FIA PM Video Conference Call

							                                   FIA PM Conference Calls
                                       May 20-29, 2008

Action Items:
 What                                                                               Who          When
 Timberland: Work with RMRS staff (DAB/IM) to identify NIMS issues                  Michael
 related to site tree and timberland/woodland classification (stand size?) and
 day-light/clarify
 Timberland: Respond to Greg Kujawa on plans for timberland/woodland                Chip
 issue
 IM Core Team: Direct IM Team to update their Charter and address specific          Michael
 roles/responsibilities/functions/ decision-making/accountability (within group
 and to PMs). The IM Core Team may need to review IM sub-team charters as
 well.
 IM Core Team: IM Core charged with assigning a Forest Service D-Team               Michael
 lead and having the team revisit their Charter.
 IM Core Team: Evaluate a process for setting priorities and assignments, and       Michael
 recommend what level may need to have PM concurrence(alignment)
 Communication Plan: Livia will review Communication Plan and other                 Livia/Bill
 supporting documents; will work with Bill (& others). She will also help
 work on some of our guiding principles, common issues, and core priorities
 we all use to make decisions both internally & externally (part of the vision).
 Look at current briefing papers and identify gaps; look at current tools
 Indicator Advisors: Draft Indicator Advisor roles into the future, re-evaluate     Greg/PMs
 the budget needs based on the anticipated roles
 DAB Meeting: Talk with DAB about agenda, location, travel restriction              Sue
 issues for their meeting in September in Savannah, GA
 CORE Bands: Consider having some PM time with the Band Leads to                    Greg/PMs     6/08
 discuss how the restructure is working. Do we need to have a joint Core
 Team meeting? Meet at June Mgmt meeting.
 P3 Data: Ask Chuck to tell PMs what would it take to get MESS P3 (where            Michael
 current codes/protocol were used) into NIMS
 Biomass/Carbon: What will each unit do? Would like to have procedure in            Dennis
 place and have FIADB updated for Aug. ‘09 carbon numbers to EPA. Charter
 new team
 Plot Mapping: Task team should be formed to develop a metric for                   Sue
 measuring the type of non-repeatability discussed in Appendix 1 and to
 monitor progress toward increasing the repeatability. Ask Phyllis to add this
 to her list.
 Updating Old Data: Ask the AB to evaluate the scope and level of                   Bill
 significance and ask the IMB to evaluate the implications.
 Implementation Plan: PMs review the draft Implementation Plan in advance           ALL          6/08
 to see if it helps the Bands and staff understand Program vision and priorities,
 and/or if there are other changes needed. Then discuss at the June FIA
 Management Team perhaps in place of regional updates. PMs will work on
 plan for 2009. It needs to provide adequate guidance to Bands on setting
 priorities.
 Lidar: Forward PNW documentation on LIDAR requirements                             Sue
Decisions:
 PMs agree that Champions should avoid conflict of interest during the Band review and
   decision on their proposal. Band should determine how to implement.
 Continue mapping on the subplot. For every attribute that can occur anywhere on the
   subplot, when there is a mapped boundary on the subplot, there has to be instructions on how
   the attribute is assigned a condition class. Add to the change proposal form “Are the
   attributes in this change proposal affected by mapped boundaries on the subplot? If so, then
   how are mapped boundaries on the subplot dealt with

*************************************************************************

May 20, 2008
Chip, Michael, Sue, Bill, Dennis

Forest/Timber
 Forest Land definition work (aka Mother) – target is end of June for Regional analyses;
   specifically, what is the impact of going from 5% cover and/or 10% cover to a strictly 10%
   cover minimum for forest land (assuming non-stocked forest is still forest even with no
   cover, etc.). Units need to get information to John Shaw.
   o PNW - Potential change of 12 million acres in 3 States; still working on AK estimates
   o SRS - Texas: 17-36% reduction in stocked area, and almost 13 million in non-stocked.
       Non-issue for other southern States, though S. Florida/OK may show some impact, OK
       probably proportional to Texas.
   o NRS has declared there is no impact for NRS.

