Confidentiality Agreement Between the Ngo and an Intern for Paper Writing by szb99951

VIEWS: 254 PAGES: 15

More Info
									                       National FIA Management Team Meeting
                                   June 22-24, 2010
                       Y.O. Ranch Hotel and Conference Center
                                     Kerrville, TX

Link to handouts and other documentation - ftp://ftp2.fs.fed.us/incoming/nrs/fia/Chip/Kerrville/

Attendees:
       FIA Management Team: Gary Lettman, Rick Ullrich, David Meriwether, Brad Smith,
       Rich Guldin, Borys Tkacz, Greg Kujawa, Michael Wilson, Dennis May, Charley
       Peterson, Chip Scott, Greg Reams, Bill Burkman, Dave Struble, Burl Carraway,
       Band Leaders: John Shaw, Ali Conner, Bob Rhoads, Ty Wilson,
       Canada: Mark Gillis, Jeff Dechka
       Others: Tom Boggus, Chris Brown (Texas Forest Service); Ken Brewer; Chris Woodall,
       Linda Heath (NRS-FIA); Gretchen Nicholas (PNW-FIA Deputy Program Manager)

Welcome – Tom Boggus – Texas State Forester
       FIA is very important to the Texas Forest Service. They want fast turnaround on all
information (data, reports, etc). Want to make sure that FIA gets credit for the data. Want to
make sure that the Forest Service asks for the FIA funding needed. Tom works closely with the
NRCS in Texas (indirectly with Natural Resources Inventory (NRI)) and how they classify the
lands we will be seeing on Thursday’s field trip. He mentioned the announcement of 48M ac of
“new” forestland.

Recommendations and Actions in response to Inventory and Monitoring SPA Review – Greg
Reams
        The Inventory and Monitoring Strategic Program Areas (SPA) review took place this
time last year in Washington State. John Moser and Mike Clutter were co-chairs. The panel
rated FIA 4.5-4.9 out of 5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest) on the various aspects of
the program. Relevance was the highest and Quality was the lowest score. They recommended
that FIA eliminate unimportant research areas, increase use of partnerships with universities, and
enhance remote sensing and geospatial work. They also recommend that we partner with other
aspects of research within the Inventory and Monitoring SPA to make them more national in
scope.
Recommendations:
     Full implementation in all states.
     Further clarify the identity of the non-FIA portion of the I&M mission
     Do not change the basic sampling design or plot grid
     Continue emphasis on State reporting across all Units

                                                1
     Increase emphasis on biomass and carbon and the technologies to support it
     Emphasize the increased use of spatial data analyses and visualization
     Continue to increase transparency of data collection and compilation procedures
     Carefully assess opportunities to expand the scope across ecotypes to ensure that
      adequate resources are provided as the mission increases
    Continue to emphasize the increased use of spatial data analyses and visualization in
      inventory and monitoring
    Improve the efficiency of the hiring process for Inventory and Monitoring
    Ensure strong linkages between the strategic planning process and individual project
      selection and implementation in Inventory and Monitoring
The FIA Program is currently working on all of these aspects.

Gazing into the Future – Rich Guldin
Five key action items:
    1. Characterizing land cover, land use and their change
    2. Support landscape-scale conservation activities
    3. Complete baseline carbon estimates
    4. Develop next generation of biomass and carbon procedures
    5. Selecting a vital few maps and statistics to report annually
What might the future bring (range, urban, ??). Historic FIA strengths are reporting area and
volume. Understanding and mapping change in land covers and land uses is the most intense
need we face. Need to be able to attribute the changes to human or natural causes. Need to be
the Land Cover and Land Use Change experts for USDA, so need to partner with National
Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS). Need to build on partner ships with RSAC (Remote
Sensing Applications Center) and FHTET (Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team). Need to
improve our inter-departmental relationships with USGS (NLCD, Landfire, and EISA carbon
assessment) and with NASA.
        Secretary Vilsack’s landscape scale vision involves forest restoration, emerging markets
for carbon and bioenergy, forest stewardship, and prioritizing projects. Carbon markets need
accounting tools. Sally Collins has led the effort but is retiring. FIA is being called to take a
more active and public role. Need to finish the baseline carbon estimates for all 50 states and
National Forests in next 3 months. Need to develop next generation of biomass and carbon
procedures. Timelines are short. Demand for information is high. ACTION: Need to finalize
the FIA Carbon Team composition. Task the team with developing baseline carbon
estimates in 60-90 days.
        Need to add to the focus of the annual business summary. We need to start including a
few key resource information elements (e.g., gross changes rather than net change), and
how to display them. Decide by Dec. 10, 2010. (Note: We may want to produce a separate
annual report summarizing the annual findings rather than complicate the business report)


