
NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN SCIENCE SYNTHESIS
2018 Science Forum | June 26, 2018
February 15, 2017
OVERVIEW
The draft Northwest Forest Plan science synthesis was made available online last fall. Because the science synthesis is a highly influential science assessment, it is receiving an independent peer review under guidelines from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (http://www.fs.fed.us/qoi/peerreview.shtml). Peer review of the synthesis report is being managed independently of the U.S. Forest Service by the Ecological Society of America (ESA).
The Forest Service provided two options for the public to provide input on the science content of the synthesis to the group of independent peer reviewers: 1) Provide written input (upload letters or type input directly) on the draft science synthesis through January 20, 2017; or 2) Provide oral input at a public forum and webinar held on December 6, 2016 in Portland OR (or via broadcast webinar). According to the OMB guidelines peer reviewers may consider this public input as they prepare their reviews. The authors of the synthesis and the Forest Service managers will not be responding to the public input.
A third party contractor, MacKenzie Marketing Group, hosted the public forum and webinar to allow for oral and written input on the science content of the synthesis. The input has been compiled and will be provided to the peer reviewers for their consideration as they prepare their written review comments for the authors of the synthesis. The peer reviewers will direct their comments only to the authors according to standard peer review procedures and are not required to respond directly to the public comments. The peer review process is expected to conclude in March 2017 when the peer review comments are submitted by ESA to the authors of the synthesis, who will use them in revising their chapters.
MacKenzie Marketing Group provided instructions on their public input webpage on how to submit public input and instructed submitters to clarify what chapters their comments pertained to so they could be compiled by chapter. The following outlines the process MacKenzie Marketing Group used to compile the Public Input on the Draft Northwest Forest Plan Science Synthesis:
-
Public input was compiled verbatim and was not edited by the contractor. This means that all comments were included with no attempt to remove comments that may not relate to the scientific or technical aspects of the synthesis. Chapter 0 includes General/Unclassified Public Input. Peer reviewers are asked to consider the comments in this section in its entirety since they may contain comments relevant to the chapter they were assigned to review.
-
If public input specifically listed a chapter that was the focus of their input, that information will be found as an excerpt within each chapter section; submitter information precedes each comment. If they did not reference a chapter for their input it will appear in Chapter 0 General/Unclassified Public Input.
-
All uploaded and USPS mailed letters are being provided in their entirety as a link on the webpage immediately following the Public Input Chapters. The full letters are available at http://www.mmg-insights.com/nwfpsspublicinput.
-
Every effort has been made to assign input where specified by submitter. If input relates to more than one chapter, it may be found in multiple locations. Some public input was also submitted to multiple chapters.
-
Footnotes, if provided, can be found as endnotes after each input submission.
-
A resource library of all additional submitted materials (mostly reference materials) can be found on the attached table of contents and at http://www.mmg-insights.com/nwfpsspublicinput sorted by submitter name.
-
All website links, references and/or citations are included as provided. No guarantee is made to the validity of the links or references.
-
Software tools such as scanning, OCR (optical character reading), and word processing software have been used to convert and compile input from all sources including .pdfs, USPS mail, etc. Every effort was made to deliver input with original formatting integrity wherever possible.
-
Organizational affiliations to submitters are provided if that information was included. Affiliation was not a requirement of registration or uploading of input and may not be present for all submissions.
-
If redundancy is seen, it is a result of multiple uploads or inputs by different organizations or individuals. All redundancy is included to reflect the direct input of the individual or organization and provide a complete record of all submissions
If peer reviewers have any questions about the process used to compile this document, please contact Lisa MacKenzie at lisam@mackenzie-marketing.com.
Questions about the Forest Service draft science synthesis can be directed to Becky Gravenmier by email at bgravenmier@fs.fed.us.