   Definition of Timberland - consistency
    o Change in site tree criteria caused land area to go from woodland to timberland
    o Some Units are putting woodland types into “non-timberland” regardless of site
    o Other Units using site trees to designate timber/woodland.
    o NRS does see changes in site/productivity just do to crew selection of tree (spp.) over
        time. NRS freezes site class at past inventory’s measurement.
    o NIMS algorithm uses site tree species/growth to classify woodland/timberland though
        some Units hard code.
    ACTION: Michael will work with his staff (DAB/IM) to identify NIMS issues related to site
    tree and timberland/woodland (stand size?) and day- light/clarify.

   Definition of Timberland – email from Greg Kujawa
    o Question was focused on withdrawn vs. not withdrawn designations related to reserved
       status.
    o PMs need to inform Greg Kujawa this topic was about classification. Just looking at how
       it is calculated in processing system vs. Andy Gray’s team regarding administratively
       withdrawn.
        Forest
        Forest-reserved
        Forest-reserved-woodland
        Forest-reserved-woodland-administratively withdrawn from harvest
    o We have seen no change proposals re: reserved.
    ACTION: Chip will respond to Greg Kujawa.
IM Core team (alias Go5/Fab5)
 Roles/responsibilities/Decision-space (Chuck, Group Leads/sub-teams/UNLV)
   o There are concerns over who provides what level of direction for IM resources and how
       do individuals respond to direction/suggestions (Greg needs to be engaged with solution)
   o Need to designate technical member D-Team Lead.
   o What guiding principle/issues are needed? PMs can provide clarification where needed.
   ACTION: Direct IM Team to update their Charter and address specific
   roles/responsibilities/functions/ decision-making/accountability (within group and to PMs).
   The IM Core Team may need to review IM sub-team charters as well.
   ACTION: IM Core charged with assigning a Forest Service D-Team lead and having the
   team revisit their Charter.

   Unclear/dynamic plan/schedule issues, making changes to assignments/priorities; Over-
    arching framework on what needs to be done.
    Some level of priority setting needs to be reviewed by PMs;
    ACTION: Include in IM Charter update.

   Slow progress to a national system
    o What IS a national system (what regional IM issues/needs will exist forever such as
       regional compilations/analysis, etc) and what must be moved into a corporate system?
    o Not always clear PM alignment/commitment; each Unit’s “HAVE TO HAVE” impacting
       ability to make progress. Plus last minute changes…
    o PMs need to provide Guiding Principles
    o How do we get NIMAC, NWOS, and TPO into main flow of system?
    o D-Team needs FS lead.

Communication Plan
 Livia Marques has been detailed to SRS until Dec. 2008; has background in horticulture,
  science application/tech transfer. Worked with NRCS for 14 years.
 FIA needs to put some emphasis on our shared common vision; PMs need to get vision
  (principles) solidified in our own minds.
 Need to update congressional papers re: climate change, carbon, range, urban…Should be
  ready this fall to inform FSRET for their plans and the first of next CY for congressional
  visits.
 Identify priority topics and get them on our PM Agenda.
 Needs to be updated for 2008-2009.

ACTION: Livia will review Communication Plan and other supporting documents; will work
with Bill (& others). She will also help work on some of our guiding principles, common issues,
and core priorities we all use to make decisions both internally & externally (part of the vision).
Look at current briefing papers and identify gaps; look at current tools. Livia should have
something to share with Core Team at or before MT Meeting.
May 21, 2008
Chip, Michael, Sue, Bill, Dennis

Satellite Phones/SPOT –
NRS Sat. phones have been inadequate. PNW and IW are using a new satellite company
(Iridium) that is working well; the phones cost is $1,400/phone, plus monthly charges. NRS just
purchased SPOTs “under the wire” for Technical Approval and between these and cell phones
they should have good coverage. NRS ordered SPOTs but not enough for everyone. SPOTs
costs about $100 to purchase and $100/year. PNW also received some SPOTs, but IW’s order is
hung-up in the Technical Approval process.

Budget PART 1
 What will it take to get in each remaining State? What is left by Unit?
 We currently have $64.6M. The Foundation document shows that we need $8M. Current
  target is $73.4M. This is a ‘03-‘04 target and will be short of the ACTUAL costs to be fully
  implemented.
 The foundation document shows $3M for Urban, which should be sufficient.
 The foundation document shows Range at $25 million, short the likely funds required
  actually do the full grid on all nonforest. IW estimates national cost for rangeland ~$35
  million without AK.

