? | ||
| What changes occur when land is passed to next generation? | ||
| How do we account for recent growth in public land ownership | ||
| Evaluate how forest health risks increase with less management | ||
| How are conservation easement lands managed differently—restrictions | ||
| Consider that achieving multiple use values is a challenge | ||
| Consider that water management districts have more unmanaged and fragmented lands | ||
| consider that prescribed burning is challenged in wildland urban interface | ||
| Evaluate how forest health risks increase with less management | ||
| Evaluate how policies (regulations perpetuate unmanaged conditions.Developer required set-asides but forest is not managed. Evaluate benefits and services (quantification) of “family forest”. Positive externalities. | ||
| Evaluate market consequences of large scale storm events—supply | ||
| Consider that the public wants as much multiple use value per area as possible | ||
| Consider increased interest in real estate speculation (shift to REIT's) | ||
| Consider that society (urban sector) may not care about land use/forest mgmt | ||
| Consider the need to manage for recreation. Need landowner effort to provide recreation opportunities—now largely public | ||
| Evaluate the demand for recreation, it's overlooked—probability continue in future. | ||
| Evaluate the role of developers in working with public bodies—involved in process rather than in opposition | ||
| Consider that TIMO's/REITS have short term management objectives—improved management versus previous individual | ||
| Evaluate Sand Hill/scrub habitat | ||
| Evaluate decrease/loss of habitat due to fragmentation | ||
| Consider increasing difficulty for landowners ($/lack of management) | ||
| Evaluate trends in hunting activity. License sales declining. Some passive activities increase. Hunting clientele are more affluent. Increase in hunting leases/atv/horse | ||
| Consider that storms may also lead to increased demand | ||
| Consider increased demand for multiple values with less forest | ||
| Consider that fewer mills are demanding quality sawtimber—don't pay premium for quality | ||
| Evaluate the need for increase in wildlife corridors (connectivity) | ||
| Evaluate influence of property tax on ownership and management | ||
| Assess tax incentives to maintain native forests | ||
| Assess different management for different uses | ||
| Evaluate the shift from industry to timos/reits. This leads to fragmentation and conversion to other uses | ||
| Evaluate change in expertise/perspective of forest decision makers | ||
| Evaluate consequences of speculation. Implied collapse could lead to changes in behavior. | ||
| Evaluate tools to suit land ownership—e.g., property tax benefits, conservation easements | ||
| Assess ways to increase values (returns/income) of forests (ecosystem services markets) | ||
| Identify better metrics for quantifying nonconsumptive recreation uses | ||
| Identify better metrics for valuing the benefits of forests to compare with alternative (developed) uses. Establish relationship to subsidies | ||
| What are long term consequences of conservation easements—need broad scale monitoring | ||
| Evaluate the need for new silvicultural techniques: new demands, climate, restoration, provide for society needs | ||
Biological |
||
| Consider soil Microbiota (mycorrhizae) | CP | |
| Consider T&E Species | ||
| Consider tree genetics (diversity within species, loss due to development) | ||
| Consider non-native planted trees (eucalyptus) | ||
| Evaluate the effects of GMO's and ineffectiveness thereof (increased trees) | ||
| Consider conversion to biofuel “crops” | ||
| Consider natural vs plantation tree growth | ||
| Evaluate Plantation's influence: harvest>growth=unsustainable | ||
| Consider forest certification (prohibits conversion of natural forests to plantations) | ||
| Consider species composition of forests | ||
| Consider monoculture vs diverse forest | ||
| Consider impacts of humans! | ||
| Consider biogeochemistry: effects on water quality | ||
| Consider disposal of waste (and solid waste disposal), introduction of biological agents & eutrophication) esp, via spray fields | ||
| Consider removals are not a good indicator of harvest | ||
| Consider a lack of breakdown by source | ||
| Consider natural vs plantation management | ||
| Consider restoration as an enhancer of forest ecosystems | ||
| Consider continued decreased use of fertilizer and herbicides= decreased growth | ||
| Consider species (and community) resiliency to climate change | ||
| Evaluate restoration priorities, i.e., everglades…will they be there? | ||
| Consider cypress domes: watershed services (humans & wildlife) | ||
| Consider the need to involve more of the private land trusts | ||
| Consider cogangrass | ||
| Consider plantation vs natural timber harvest | ||
| Consider restoration of scrub/sandhill habitats (T&E species endemic to…) | ||
| Consider use of prescribed fire | ||
| Evaluate “The natural coast” – areas that will be coasts in 50-100 years (but aren't yet) | ||
| Evaluate bob white quail population decline (fire/succession/land use) | ||
| Consider water | ||
| Complete risk analysis of GMO's (infection of native trees, herbicide resistance) | ||
| Quantify range changes in native species, esp. as related to climate change | ||
| Evaluate value of cypress dome wetlands (Effects on invertebrates? Birds?) | ||
| Evaluate loss of ecotones as a consequence of human management (ditching, burning, etc.) | ||
| Evaluate the impacts of harvesting of pine straw (& management for) | ||
| Consider japanese climbing fern | ||
| Consider complete tree removal | ||
| Consider “Crooked wood” collection (craft use) | ||
| Consider storm water attenuation through wetlands | ||
| Consider forested flood plains | ||
| Assess wildlife habitat/T&E species, biodiversity | ||
| Assess biodiversity | ||
| Assess productivity | ||
| Assess competition (Business/Economics) | ||
| Evaluate watershed protection | ||
| Evaluate carbon balance | ||
| Evaluate soils | ||
| Assess recreation, aesthetics, hunting | ||