                                               2
        Within the Climate Change arena, we are getting good recognition for our species ranges
maps and historical comparisons. What other dimensions can we analyze/model/report on with
FIA data? Is it time to expand the cadre of FIA folks and partners on climate change analyses?
Need to decide on direction for the 2015 RPA Assessment which will involve setting some data
requirements. We need to be more nimble and agile.
        The international demands are growing. There is more interest in international trade,
sustainable wood products, carbon sequestration, and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation (REDD). WO-FIA is carefully assessing all requests. There are 30
countries that want to do REDD assessments, so we are looking at ways to have consultants do
the work as it is critical that FIA doesn’t compromise domestic objectives/targets. We are
working with International Programs to develop a roster of those who could provide technical
assistance on inventory and monitoring – both in and outside of FIA.

Volume, Biomass, and Carbon Inventory Activities within FIA:
     Status of Volume, Biomass, and Carbon Teams – Linda Heath/Chris Woodall
             The discussion included FIA, carbon stocks, and CO2 equivalent change. There is
     significant complexity of estimating carbon change, and at the Earth Summit of 1992 the
     US agreed to report on Greenhouse Gas inventories annually and to periodically provide
     projections in a Climate Action report. FIA data are used directly with the Carbon
     Calculation Tool. FIA uses WOODCARB2 for harvested wood and Nowak’s data for
     urban areas. The Group on Earth Observation (GEO) is working on the Forest Carbon
     Tracking (FCT) task using remote sensing, and FIA needs to be more involved in the
     leadership of this effort. Key topic areas internationally are: land use/land cover change,
     Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), REDD, REDD+ (REDD + SFM), and MRV
     (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification).
             NOAA has a CarbonTracker site. The main C sinks are Midwest agriculture,
     eastern deciduous forests, and boreal conifer forests. Should FIA develop a Carbon
     product line?
             Linda Heath will be on detail to the Global Environmental Facility (part of the
     World Bank) in DC for two years starting July 12. Chris Woodall with be the Carbon
     Team Leader. Other team members/contacts are John Coulston (SRS-FIA), Andrew
     Grey (PNW-FIA), and Gretchen Moisen (IW-FIA). How do we move forward? The
     next version needs to use P3 data and be less dependent on the Jenkins equations for
     estimating the other pools. Some in NFS are interested in providing carbon estimates
     even down to the project level. Dave Cleaves is putting together a team to evaluate this
     issue, and to push back, since the cost of doing so would be so high. There are three
     areas where FIA needs to be involved: accounting by reporting unit, research and tools.
     ACTION: the Program Managers need to identify the additional staff to serve on
     the team; what are the skill sets needed? Also need to look to scientists outside FIA.



                                               3
               The team is working on an article to present the volume equations by location
       (mostly by state and in some cases by forest type group).
       Biomass Algorithm Issues – Dave Struble
               Three different sets of Biomass numbers for the state of Maine, all using FIA
       data, were presented showing how over a short period of time, the numbers changed due
       to changes to the algorithms (same issue described at the FIA User Group meeting).
       There appear to be problems in the estimation processes. Need to be accurate, timely,
       unbiased and relevant. We need to develop a path forward to maintain our credibility.
               One solution is to collect some new data on biomass and the components in order
       to develop consistent and accurate models and estimates. We may need to talk with
       partners to fund a Request for Proposals (RFP) to find cost-effective ways to meet this
       need. One source might be Agenda 2020 funding (joint effort between FS R&D and
       NCASI/forest industry). NFS has been validating taper equations to develop compatible
       volume and biomass models by region for some years. We might be able to draw upon
       these models, methods, and/or data. DECISION: We agree to work with NCASI to
       get Agenda 2020 funding to develop cost-effective methodology for compatible
       volume and biomass models, to identify data needed (information gaps), and how to
       sample to fill the gaps. ACTION: Greg, John and Bill will put together a more
       complete recommendation. We need to identify who will lead this effort. [Note: this
       effort must include both standing live and dead trees]