Indicator Advisors Role and Funding PART 1
 What do we want indicator advisors to do once protocol/analyses are complete? We need to
   define scope of their job through time. Originally envisioned field protocol, QA,
   compilation, through some analyses and reporting. Once GTR completed, we need to transfer
   knowledge to Units (train analysts, support and review of first reports with indicator). Goal
   is to get the indicators into State 5-year reports.
 For more mature indicators, we could reduce the level national support. Soils, DWM, and
   Crowns seem to be stable. The Soils IA may also have a lab and QA role.
 Beyond: Are there national reports Brad could use their input/support? Should be keeping
   procedures and analysis current and relevant, review for Regional analyses (10-15%
   maintenance mode); reviewing/QA for contract soils analyses; lead on national reporting;
   respond to requests? They would not necessarily serve as an analyst for State reports.
   However, they could have a significant role in national reports. Need to discuss this with
   Brad and Greg. Bechtold’s RTP group may be able to serve this role.
 Budgeting for indicators – we have not reviewed the necessary funding in a number of years,
   and should be reviewed especially considering that the funds have been rolled into the
   respective Unit’s “base”.
        See ACTION below under Indicator Advisors Role and Funding PART 2

Quality Assurance (with Phyllis)
 Status of Program of work – Phyllis reviewed what she has been working on, including the
  Documentation Plan, websites and Unit trips.
  o P2 DWM task team has developed a table of questions for DWM data. Team has sent list
       to AB to prioritize categories by client (e.g., biomass for national, fuels for NFS, fire
       models). At this point, all these will be core optional, and the level/scope of analyses
       needed may dictate whether to use P3 or P2. PMs will need to look at proposals/elements
      and see if some Region edge-matching is necessary and whether some of the DWM
      elements may need to become national core.
    o Analytical QA Task team – looking at categories checked by each Region’s analysts
      (e.g., area checks). Phyllis sent out request to the analysts for a checklist of error checks
      that they perform. They are also looking at QA tools and will have a demo on the call
      tomorrow. The current version is pretty complex, but it should be flexible enough to
      handle more checks. The tools will not perform all the checks, but the checklist will help
      with this. A spatial component is being contracted, and there should be the ability to
      display multiple states. The focus need to be on both on the running average and
      evaluating individual panels.
    o QA Score Team – this is more than just agreeing on weights for scoring. Are units doing
      cold checks similarly? Are there other ways to look at cold-check data? Phyllis is
      revising charter for DAB review. Running into field season participation constraints…
    o MQO analysis – not much to report. She has been going through the PNW data with Olaf
      Kuegler.
    o QA Documentation Plan for FIA systems – a team has developed an IM Documentation
      Work Plan. They are first building a status library, over-arching framework. Currently
      using a PNW link with a documentation status table (internal). This will include, for
      example, flowchart, MIDAS, NIMS navigation, NIMS tables, population tables, FIADB.
       Topic/subject
       Types of documents (format)
       Category (what part of flow diagram processes)
       Target audience, clients served (internal, dynamic)
       Author/source
       Links to existing documentation (need to centralize; Helen taking care of NIMS
          pieces)
       Time-line/Assignments for additional work.
       The Keywords, Abstract and Links are not needed during the planning process, but
          will be helpful in the searchable webpage at the end
   QA Website
    o Currently maintaining sites for Analytical QA and P2 DWM currently in Analysis Band
      web site (using Eric Wharton’s template for volume/biomass)
    o National QA (external) could be kept on external Band web site: QA overview, flow
      diagrams, definitions, high-level news; could also eventually include post-edit QA data
      sets, equations/methods, error budgets, variance partitioning, etc. First cut would be
      descriptive then provide data and analysis. Include a streamlined version of the
      documentation table (see above). These pages, especially analyses, will need to be
      reviewed
   QA Travel request
    o DAB meeting in Sept; would like to combine with a trip to Knoxville and to meet with
      QA score team or just more QA staff for a more comprehensive meeting (haven’t had a
      QA meeting in 8 years). PMs feel that Savannah, GA seems like an expensive out-of-the-
      way place for a large meeting, and would like to wait until next year. Recommend
      postponing QA score team/other field QA due to travel restrictions, etc. DAB agenda
      may suggest whether or not Phyllis goes to the regular Band meeting.
      ACTION: Sue will talk with DAB about agenda, location, travel restriction issues.
    o FIA Symposium (October). YES, PMs agreed that Phyllis should attend.
   QA on remeasurement (Chip) – issue related to QA blind check remeasurement data that is
    copied from the prior occasion may not make sense where boundaries, azimuths, other
    information provided at time-1 always comes back as the same value. Phyllis is evaluating;
    no clear remeasurement QA protocol.

