30.9 Lessons Learned
Minnesota and Wisconsin have used GLA data and
supporting analyses in resource assessments and in
conservation and forest planning.
We believe the GLA will lead to better decisions
as planners access information that provides a regional context for local issues. Developing consistent information themes on past and current conditions will also allow agencies to monitor changes
in conditions more effectively. For example, as information base layers are developed, it will become
easier to compare remotely sensed imagery from
different dates to assess trends over time and to link
other regional coverages, such as Forest Inventory
and Analysis plot data, to various spatial coverages;
this work is already ongoing. These developments
will lead to better tracking and reporting, thereby
contributing to better resource management decisions and reduced monitoring costs.
This project eventually will benefit various
publics, including industrial and nonindustrial
landowners, by providing ready access to information that was previously unavailable or difficult to
access, by providing guidance on appropriate uses
of information, and by making analytical tools
available for applying the information in planning
and management. Publics will benefit also by receiving better and more timely information regarding proposed actions on public lands, thereby
providing the opportunity for more informed
choices and comments during public participation.
30.9 Lessons Learned
As with any project involving many individuals and
activities over several years, there are many lessons
upon which to reflect. For brevity, we will focus
on lessons that parallel material presented earlier
in this paper.
Impetus and goals: To be most effective, this
interagency assessment needed consensus on what
was to be done and why. Through many discussions, presentations, and memoranda, collaborators
communicated about many tasks. However, no
matter how many times the goals were stated, perception and reality did not always match. Although
it takes time, project staff must state and restate
what the assessment's goals are and why they are
being pursued.
Scope and location: Arguments are made for
several different approaches to defining assessment
areas. In dealing with ecological and socioeconomic data and information, the ecological region
(e.g., Province 212 or a watershed) must first be
457
defined; then the associated human-related region
can be defined. Except for the spaceship Earth,
these regions are not the same. The social and economic region is likely to be larger than the ecological region due to export of products and import
of tourists and others.
Issues: Many issues are interrelated, so a variety of types of data and information is needed for
a comprehensive assessment. For example, to address the timber supply issue, information on attitudes about timber harvesting may be needed, along
with information on the ecological impacts of harvesting within the region. Issues may come from a
variety of sources (e.g., assessment-based public
involvement, ongoing forest planning efforts, and
issue-oriented reports).
Process and project organization: It is possible with a modest investment, in terms of personnel and funds, to gather and disseminate information for a large geographic area. In a small group
such as the GLA that has few managerial controls,
it is difficult to set deadlines for collaborators, because most have many other responsibilities. Thus
assessment staffing must recognize how many or
how few full-time staff members are needed to
achieve an assessment's goals. Because many
agencies are involved, successful collaboration requires "champions" at various levels; simply providing data and analysis results is not sufficient. In
addition, a mechanism to ensure task completion
by collaborators is needed-for universities, taskrelated funding is used; a similar mechanism is
needed across federal agency units to ensure accountability. Written commitment from senior
agency officials is needed in cases where competitive awards are sought. The GLA is funded mostly
on a year by year basis; funding uncertainty reduces
the likelihood of long-term project success.
Data compilation and analysis: Formal linkages between the GLA and National Forest planning do not exist. For the GLA to more effectively
enhance forest planning efforts, a more formal linkage is needed. In a broader sense, data collection
is just the starting point for the GLA, and now a
process is needed to prioritize future analyses. Related to this, many analyses are linked to the broadscale issues. However, with limited resources, care
must be taken to have researchers focusing on the
most pressing subjects, rather than on their personal
priorities. Moreover, formal written agreements on
data ownership should be used to ensure data accessibility to all interested parties. Now that a fair
amount of data has been compiled, comparative
studies (e.g., AVHRR versus TM-MSS imagery)
Minnesota and Wisconsin have used GLA data and
supporting analyses in resource assessments and in
conservation and forest planning.
We believe the GLA will lead to better decisions
as planners access information that provides a regional context for local issues. Developing consistent information themes on past and current conditions will also allow agencies to monitor changes
in conditions more effectively. For example, as information base layers are developed, it will become
easier to compare remotely sensed imagery from
different dates to assess trends over time and to link
other regional coverages, such as Forest Inventory
and Analysis plot data, to various spatial coverages;
this work is already ongoing. These developments
will lead to better tracking and reporting, thereby
contributing to better resource management decisions and reduced monitoring costs.
This project eventually will benefit various
publics, including industrial and nonindustrial
landowners, by providing ready access to information that was previously unavailable or difficult to
access, by providing guidance on appropriate uses
of information, and by making analytical tools
available for applying the information in planning
and management. Publics will benefit also by receiving better and more timely information regarding proposed actions on public lands, thereby
providing the opportunity for more informed
choices and comments during public participation.
30.9 Lessons Learned
As with any project involving many individuals and
activities over several years, there are many lessons
upon which to reflect. For brevity, we will focus
on lessons that parallel material presented earlier
in this paper.
Impetus and goals: To be most effective, this
interagency assessment needed consensus on what
was to be done and why. Through many discussions, presentations, and memoranda, collaborators
communicated about many tasks. However, no
matter how many times the goals were stated, perception and reality did not always match. Although
it takes time, project staff must state and restate
what the assessment's goals are and why they are
being pursued.
Scope and location: Arguments are made for
several different approaches to defining assessment
areas. In dealing with ecological and socioeconomic data and information, the ecological region
(e.g., Province 212 or a watershed) must first be
457
defined; then the associated human-related region
can be defined. Except for the spaceship Earth,
these regions are not the same. The social and economic region is likely to be larger than the ecological region due to export of products and import
of tourists and others.
Issues: Many issues are interrelated, so a variety of types of data and information is needed for
a comprehensive assessment. For example, to address the timber supply issue, information on attitudes about timber harvesting may be needed, along
with information on the ecological impacts of harvesting within the region. Issues may come from a
variety of sources (e.g., assessment-based public
involvement, ongoing forest planning efforts, and
issue-oriented reports).
Process and project organization: It is possible with a modest investment, in terms of personnel and funds, to gather and disseminate information for a large geographic area. In a small group
such as the GLA that has few managerial controls,
it is difficult to set deadlines for collaborators, because most have many other responsibilities. Thus
assessment staffing must recognize how many or
how few full-time staff members are needed to
achieve an assessment's goals. Because many
agencies are involved, successful collaboration requires "champions" at various levels; simply providing data and analysis results is not sufficient. In
addition, a mechanism to ensure task completion
by collaborators is needed-for universities, taskrelated funding is used; a similar mechanism is
needed across federal agency units to ensure accountability. Written commitment from senior
agency officials is needed in cases where competitive awards are sought. The GLA is funded mostly
on a year by year basis; funding uncertainty reduces
the likelihood of long-term project success.
Data compilation and analysis: Formal linkages between the GLA and National Forest planning do not exist. For the GLA to more effectively
enhance forest planning efforts, a more formal linkage is needed. In a broader sense, data collection
is just the starting point for the GLA, and now a
process is needed to prioritize future analyses. Related to this, many analyses are linked to the broadscale issues. However, with limited resources, care
must be taken to have researchers focusing on the
most pressing subjects, rather than on their personal
priorities. Moreover, formal written agreements on
data ownership should be used to ensure data accessibility to all interested parties. Now that a fair
amount of data has been compiled, comparative
studies (e.g., AVHRR versus TM-MSS imagery)