32.8 Innovations Resulting from the Assessment
prior experience with regional assessments. Those
that did, helped and encouraged the rest. Flexibility must be maintained throughout the process, because many of the problems cannot be foreseen.
For example, data sources may not materialize, and
analytical models sometimes do not work satisfactorily. Usually, these problems can be solved or bypassed as alternatives are considered.
The assessment teams consisted of interagency
and, to a large extent, interdisciplinary specialists.
The effectiveness of these groups depended on a
team dynamic that encouraged participation and
consensus. The Policy Team allowed the technical
teams broad latitude in the hope of encouraging innovation and fostering better teamwork. The work
was accomplished in a very dispersed organizational environment. That is, everyone who worked
on the assessment remained at his or her established
work location except for periodic working sessions.
This arrangement required considerable emphasis
on communication, but it also allowed people to
maintain job and family obligations.
Regular briefings for agency leaders and the public were also a key part of the process. The briefings reassured line officers that the work was moving ahead as planned and gave everyone an
opportunity to offer advice and suggestions.
Public involvement is more than just public relations. We were committed to include the public
as much as possible in all phases of the assessment
effort. A good-faith response to public involvement
and customer comment meant that the project's objectives must be sufficiently flexible to allow refocus or redirection to accommodate public input.
The guiding questions for the assessment were
modified and embellished as a result of public involvement, agency comment, and input from the
technical teams. The only factor limiting public
participation was restrictions imposed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Even these limitations on the conduct of public meetings were
largely overcome, and there was considerable benefit from the fact that any perception of restricting
public access to the process was avoided. The result was an environment that facilitated open dialogue and participation between the public and the
assessment teams.
The form of public participation ranged widely.
On some occasions, people were only interested in
satisfying their curiosity or seeing that their personal interests were not being threatened. But, more
often, people were interested in the larger issues involving the welfare of the region and its resources.
Meetings were held at locations throughout the region so that people could attend without undue
487
hardship. Public participation ultimately provided
many hours of very productive work in support of
the assessment.
The benefits of public involvement are hard to
evaluate, but were substantial. On two occasions,
the assessment leaders were asked to testify before
congressional subcommittee hearings regarding regional assessments. These committees were generally critical of regional assessments and the implications they might have for private landowners and
public land management. At both hearings, members of the public testified in favor of the Southern
Appalachian Assessment and the benefits it would
provide in support of better resource management.
This testimony did much to defuse hostility toward
the assessment.
Data resources can be both an asset and a burden. The huge amount of data available for and requested by the assessment analytical team was an
organizational challenge for the Data Management-GIS Team. A detailed listing of all maps and
most data sets is available on the Internet through
the SAMAB on the Forest Service home page.
The technical analysis produced many innovations. Most involved imaginative uses of GIS technology, such as the bear habitat suitability map or
the map of recreation settings. Others involved constructing models that allowed extrapolation of the
often limited data sources. The Atmospheric Team,
for example, modeled the distribution of mean, wet
sulfate loadings. In this analysis, weighted leastsquares regression techniques were used to take
into account the influence of regional topography
on deposition.
The assessment contains numerous examples of
integrated analysis, that is, joint analyses between
resource elements. The analysis of atmospheric deposition effects on aquatic resources conducted in
response to a specific question is an illustration.
Because of the way that the teams were organized
(separate teams for the major resources), other opportunities were sometimes overlooked. In an effort to facilitate more integrated analysis, the Policy Team organized a special workshop to explore
the possibilities. Conducting integrated analyses involving the separate teams proved to be more difficult than anticipated. By the time this difficulty
was recognized, the teams were well advanced in
their separate efforts. This limited the time available to pursue integrated analysis opportunities, but
it also meant that each team had well-developed
databases and analyses that they could share with
the other teams. The workshop facilitated several
discussions of interacting resource influences that
are included in the reports. In all, we believe that
prior experience with regional assessments. Those
that did, helped and encouraged the rest. Flexibility must be maintained throughout the process, because many of the problems cannot be foreseen.
For example, data sources may not materialize, and
analytical models sometimes do not work satisfactorily. Usually, these problems can be solved or bypassed as alternatives are considered.
The assessment teams consisted of interagency
and, to a large extent, interdisciplinary specialists.
The effectiveness of these groups depended on a
team dynamic that encouraged participation and
consensus. The Policy Team allowed the technical
teams broad latitude in the hope of encouraging innovation and fostering better teamwork. The work
was accomplished in a very dispersed organizational environment. That is, everyone who worked
on the assessment remained at his or her established
work location except for periodic working sessions.
This arrangement required considerable emphasis
on communication, but it also allowed people to
maintain job and family obligations.
Regular briefings for agency leaders and the public were also a key part of the process. The briefings reassured line officers that the work was moving ahead as planned and gave everyone an
opportunity to offer advice and suggestions.
Public involvement is more than just public relations. We were committed to include the public
as much as possible in all phases of the assessment
effort. A good-faith response to public involvement
and customer comment meant that the project's objectives must be sufficiently flexible to allow refocus or redirection to accommodate public input.
The guiding questions for the assessment were
modified and embellished as a result of public involvement, agency comment, and input from the
technical teams. The only factor limiting public
participation was restrictions imposed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Even these limitations on the conduct of public meetings were
largely overcome, and there was considerable benefit from the fact that any perception of restricting
public access to the process was avoided. The result was an environment that facilitated open dialogue and participation between the public and the
assessment teams.
The form of public participation ranged widely.
On some occasions, people were only interested in
satisfying their curiosity or seeing that their personal interests were not being threatened. But, more
often, people were interested in the larger issues involving the welfare of the region and its resources.
Meetings were held at locations throughout the region so that people could attend without undue
487
hardship. Public participation ultimately provided
many hours of very productive work in support of
the assessment.
The benefits of public involvement are hard to
evaluate, but were substantial. On two occasions,
the assessment leaders were asked to testify before
congressional subcommittee hearings regarding regional assessments. These committees were generally critical of regional assessments and the implications they might have for private landowners and
public land management. At both hearings, members of the public testified in favor of the Southern
Appalachian Assessment and the benefits it would
provide in support of better resource management.
This testimony did much to defuse hostility toward
the assessment.
Data resources can be both an asset and a burden. The huge amount of data available for and requested by the assessment analytical team was an
organizational challenge for the Data Management-GIS Team. A detailed listing of all maps and
most data sets is available on the Internet through
the SAMAB on the Forest Service home page.
The technical analysis produced many innovations. Most involved imaginative uses of GIS technology, such as the bear habitat suitability map or
the map of recreation settings. Others involved constructing models that allowed extrapolation of the
often limited data sources. The Atmospheric Team,
for example, modeled the distribution of mean, wet
sulfate loadings. In this analysis, weighted leastsquares regression techniques were used to take
into account the influence of regional topography
on deposition.
The assessment contains numerous examples of
integrated analysis, that is, joint analyses between
resource elements. The analysis of atmospheric deposition effects on aquatic resources conducted in
response to a specific question is an illustration.
Because of the way that the teams were organized
(separate teams for the major resources), other opportunities were sometimes overlooked. In an effort to facilitate more integrated analysis, the Policy Team organized a special workshop to explore
the possibilities. Conducting integrated analyses involving the separate teams proved to be more difficult than anticipated. By the time this difficulty
was recognized, the teams were well advanced in
their separate efforts. This limited the time available to pursue integrated analysis opportunities, but
it also meant that each team had well-developed
databases and analyses that they could share with
the other teams. The workshop facilitated several
discussions of interacting resource influences that
are included in the reports. In all, we believe that