Southern Forest Resource Assessment The suggestions or concerns below were submitted in response to preliminary assessment questions but did not directly fit with a particular question--for details see our Public Input or Methods pages

Public Involvement Process We firmly recommend that you seek public comment on your final study plan, In addition, the assessment needs meaningful public comment throughout the process including an independent science advisory committee of technical experts and a peer review process before final publication. All federal agencies involved in this assessment should prioritize engaging state natural resource agencies. While the expertise of state forestry commissions is indeed critical to this assessment, the expertise of state natural resource agencies is equally important. I also hope that the final Phase I study plan be presented for public comment and that assessment leaders will summarize and consider incorporating the comments made by the public relating to this assessment. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with your pre-project planning and review of the document. Agencies are genuine in their interest to fully and properly assess the issues? Being completely open in the conduct and process of the study? They are enlisting the services of people in all appropriate fields of involvement with the forests? Are regularly ensuring that all pertinent perspectives are being pursued and allowed presentation? Are likewise ensuring that these perspectives are accepted in a context of balance, logic and openmindedness? Conclusions will first be offered in a draft version so that interested parties may offer responses and clarifications? Responses will be given due consideration in the preparation of a final report? This will be done through a fair and reasonable notice process. Further distancing citizens from the process of governance and community building--their right and their responsibility--by promoting permitting procedures designed for implementation beyond sight and reach of most of the general public. Under current policy throughout the Southeast, local citizens have little or no voice in the decision-making process relating to chip mills and clearcutting at the local, state, and federal level. We recognize that the Assessment will be primarily descriptive rather than prescriptive; however, without recognizing citizen concern and quality of life issues, the study will be invalid. You stated at the Study Workshop's initial discussion that this study is 'a contract with us and the public.' We expect the USFS to live up to that promise. Finally, we demand that public participation become integral to the SE Forest Resource Assessment. The initial efforts of the USFS so far are not acceptable; we suggest stronger citizen input than that which is possible to be heard through email input or 'facilitated' small group workshops. Many citizens' voices are lost by those token methods; some portions of the public are not able to contribute by those means. A citizen advisory board like the NC Chip Mill Study has incorporated will b an excellent start. I would like to encourage you to seek interaction with the newly-formed "Partners for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation" (PARC). I will send you some information about PARC, as well. I think that a collaborative approach will help make the Assessment a valuable document. We strongly encourage that the federal agencies involve as full-fledged partners a variety of state agencies, not just the state forestry agencies. Additional agencies which are components of state government and which have much to offer include the Natural Heritage Programs and the water quality planners and regulators. Allow all stakeholders, particularly local communities, to participate in developing management policy and decisions. I urge you to extend the public comment period. I feel that the timber industry should be included on the Assessment Team. Sustainability is a regional issue. The involvement of stakeholders will be particularly important during this phase. I understand the Southern Forest Assessment is scheduled for completion within two years. I hope that interested citizens, such as myself, will have opportunities to participate in its development. I would like to call for the formation of a public advisory committee to augment your Federal study. I understand that such a system as worked well in North Carolina and would bring much-needed input to the current study. QUESTIONS: Complete Answers Should be Made Public. Forest landowners and managers need a predictable regulatory, as well as investment climate in order to make long-term forestry investments. The Southern Assessment should assess the benefits and costs of the various federal and state laws and regulations in promoting the sustainable forest management of the South's forests. The League of Women Voters also holds, as you do, that resource management decisions should be based on current and thorough assessment of status, trends and needs and should include public involvement and participation in decision processes. I would like to see a public advisory committee formed to oversee the study process, and I would like to see rugular public meetings in cities like Atlanta, GA where large numbers of people would be more likely to attend. This study is being undertaken by public agencies of the federal and state governments for the benefit of the public. Therefore, there should be complete transparency and openness in the process used to carry out the study. Information cannot be regarded as proprietary in this kind of study, and sources of information and methodology used to arrive at conclusions must be clearly stated. Actually, I just want to be on your mailing list to receive any draft or interim assessment products and the final assessment in June 2001. I could not find on your website any other way to get this information to