Core Band Meeting
 Do we need a Fall Core Band meeting; see how it’s going, mid-course adjustments? We had
   agreed to an annual meeting, however, there is concern about the travel costs.
   o How the overall process is going?
   o How well did they do on 2008 work plan?
   o What is their 2009 work plan?
 And we need some discussion on how to integrate band priorities across bands (we didn’t do
   this well for FY08).
 Include new issues we need to incorporate e.g., Range, Urban
 Band Leads or Actings will be in Maine so can raise the process (Band restructuring) issue
   during the FIA Mgt. Team meeting.
   ACTION: Consider having some PM time with the Band Leads to discuss how the
   restructure is working. Do we need to have a joint Core Team meeting?

Indicators/Task Teams
 P3 data availability prior to 2003 – issue: P3 data still in two locations: data re in MESS up
   through 2003, and in FIADB to current; how are units handling this for analysis? Some
   within MESS are still useful (like soils after 2001, or lichens, ozone where protocol are
   generally current). RTP and IA’s are handling it with workarounds – what are they doing?
   ACTION: Michael will ask to Chuck tell PMs what would it take to get MESS P3 (where
   current codes/protocol) into NIMS. Else each Unit/analysts will have to chunk them
   together.
 Damage
   o AB is preparing a final reply to Manfred re: his feedback, likely by June/July. Key
       sticking points include lack of defoliators (more critical in the West) and pathogens
       importance ranking. The defoliator issue is perhaps valuable in the West, since they visit
       a higher proportion of the plots in the summer and the trees don’t refoliate. Bill noted
       that the FHP Aerial Survey can do a better job of this for hardwoods in the South. In the
       East many defoliators hit 10-12 species and some species can re-flush if >50% (maybe
       thinner crowns).
   o Do we have proper question framed? Some are National vs. regional issues? Some issues
       assumed that there are better sources.


May 22, 2008
Chip, Michael, Sue, Bill, Dennis

Potential Conflicts with Change Champions (often an Indicator Advisor)
 We do not have a clear role specified for change proposal champions, particularly as related
   to the Band reviews. Should they serve as the author and in the review? There is concern
   that the IA should not be involved in the review. Champion for a proposal should not serve as
   a Band review lead or the representative of the Band for review of their own proposals
   (unless the Band itself is championing the proposal), and maybe not be included in
   deliberations or vote on a decision, but be available for responding to questions.
   DECISION: PMs agree that Champions should avoid conflict of interest during the Band
   review and decision on their proposal. Band should determine how to implement.

Volume/Biomass and Forest Management Center (FMC)
 What do we do on a national basis, what are the holes we want plugged?
 PMs agree that the volume definition team is doing what they are supposed to do, focusing
   on the short term consistency fixes while considering the long term.
   For Dennis’ bigger issue, we need a national decision on whether we fix current problems
   within FIADB using the quick fix for ALL regions. Assumption is that everyone’s regional
   equations are their best (regionally responsive), then figure out the biomass per ft3 ratios
   from specific gravity equations, and then prorate the component parts from the Jenkins et al.
   national equations (i.e., tops equal a % bole volume, limbs a % of bole volume, etc.). This
   would last until volume team gets to working with FMC to collectively address volume and
   biomass in a consistent set of equations that are sensitive to ecosystems differences. Broken
   top or other individual tree issues could be accommodated at some level (if broken top then
   adjust ratio with no top or such). DECISION needed: What will each unit do? Would
   like to have procedure in place and have FIADB updated for Aug. ‘09 carbon numbers
   to EPA.
 Every future refinement of ft3estimates would impact tons of biomass & component parts.
 There’s still the issue for how far back we take this (e.g., no missing top); but as long as you
   have a ft3 volume for a tree, you can get a biomass estimate for all the parts.
 This approach would make everything additive and consistent between volume and biomass.
   Brad Smith would like to apply this same “fix” to FIADB as well. We would like to
   negotiate an approach with Forest Management Service Center (FVS folks) for a longer term
   solution. The question is do we want to make the fix to FIADB prior to the long-term
   solution? We agree that there is merit in the approach, but need the team to evaluate the
   implications and potential implementation. For example, what happens to the biomass
   estimates when a top gets blown out? Xiaoping Zhou, Ray Sheffield, Mark Hansen and
   Larry DeBlander will continue working on this. Dennis will communicate the above to the
   team. Carbon folks may want us to re-compute biomass back to 1990. Linda Heath needs to
   give EPA biomass estimates by August 2009.