| Identify metrics/indices of ecosystem health (quantification) for tracking/monitoring it, also the need for synthesis/distillation of individual data sets | ||
| Consider no-Analog ecosystems (resulting from change) | ||
| Evaluate pine straw resource | ||
| Evaluate genetic diversity in relation to resistance to pests/pathogens (may be additionally affected by physical factors—drought) | ||
| Use annual FIA updates—need for information on harvests of plantation vs natural timber. Is it available? | ||
| Use breeding bird survey (Cornell) | ||
| Use christmas bird count | ||
| Use dove survey (Auburn) | ||
| Use forest health assessments | ||
| Use Florida natural area inventory (FNAI) | ||
| Use NSF Network of sites (NEON—National Ecological Observation Network) | ||
| Utilize Research Management entities- Tall timbers (FL), Jones Center (GA) | ||
| Utilize water management district info (trends, conservation plans) | ||
| We need larger NGO's: Collaborative work & research | ||
| Utilize Florida FWS: vegetation monitoring of land management activities (public lands) | ||
Physical |
||
| Consider soil condition. Depletion becoming apparent. Brought to attention through amount of fertilizer being applied. Soil tests are showing a need for more nutrients | ||
| Consider that soils are important as we consider biomass production | ||
| Fire very important in that fire regimes are going to have to change. If we can't get some type of fuel reduction, we're going to lose value—southern forests depreciated. Liability is an issue (example—I4 crash) | ||
| Assess water—large clearcuts and reducing shade changes biology of water bodies through temperature change. Even a 2 degree change effects certain fish—affecting cypress domes. Plant buffers around water bodies? BMP's? | ||
| Assess weather trends: we're in it—created it. Drought might be induced by our practices. Rain regime has become uncertain. Cannot predict if that will continue—affecting today's forests—drying out understory possibly creating fire danger.Hurricanes—although destructive, bring precipitation. Continuing to increase? Perhaps with climate change? | ||
| Assess aquifers—pumping water to serve urban needs affects the forest? Lack of rain is not recharging the outtake | ||
| Consider planting trees for water (rain) retention? Is this effective? | ||
| Assess lack/change of biodiversity that physical factors will cause | ||
| Assess climate change—sea level rise in Florida (Nature coast region). How to do land management and land acquisition to allow that natural process | ||
| Evaluate pine straw collection—reduces fire hazard but also reduces water retention | ||
| Evaluate loss or impact of/on cypress forests—need to protect—cypress mulching is effecting. Important for water | ||
| Consider water quality/quantity, t&e species, etc. More valuable on the ground than for agriculture | ||
| Public land managers need the $ and tools to do their job, particularly for fire, i.e., for scrub habitat management | ||
| Consider a concrete jungle—continues to expand; effects of urbanization | ||
| Consider climate change-- need to be doing a good job managing for long periods of drought or flooding; working with public and private landowners to value their lands for ability to hold flood waters | ||
| Evaluate wildlife corridors—providing those even through timber lands if necessary to get to valuable habitat. Assess the value of lands that is not developed for land acquisition even if it is not pristine habitat now but can be more readily restored. | ||
| Consider physical differences between natural and plantation timber—recognizing there are really 2 forests—natural and artificial. 90% of harvest is in artificial. Is this acceptable? Can we meet our needs another way? | ||
| Assess water recharge—loss of forest and the water recharge area. Great economic and social factors—forests already stressed will have other health problems. | ||
| Consider watershed condition—key physical factor | ||
| Consider that storm/fire can change the composition of the forests, i.e., diversity of species, increase invasive exotics. | ||
| Consider increased wildfires—as forests are impacted by catastrophic events. They have more risk to be converted to other uses. | ||
| Evaluate size of land ownerships (smaller)—makes forests more difficult to management, more owners to deal with, less educated; economies of scale, etc | ||
| consider air pollution—increased tree stress and disease i.e. exhaust fans from poultry farms. Expect air pollution to increase with population growth. | ||
| Evaluate the effects of increased drought—seedling survival might affect decisions on how people use their land | ||
| Consider CO2 impact on plant growth. Is there an effect? Studies out West show it changes the dynamics of the plant growth and competition. | ||
| Consider declining water table in sink holes | ||
| Assess sea level rise—migration of natural communities has an accelerating impact on natural communities | ||
| Evaluate the effect of population increase—carrying capacity—there is one for the amount of humans that it can handle as well. A carrying capacity needs to be determined and implemented at the local level. | ||
| Consider soil acidity—direct result of pollution? Soil chemistry affected by air pollution, carbon storage, etc. | ||
| Consider global climate change—will affect the local system to the point the local communities will no longer be there. | ||
| Construction of highways has been reduced. There is still a lot of fragmentation but may be less. The Panhandle may be an exception. Fragmentation still an issue for wildlife migration. | ||
| Consider urban forests—increasing value for heat regulation, etc | ||
| Consider harvesting technologies—some technologies have less impact to soils and proper implementation is important. | ||
| Consider biomass—trying to different harvesting machines; which as less impact? Cheaper more affordable—how that impacts the forest. | ||
| Consider mineral exploration—impacts on forests? Mineral rights don't always come with the land. | ||
Last Modified: 04/07/2008