Soils/Lichens Proposal – Bill Burkman
        MT discussed background on some issues related to estimating change for lichens and
soils and reviewed a summary from Sarah Jovan and Hobe Perry entitled “Increasing Soils and
Lichens Sampling Intensity to Improve Effectiveness” (Lichen.soil.issue.summary.100503.docx)
as well as a pre-proposal, FIA_Change_Proposal_Form_SoilsLichens.doc. For some additional
background, see the summary of issues presented at last year’s MT meeting, soil sampling
issues.doc. There is interest in evaluating the data in the East for change. The report from last
year includes a power analysis of change. It is important to determine what levels of change
need to be detected.
        We need to be very clear about the benefits of the changes – the pre-proposal does not
seem to make this clear, i.e., do a cost-benefit analysis. What can we do with the existing data?
We need to be able to “sell” this to our constituency due to the costs. ACTION: Bill will gather
the information (3 documents above) and send to the MT, so that we can decide how to
move forward on our next call.

National TPO Proposal – Bill Burkman
       FIA formed a team to move TPO forward to address the changing demands and uses of
wood in addition to “nationalizing” TPO.
   1. What is the standard base level information to make us consistent across the US?


                                               4
    2. How do we account for bioenergy?
    3. What are the carbon implications of wood products?
A team was formed to create a strategic plan; they have developed a white paper, but more work
needs to be done. See the handout from Bill. Chris Woodall is providing leadership for the
team. There are currently 4 different regional databases, so need to work on the consistency
issue. The team will meet in St. Paul in late July to discuss how to move forward. It was
suggested that we should head toward an annualized system. ACTION: The team will give us
an update and recommendations by the next National Users’ meeting (Dec 2010?). Chris
will send out the team link - http://fia-ab.wikidot.com/. BIN: Should we identify a national
TPO lead – a TPO Indicator Advisor? The team needs to consider WOODCARB2 (Ken Skog
and Peter Ince at FPL).

Experimental Forests and Ranges (EF&R) Effort – Rich Guldin, Bill Burkman and Greg Reams
        The Stations struggled with how best to intensify P2 plots on Experimental Forests and
Ranges (EF&R). As the National EF&R Team studied the issue, they decided that long distance
transects (such has been done elsewhere) would be a good approach. The 6-7 transects will be
different lengths and will involve 16 EF&Rs. Over time, other EF&Rs and Research Natural
Areas (NFS) could be added. The Stations are now working with the EF&R managers to see
how best to add plots on their sites. The funds would be used to intensify the plots and to
determine how to scale up the results. To make this happen, funds had to be transferred between
Stations. The team’s recommendations were accepted by the Station Directors. The team will
provide a document for distribution.
        It was mentioned that Joe Barnard and Dave Shriner developed in the mid-90’s on
Intensive Site Ecosystem Monitoring (ISEM). This EF&R effort largely fulfills this vision. This
effort will help the EF&Rs will develop a more consistent database. The Delaware River Basin
Study was a good example to look to for integrating research and strategic inventory data.

Design and Analysis Tools for I&M (DATIM) Timelines – Chip Scott
        Refer to Chip’s PPT.
         KEY customers – the project was initiated by NFS-FIA coordinators; however, it was
            funded by the Information Resources Board (IRB) as a cross-Deputy Area partnership
            and needs to meet both NFS internal needs and NFS partner’s needs.
         The tool is being developed to also meet other needs such as State and international
            partners.
         The approach is also serving as a pilot to development processes for FIA (e.g., IT
            project management, Agile methodology, etc) as well as tools that can be used
            broadly by FIA.
Which FIA data goes into DataMart? Why is that a question? Right now NFS lands P2/P3 data
only in, though NFS needs at least eco-region subsections for broad-scale analysis; these are
future discussions.

                                               5
         There was a question from NFS (field) as to whether this will negate the need to put FIA
data into FSVeg? FIA will continue loading into FSVeg; once DataMart is ready, we may see
whether or not we need to continue loading FSVeg or whether use of DATIM will be adequate.
The FIA-NFS MOU currently states FIA will load into NFS corporate system (NRIS).
         There was STRONG recommendation that, while we are still relatively early in the
process, the NFS FIA MT reps query the NFS-FIA coordinators, individually, to see whether the
effort is going to meet their needs (group dynamics issues), and what parts. ACTION: Rick
Ulrich and Greg Kujawa will contact NFS-FIA Coordinators.