Budget part 2
 NC/NE  NRS – Originally, the combined Unit’s projection added to $19 million, but now
  Brad’s numbers have that down to a combined $17 million program. They are $800k short
  of providing infrastructure need just to get to $17, $2.24 million less than what they were
  aiming for 2005.
 SRS – language says increase in funds/language for MS; OK needs $475k. SRS
  infrastructure needs $750k to stay afloat.
 IW – NM $606k (total for NM $1.3m, assumed they received ~½ in 2008 though no net
  increase to program), $778.5k NV, $958k WY, leaves $2.2m shortfall for infrastructure, field
  (using 2007 Strategic Planning numbers).
 PNW – $2.7m AK, $350k, $800,000 for infrastructure just to stay in the black.

Issue: Absorbing indicator funds into the Unit pool dilutes ability to do the rest of the job…
Needed just for the field work:
     NM        $606K
     OK        $475K
     MS        $0K*
     AK        $2.7M
     NV        $778K
     WY        $958K
     HI        $350K
* But funds did not make it to SRS.

Total $10.4 million, but still well below need. That’s $2.4 million short of the $8 million, and
every year it gets worse. We have to do things differently, or not do things.
ACTION: Add to Greg discussion BIN list.

Condition Mapping Proposal – Michael presented a proposal entitled “Mapping Condition
Boundaries on Subplots”. Majority of PMs want to “not change”; can live with costs and
complications. Note: There still is the remaining question as to whether the variability in
measurement area doesn’t swamp bias. DECISION: The majority of PMs support Option 2:
“Continue mapping on the subplot.” For every attribute that can occur anywhere on the subplot,
when there is a mapped boundary on the subplot, there has to be instructions on how the attribute
is assigned a condition class. Add to the change proposal form “Are the attributes in this change
proposal affected by mapped boundaries on the subplot? If so, then how are mapped boundaries
on the subplot dealt with?” Also we recommend that a task team be formed to develop a metric
for measuring the type of non-repeatability discussed in Appendix 1 and to monitor progress
toward increasing the repeatability.” We need to anticipate the implications for new attributes,
new indicator suites (e.g., Range), and explaining to new users. ACTION: We will ask Phyllis
Adams to add this to her list to lead.

Updating Old Data - What is the process when a new equation or method is used for current
values, or an error in the data is identified (esp. periodic data)? Some Units update once yearly
including changes in the periodic data base. Users complain that the database keeps changing.
We agree that we need a national standard for updating the database. Initial thinking is that we
would make an annual update of any significant changes. The changes would be listed in
metadata. The focus will be on the annual data and the last periodic inventory. ACTION: Ask
the AB to evaluate the scope and level of significance and ask the IMB to evaluate the
implications. DARSy (Data Anomaly Resolution System) developed by PNW could help with
this.


May 27, 2008
Greg, Chip, Michael, Sue, Bill, Dennis

Foundation Document for FSRET
 PMs have received latest foundation document (5/18/08). It includes $8 million for
   remaining Forest (includes $5 million S&PF), $3 million for Urban, and $25 million over 5
   years for Range.
 Implementing the current all-50-States forest plan ($62m current + $5m S&PF + $8m) still
   leaves FIA $2.5 shortfall of the real need. Some new infrastructure will need to be covered
    for other new platforms anyway, e.g., staff time to get what data we collect up to some
    useable state. Could add increment D and E (in platform document) to include development
    of database, etc., to ensure data/database/etc. ready to move attributes (e.g., urban, carbon
    numbers) to a new stage. Any work we’re now doing in climate change, carbon, biomass,
    etc. is consuming current IM and analytical resources.
   PMs believe these foundation/platform cost estimates should reflect our best estimate of what
    it will cost to implement; the source of funds can come from wherever as the “who pays” is a
    different question. FS may need to just commit R&D funds to leverage funds from USGS,
    BLM, NFS, etc.
   FSRET meeting in Boise next week will discuss budget for foundation Programs and growth
    platforms; Greg attending. Rich returns tomorrow.
   PMs may want to discuss these issues with our respective Directors.