you. If this message is a bother to you, you might consider adding a place on your website to get other comments to you. Anyway, please add me to your mailing list. I request (implore) that the time frame for public comment be extended and/or a framework for dialogue and resolution of the issues being addressed be created. This is a complex issue which, if it is to be openly and honestly addressed, will require an ONGOING process of input and evaluation by all interested parties, i.e. citizens, businesses and government. The limited timeframe for making comments (March 1999 to September 15, 1999) reflects a potentially shortsighted vision, smacks of ulterior motives, and does not favor input from citizens, to name a few problems. Ultimately, these issues will go beyond the confines of the southeast and may set precedence's that will affect other forests and lands across the country. I must point out that it is interesting that you have a public comment period, and yet you don't allow the possibility for answering questions other than these four; very craftily chosen, they were. There should be a citizen's advisory panel, which is actively involved in the process to facilitate ongoing public input and build public confidence in the study. An open process is essential to credibility with the public. In tandem with that, and to further establish the credibility of the conclusions of the study, it is essential that a separate scientific review board be established to review the methodology of the assessment, its progress and undertake or begin the final peer review press of the assessment when it is completed. I believe the final study plan should be presented for public comment and that assessment leaders compile, summarize and make available all public comments related to the study. citizen input at meetings take the one in Tifton must be part of the chip mill permitting process to protect plant, animal, and human welfare. In future breakout sessions use flipcharts, have a tape recorder, and better facilitation. There should be opportunity for public involvement at all stages of the study. This could take the form of a public advisory committee. There should also be hearings open to the public as the study progresses. It is essential that boards, study commissions, or public representation include representation from environmental groups and academic environmental programs in universities, including non-land grant institutions. A public referendum should be brought up for each one [chip mill] so that the public is aware of what is going on. I found your public participation process to be inept at best. For future reference, you might try longer meeting formats, having facilitators that are in the field of expertise being discussed so they may understand the nomenclature, and to have adequate recording abilities. What is the purpose of trying to put this vital study on the fast track? To rush through the process and come up with a half-"fast" panacea study to justify a pre-determined position? Please avoid this perception by allowing full public participation and by taking adequate time to do this properly. I request (implore) that the time frame for public comment be extended and/or a framework for dialogue and resolution of the issues being addressed be created. This is a complex issue which, if it is to be openly and honestly addressed, will require an ONGOING process of input and evaluation by all interested parties, i.e. citizens, businesses and government. The limited time frame for making comments (March 1999 to September 15, 1999) reflects a potentially short-sighted vision, smacks of ulterior motives and does not favor input from citizens, to name a few problems. Ultimately, these issues will go beyond the confines of the southeast and may set precedences that will affect other forests and lands across the country. Issues involving the environment will be paramount this next century. It is in everyone's best interests to take time, to learn, to question, to have discussions, over and over, until wisdom prevails. Again, I would encourage an extension of the comment period. Thank you. Actually, I just want to be on your mailing list to receive any draft or interim assessment products and the final assessment in June 2001. I could not find on your website any other way to get this information to you. If this message is a bother to you, you might consider adding a place on your website to get other comments to you. Anyway, please add me to your mailing list: Who are the end users of the Assessment? Do you have enough funding? What are the chances of getting more money? How can you answer questions without a thorough understanding of ecosystem dynamics and interactions? Need to get multiple interests together (enviros, industry, govt) to identify and solve problems. One person advocated a longer version of the study, in addition to the short, easy to read version. Will there be a comprehensive bibliography? Can you develop a long-term/after-the-study public forum for identifying additional research needs/data gaps identified by the study? How can the public find out about interim results throughout the process? Is there a process for public input for determining priority of issues to be assessed? Need to get multiple interests together (enviros, industry, govt) to identify and solve problems. Need to publish report widely; get it to individual landowners. Need to focus on site-specific analysis instead of literature-based review. Need to utilize collaborative partnerships to the fullest. Need to include final scope of work and list of questions on web page. Use maps. Need to consider Sustainable Forestry Initiatives by AF&PA. We need to use reliable scientific data, not simulation models, to answer questions. Questions as revised in response to these comments Previous Question | Next Question Public Input Home | Methods | Assessment Home

  modified: 1-MAR-2000
  webmaster: John M. Pye