WORKING SAF GROUP 2006 ANNUAL REPORT
WORKING GROUP: E2 CHAIR: Eric Cox CHAIR-ELECT: Michael Wing OTHER OFFICERS: Pete Bettinger 2007 OFFICERS CHAIR: Michael Wing CHAIR-ELECT: Marcus Schuchs OTHER OFFICERS: Gerold Grosenick
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ACTIVITIES FOR 2006
Use only those Strategic Outcomes that apply.
Strategic Outcome #1: A Strong, Forward-Thinking Organization
SAF is recognized by all technical and research foresters as their primary professional Society that meets their needs for service, networking, and professional growth.
[intentionally left blank] Strategic Outcome #2: Enhanced Service to Landowners and Employers
SAF is an organization that promotes sound scientific and experiential knowledge to meet landowner and employer objectives.
The group maintains a web site that is devoted to disseminating information to landowners regarding upcoming events (conferences) on land use planning organization and management. As far as the WG is concerned, we will provide information regarding any conference that concerns land use planning organization and management. The link is: http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/warnell/bettinger/saf/e2.htm
Strategic Outcome #3: Enhanced Service to Society at Large
SAF will be broadly recognized as the primary organization that fosters sound scientific and experiential forestry knowledge to balance societys current and emerging needs and values ranging from commodities to wilderness and protection of the environment.
Eric Cox (Working Group Chair) developed an article, published in the first quarter of the year, for the Society's newsletter, the Forestry Source. The article was titled "Here's how to...Evaluate strategic vs. tactical forest planning." The following paragraph summarized Eric's thoughts: "Spatial regulations can negatively impact the ability to implement planned activities across the forest. First, a long-term strategic planning model is created to ensure that forest-level decisions are in alignment with strategic management objectives. Subsequently, a more detailed tactical plan is developed that deals explicitly with short-term operational and spatial issues. The linkage between these two plans can be tightened through iterative improvements to the models that incorporate additional spatial detail into strategic models to avoid immediate conflicts and subsequent resolving of the tactical model. Modern planning packages greatly facilitate this process, so that in the end, tactical and operational plans still meet the overall forest-wide objectives and come as close as possible to the optimum desired outcome."
Strategic Outcome #4: Effective Engagement in Forest Policy
SAF will be recognized by decision-makers and in policy development as the leader in providing credible and reliable forestry information.
The E2 Working Group was asked to lead an external, independent review process of the vegetation management treatment scheduling for process the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Pete Bettinger, Secretary of the E2 Working Group, managed the blind review and submitted a report to the Forest Service in September. The review was designed to:
Focus primarily on the strengths and weaknesses of the methodology, as well as uncertainties and limitations of information. Take into account variables such as time, staffing, and budget of the U.S. Forest Service. Determine whether the best available science is used in the forest plan revisions. Determine whether the substantial uncertainties and risks are acknowledged. Determine whether science was appropriately interpreted and applied.
Strategic Outcome #5: Enhanced Professional Education, Performance, and Leadership Capability
SAF is recognized for having high professional forestry standards in service to society.
This Working Group Sponsored a Technical Session at the 2006 National Convention, which featured presentations covering the cutting-edge technology relevant to practical applications of land management. In keeping with the theme, "Our Woods: Wild and Working," the program featured success stories, case studies, and adaptive management examples from professionals around the country. The presentations and their presenters were: Technology advancement in land management planning: a dual-edged sword Pete Bettinger, University of Georgia Influence of information technology on land management planning - the Maine perspective Jeremy Wilson, University of Maine Influence of information technology on land management planning - the Virginia perspective Richard Oderwald, Virginia Tech The annual Working Group meeting was scheduled for 5 PM on October 26, at the convention center in Pittsburgh, PA. Pete Betting...