Implementation Plan
 Have a current draft implementation plan that is focused on the base program in 50 States.
   Need to revise the plan to incorporate the likely upcoming urban and range work, weave in
   FSRET platforms and foundation (urban/range) issues, including climate change,
   biomass/bioenergy, but we also need to specify how much time and energy we spend on
   new/improved when we’re not in all 50 States.
 Note: it appears that S&PF is currently looking at Urban FIA as separate from the S&PF
   competitive funding process/options; want to just fully fund urban FIA through R&D (3 mil).
 For Urban, still need to get the IM system functioning and fully integrate protocol into the
   FIA manual. We’re not yet operationally-ready in urban FIA, and how does this compare to
   other priorities such as understory vegetation (where we’re not fully operational as we’re not
   yet in all 50 States).
 Need to develop a plan, and we need to identify the start-up period: what are steps/costs to
   get issue (urban, range, whatever) fully integrated? Need to manage expectations…
 What percent of effort needs to be in incorporating Urban IM to make it self-sustaining?
 What would it take: 10-20% of our time to invest in preparing (trade-offs for 5.0, etc.), or
   additional funding to hire additional staff to get the work done? Or do we just continue to
   work on a smaller non-integrated approach to get data out until funds show up.
 It would be useful for IM Band to hear from PMs that they need to move from the “Forest
   land” bias in our current system and focus on all vegetation/lands and let the information fall
   into buckets in the end. Our IM system needs to be comprehensive but parse-able into
   historic buckets.
 Need to keep the vision in front of us: What would it take to make this (data collection,
   IM, etc.) work for other potential landscapes? This is reminiscent of one-track/two-track
   conversation; we can now create an FIADB file for forest land, but not much else. Maybe
   need to put one or a small sub-group at a second track for development opportunities (but
   well enough integrated with current or it may fail like before). Need to keep staff focused on
   both the production AND the emerging.
 An Implementation Plan should provide guiding principles to meet short and long-term
   objectives. Should use this as a tool to help next tier of the organization bridge the gap
   between the big vision and the nuts-and-bolts of what we’re doing today.
   ACTION: PMs will review the draft Implementation Plan in advance to see if it helps the
   Bands and staff understand Program vision and priorities, and/or if there are other changes
   needed. Then discuss at the June FIA Management Team perhaps in place of regional
   updates. PMs will work on plan for 2009. It needs to provide adequate guidance to Bands on
   setting priorities. Next step take to MT (what’s missing).

State Assessments PART 1
 This year kept allocation at 15% for competitive funds; several States initiating assessments:
   o In IW, CO has hired TNC to develop CO State Assessment
   o In the South, Texas is doing a prototype assessment that they will share with other
       Southern States the 2nd week in June, using it as a template. To date, TX is using
       publicly available FIA data and others (Burl). TX has a strong analytical workforce, but
       maybe not other States.
   o In PNW, OR has taken the Spatial Analysis program but have not engaged FIA – has
       shared what they are doing but have not requested FIA data. Unknown whether their
       information will be pulled from a recent OR state indicators/strategies for sustainability
       pub. Sue is sitting in on evaluation panel for S&PF 15%; but since not all assessments
       are completed or available, this is not really an evaluation criterion at this point (maybe in
       the future). No clear standards or expectations for assessments.
 It appears that S&PF is taking a hands-off approach (not prescriptive); there is no template.
 Funds are currently competed within FS mega-regional frameworks (WFLC helping staff out
   for western process); in South they may be using last year’s approach for funding allocation,
   as many States did not put in for anything.
 What if all States in West use different fire potential models? How will S&PF compare
   consistently across to ensure apples and apples? Competition now focused on partners and
   process. It’s all about perceived leverage. And multi-State proposals > single State
   proposals.
 Does FIA HAVE a role? Or SHOULD FIA have a role? Is it worth having a set of regional
   analyses that can we do that would put States in context with its neighbors based on a
   number of drivers?
 What if we are asked to provide coordinates? After they don’t come to us in the beginning…
 What are issues if FIA does 5-year reports, the RPA is out there, and now a State does an
   assessment?

