32.4 Scale, Extent, and Resolution of the Assessment
2. The timber economy analysis examined the supply and demand for wood products, the dependency on National Forest timber, timber production's effect on employment and income,
and the National Forest land tentatively suitable
for timber production.
3. The recreation resources and use component
evaluated supplies and demands for recreation
settings, the unique or unsatisfied recreation opportunities on public land, changes in public
land use in the last 10 years, and forecasted
trends; how the changing social patterns affect
public land use; and how recreation opportunities modify the life-style and local culture of the
area.
4. Roadless and designated wilderness areas analysis focused on identifying the location of roadless and primitive areas, the effects of Forest
Service management on the integrity of roadless
areas or the enhancement of natural processes
in wilderness areas, the effect of the proximity
to population centers on wilderness use, and the
relation of wilderness and roadless areas to other
assessment resources.
32.4 Scale, Extent, and Resolution
of the Assessment
No discussion of scale and resolution can begin
without describing the purpose, audience, and constraints imposed on the assessment. The limitations
of time and budgets directly affect the level of detail and amounts of data that can be assimilated.
Two factors influenced the extent of the assessment: no special funding was allocated and the forest plan revisions imposed special requirements.
Five of the seven National Forests in the region
were beginning plan revision. The Regional
Forester, although fully committed and supportive
of the assessment, had promised that the assessment would not significantly delay plan revision
and requested that the assessment be completed by
January 1996. Technical teams had slightly more
than 1 year from initial planning to the completion
of the draft analyses. The team leaders and a handful of others worked on the assessment full time.
The remainder of the 150 people on the project had
competing demands on their time. Funding for the
assessment, both within the Forest Service and in
other agencies, came largely from the administrative units that furnished the people-the forests, research units, and agency staffs.
Because of time and budget limitations, it was
decided that the assessment would be accomplished
477
with the use of existing maps and data. Working
with existing data meant that it was sometimes necessary to use whatever map scales were available,
rather than designing map products to satisfy analysis applications. This did not prove to be a serious
handicap and, overall, the constraints imposed on
the assessment were useful in determining priorities and allocating effort.
Initially, it was assumed that the assessment
would be conducted within the boundaries of the
original SAMAB region, a 100-county area covering parts of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia. As a result of the
town hall meetings, additional counties in Virginia
and West Virginia were added so that the George
Washington National Forest would be included. In
Alabama, one county was added to include the Little River Gorge Preserve. The final 135-county
study area encompassed 37.4 million acres and
parts of seven states.
Counties do not always follow ecological boundaries, but county boundaries became the primary
geographic reporting unit for several reasons. The
demographic data were only available by county or
census tract. Also, people living in the Southern
Appalachian region have a very strong sense of
place associated with county of residence. County
and community planners were identified as potential users for the assessment data and would be interested in county data.
A number of additional boundary overlays were
needed within the assessment area. Watershed and
hydrological unit boundaries were needed for the
aquatic assessment. Federal and state ownership
boundaries were needed for the terrestrial assessment, and highway and road overlays were needed
for several applications. Figure 32.3 illustrates
some of the many boundary overlays that were included.
It was generally agreed that maps and locational
data would be an important ingredient in the assessment. Current GIS technology, which offered
new frontiers for analyses, and the maps developed
for the assessment would have wide future applications for managers and planners. The first step
of the GIS team was to work with the technical
teams to complete an information needs assessment. Development of GIS data to support analysis was a major undertaking. Frequently, the analysts asking for the data had little understanding of
the cost and effort required to supply the data, and
deciding data management priorities was difficult.
A GIS team member was also assigned to each
technical team. Their advice and assistance were
essential to provide the maps, data, and analyses
2. The timber economy analysis examined the supply and demand for wood products, the dependency on National Forest timber, timber production's effect on employment and income,
and the National Forest land tentatively suitable
for timber production.
3. The recreation resources and use component
evaluated supplies and demands for recreation
settings, the unique or unsatisfied recreation opportunities on public land, changes in public
land use in the last 10 years, and forecasted
trends; how the changing social patterns affect
public land use; and how recreation opportunities modify the life-style and local culture of the
area.
4. Roadless and designated wilderness areas analysis focused on identifying the location of roadless and primitive areas, the effects of Forest
Service management on the integrity of roadless
areas or the enhancement of natural processes
in wilderness areas, the effect of the proximity
to population centers on wilderness use, and the
relation of wilderness and roadless areas to other
assessment resources.
32.4 Scale, Extent, and Resolution
of the Assessment
No discussion of scale and resolution can begin
without describing the purpose, audience, and constraints imposed on the assessment. The limitations
of time and budgets directly affect the level of detail and amounts of data that can be assimilated.
Two factors influenced the extent of the assessment: no special funding was allocated and the forest plan revisions imposed special requirements.
Five of the seven National Forests in the region
were beginning plan revision. The Regional
Forester, although fully committed and supportive
of the assessment, had promised that the assessment would not significantly delay plan revision
and requested that the assessment be completed by
January 1996. Technical teams had slightly more
than 1 year from initial planning to the completion
of the draft analyses. The team leaders and a handful of others worked on the assessment full time.
The remainder of the 150 people on the project had
competing demands on their time. Funding for the
assessment, both within the Forest Service and in
other agencies, came largely from the administrative units that furnished the people-the forests, research units, and agency staffs.
Because of time and budget limitations, it was
decided that the assessment would be accomplished
477
with the use of existing maps and data. Working
with existing data meant that it was sometimes necessary to use whatever map scales were available,
rather than designing map products to satisfy analysis applications. This did not prove to be a serious
handicap and, overall, the constraints imposed on
the assessment were useful in determining priorities and allocating effort.
Initially, it was assumed that the assessment
would be conducted within the boundaries of the
original SAMAB region, a 100-county area covering parts of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia. As a result of the
town hall meetings, additional counties in Virginia
and West Virginia were added so that the George
Washington National Forest would be included. In
Alabama, one county was added to include the Little River Gorge Preserve. The final 135-county
study area encompassed 37.4 million acres and
parts of seven states.
Counties do not always follow ecological boundaries, but county boundaries became the primary
geographic reporting unit for several reasons. The
demographic data were only available by county or
census tract. Also, people living in the Southern
Appalachian region have a very strong sense of
place associated with county of residence. County
and community planners were identified as potential users for the assessment data and would be interested in county data.
A number of additional boundary overlays were
needed within the assessment area. Watershed and
hydrological unit boundaries were needed for the
aquatic assessment. Federal and state ownership
boundaries were needed for the terrestrial assessment, and highway and road overlays were needed
for several applications. Figure 32.3 illustrates
some of the many boundary overlays that were included.
It was generally agreed that maps and locational
data would be an important ingredient in the assessment. Current GIS technology, which offered
new frontiers for analyses, and the maps developed
for the assessment would have wide future applications for managers and planners. The first step
of the GIS team was to work with the technical
teams to complete an information needs assessment. Development of GIS data to support analysis was a major undertaking. Frequently, the analysts asking for the data had little understanding of
the cost and effort required to supply the data, and
deciding data management priorities was difficult.
A GIS team member was also assigned to each
technical team. Their advice and assistance were
essential to provide the maps, data, and analyses