PUBLIC INPUT (click to view)
Chapter 0: General/Unclassified Comments
Chapter 4: Northern Spotted Owl
Chapter 6: Other Species and Biodiversity of Older Forests
ORIGINAL LETTER SUBMISSIONS
Organization Name
American Bird Conservancy
American Forest Resource Council
Associated Oregon Loggers
Association of O&C Counties
B&G Logging & Construction
Benton Forest
California Farm Bureau
California Forests
Cascadia Wildlands
Coast Range Association
County of Del Norte
County of Siskiyou
Curry Citizens For Public Land Access
Decker Tree Fram
Douglas County
EPA, Region 10
ESA
Forest Service Employees for Environmental
Ethics
Geos Institute
Geos Institute
Geos Institute
Geos Institute
Geos Institute
Geos Institute
Geos Institute
Klamath Bird Observatory
KS Wild
Mendocino County Farm Bureau
Natural Resource Economics
Natural Solutions
NOAA
Northwest Forest Workers Center
Pacific Crest Trail Association
Rocky Mountain Elk
South Fork Trinity Up-River Friends
The Tualip Tribes
The Wilderness Society
Tillamook County
Unaffiliated
Unaffiliated
Unaffiliated
Unafilliated
Wild Earth Guardians
REFERENCE LIBRARY
Organization
City of Susanville
County of Siskiyou
Geos Institute
Geos Institute
Geos Institute
Geos Institute
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
KS Wild
South Fork Trinty Up-River Friends
Unaffiliated
Wild Earth Guardians
Wild Earth Guardians
Wild Earth Guardians
Wild Earth Guardians
Wild Earth Guardians
Wild Earth Guardians
Chapter 9: Understanding Our Changing Public Values, Resource Uses and Engagement Practices
Chapter 11: Tribal Ecocultural Resources and Engagement
Chapter 12: Science that Underlies the Northwest Forest Plan
File (click to view)
American Forest Resource Council.docx
Mendocino County Farm Bureau.pdf
Natural Resource Economics.pdf
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.pdf
File (click to view)
Al-Chokhachy_et_al-2016-Restoration_Ecology.pdf
Anlauf et al. 2009 coho sediment coastESU2009.pdf
Bryce Lomnicky Kauffman 2010 EPA biologically based streamb.pdf
Churchill 2016ICO-Manager-Guide-version-3.pdf
Coleman et al. pyrolysis for biochar-1.pdf
Colombaroli and Gavin 2010.pdf
Croke & Hairsine 2006 Surface erosion sediment delivery wat.pdf
Ebersole et al 1997 Restoration as Re-Expression of Capacit.pdf
Firman Burnett COHO roads 2011 TAFS-1.pdf
Folz et al. 2009 Runoff Sediment delivery increases reopeni.pdf
franklin et al 2007 natural disturbance gtr_nrs19.pdf
Frissell et al. 2014 ACS-Finalreport-35pp-0804.pdf
Frissell and Nawa 1992 Incidence and causes of failure of ar.pdf
frissell et al 1997 changing the measure of salmon manageme.pdf
Harvey Lisle 1999 scour of redds.pdf
Hicman and Shively 2003streamline_vol7_no3_art2.pdf
Katz, Moyle, quinonesSalmon Extinction in Calif.pdf
Korb et al.burn_pile_rehab.pdf
Litschert & MacDOnald 2009 sediment pathways to streams for.pdf
luce& black_1999 Sediment production forest roads OR coast .pdf
Newcombe Jensen 1996_Suspebnded sediment_Impacts Synthesis.pdf
NMFS 2014 cohosalmon_soncc.pdf
NMFS 2015 proposed_recovery_plan_for_coho_salmon.pdf
Pollock 2003 Beaverdameffectspaperfinal.pdf
quinones et al hatchery practices.pdf
Rashin_2006_sedmt_tim#57225 copy.pdf
Reeves et al 2016 intitial eval. options manage ripar resvs .pdf
Sada et al 2001 BLM TR_1737-17-springs.pdf
USDA Forest Service 2007 FINAL_Ground Water Technical Guide_.pdf
USDA Forest Service 2012 GDE_Level_I_FG_final_March2012_rev1.pdf
USDA_USDA1994 NW Forest Plan ROD.pdf
USDA_USDI 2006_SerpentineFen-CA_6-2006.pdf
USDI BLM 2012 RMP Evaluation Report.pdf
USDI BLM RMP planning criteria.pdf
Wagenbrenner MacDOnald et al 2015 Post-fire salvage skid tr.pdf
SFT Chrysolepis Chrysophylla.pdf
Wild Earth Guardians Attachment A.pdf
Wild Earth Guardians Attachment B.pdf
Wild Earth Guardians Attachment C.pdf
Wild Earth Guardians Attachment D.pdf