Note: Connie Carpenter did a summary on C&I for northern States. Also southern Forest
resource assessment (here’s everything we know); this Forest futures project w/States &R&D,
given current pressures/issues, here’s where we think things will be in 50 years. NRS is also
initiating a northern forest futures project. Bill will be talking with Burl Wednesday & will get
back to PMs.

LANDFIRE Part 1
Just a heads up to the PMs: the RMRS/Fire lab is disengaging from the remaining LANDFIRE
production work effective Oct 1 (LANDFIRE Program is moving away from R&D and into
operations and maintenance). LANDFIRE leadership will be contracting out the remaining HI
and AK work. Several issues may be coming our way – current LANDFIRE-FIA MOU is within
RMRS, no external partners. Contractors may/may not be federal agencies. FIA’s TERM
appointments to LANDFIRE expire first of next CY, and we may be asked to extend
appointments to at least get LANDFIRE through HI and AK work. FIA may be essential for the
LANDFIRE operations and maintenance plans, but we have not been contacted. Then there’s
the whole issue of fire and fuel work moving from FS to DOI…
May 29, 2008
Greg, Chip, Michael, Sue, Bill, Dennis

Indicator Advisors Role and Funding PART 2 (continued from above PM calls)
 Are the “tasks” the right ones for the Indicator Advisors, what role do they have at the
   national level, and do we have the right level of funding. Currently a manual may be done,
   and GTR may be published, but do we have the coding for NIMS completed?
 Is another role for IA to flesh out next steps for analysis and reporting? Maybe list as an
   expectation that IA will participate in various national reporting avenues.
   ACTION: Greg will prepare a draft of Indicator Advisor roles/responsibilities. We Need to
   ensure each indicator is fully incorporated into the FIA system; support in translation and
   shepherding through IM is part of the IA responsibility. PMs and Greg/Brad need review
   financial aspects of indicator advisors (short and long term)

Lidar Study – Various issues
 Need to get Zhi caught up on AK remote sensing issues; this is broader than Lidar.
 Greg has asked Zhi and Hans Anderson to put together a workshop in the next 3-4 months,
   likely focused on Alaska. Audience is USGS, EROS, others who have or want to
   use/leverage with FS.
 The Techniques Band was also internally coordinating the RS within FIA.
 PNW in process of hiring a Research remote sensing specialist
 There was a recent proposal from USGS for another Lidar study in SRS.
 Ohio has flown northern ½ of State in Lidar and plans to do the other ½. Chip is thinking of
   using this in terms of stratification. There are many other efforts going on around the West,
   but little evidence of coordination. PNW has put together some documentation on
   requirements (Sue will forward to PMs)

LANDFIRE PART 2
 When MOU expires (May 15, 2009), we intend to send a letter to LANDFIRE
  (RMRS/EROS?) asking them for a certification that coordinates have been purged from their
  systems.
 Zhi may need to hook up with Chris Toney on specifics of future needs

State Assessments PART 2
Burl C. is preparing the Texas draft this month to serve as a template for the southern States. He
expects FIA data to play a key role in Southern State Assessments (area, volume, distribution,
etc). How can we integrate the 5-year reports with State assessment reporting needs, and
identify some regional issues we could focus some of our analyses?

Policy for sensitive species
There is no (change in) policy. We affirm our current policy of not providing that information
associated with an actual plot coordinate to any source; we would only use the publicly available
information.

Upcoming MT meeting
National FIA update. Greg will touch on growth platforms but provide a broader summary and
our planned direction Thursday.
Communication Plan – share with MT what is happening.
Band Lead substitution: Ali or Tom for Sharon, Dave A. for Ray.
Need to carve out more time than a meal for PMs/Greg to meet with Core Leads

Next Calls/Meetings
June MT meeting – Breakfast on 6/24 just PMs & Greg; breakfast 6/25 w/Band Leads
PM Core Tuesday July 22, 12-2 ET
PM-only Wednesday August 20, 12-2 ET
PM Core Wednesday Sept 24 12-2 ET
Proposal: Aug 26 MT Conference Call