All FIA Plots loaded in FSVeg (Region 5 request) – Gretchen Nicholas
     NFS Region 5 expressed the need for FIA data for landscape analysis. Gretchen talked
        with Carlos Ramirez (R5) – the choices were an MOU and data security OR work with
        the data at a PNW-FIA lab then to load into CALFIRE (State product). This included
        review of map products to ensure confidentiality is maintained (in progress).
     Other remote sensing projects needing FIA coordinates includes work by Janet Ohmann
        and others in broad scale analysis to support various State needs.
     Various analyses SHOULD compare both accurate and fuzzed coordinates: what question
        was asked specifically and what coordinate specificity is really required? Internal work
        is VERY time consuming to support these large-scale requests.
Precise coordinates sometimes seem to be only of “extreme value” when their access is free.
Even Federal employees need to sign confidentiality agreement to work with exact coordinates.
        There is a growing need by NFS to access to all FIA plot data (beyond green-line) – at
least through FSVeg, and use may or may not require exact coordinates – for landscape scale
analyses. NFS-State partnership analyses are increasing.
Additional background:
     SRS uses specific MOU’s with State organizations for various data analyses that need
        detailed ownerships and/or coordinates.
     Large open MOU’s with partners are not without precedent: LANDFIRE, other
        universities.
     FIA needs to continue to be rigorous in protecting the coordinates against unlawful
        release. ACTION: Ask Spatial Data Services to help us figure out an approach on
        how to maintain/follow-up.
Questions:
     WHAT information is available for partners and programs without coming to an FIA
        location vs. providing coordinates with an MOU? Spatial level analyses across many
        different ownerships are becoming increasingly critical.
     How do we make the policy decision in light of supporting of Sec. Vilsack’s vision
        building all-lands landscape scale conservation plans, etc? NFS Leadership also has
        performance standards to meet this vision. FIA needs to be able to say that “we are
        nimble and agile to support your work, and here is how we can provide the outside NFS

                                                6
        information for your analyses…” etc. We need to understand specific NFS questions to
        address Sec. Vilsack’s vision, and identify WHAT specific priority landscapes to
        evaluate. Knowing these will limit the size of the task and the level of support needed
        (rather than solving the all-or-nothing FIA data approach).
     How will we address the potential increase in workload in FIA? How do we provide
        input into process to help customers (NFS) recognize that all the needed information
        might not be sitting on the shelf?
     How do we manage expectations? It can be done and here’s what it takes… certain
        information requires cost (financial, time, etc.).
Need to look at R1 as an example for demand for these broader landscape analyses. Identify
what their current needs are and what questions do they believe they may be asked. R1 is an on-
the-fly on-demand approach to answering questions. Also, R1 standardized their monitoring
questions, and it may cover most of the landscape questions.
        Does MT have issues with FIA loading ALL PLOTS (without owner and actual
coordinates) into FSVeg? No objections, though user MUST recognize FIA as source of
information.

International Activities/Roles for the FIA Program – Rich
         Guldin’s general principles for evaluating requests for FIA support for projects to manage
this interest strategically:
    1. Interest-based focus on where FIA people should be involved internationally
             a. Clearly understand USA National interest
             b. Politics of various situations, usually removed from specific forestry issue
             c. What are the benefits to R&D, FIA, and the employee? Should flow both
                 directions, not just to the developing country
    2. Should support building capacity overseas to do a job, rather than just serving as a
         contractor to do a job. Sometimes that means THEY come HERE.
    3. Where there are international partnerships involved, does it enhance that relationship
         (e.g., FAO)?
FIA currently cannot meet all the requests even when they meet all the principles; we need to
avoid endangering the Program’s ability to meet the mission. We are looking at expanding reach
of who can help, e.g., retirees, partners (State employees), other contract staff. Rich is
discouraging requests that come directly to Station staff (individuals), whatever the source.
         Is FIA over-extending staff? Relationships should be long-term development
opportunities (both to employees and to Country). People we recommend should be capable of
representing the US and FIA effectively and maintain professional judgment in social situations.


Wednesday


Follow up on Analysis White Paper – Bill Burkman
       This topic was introduced at the 2009 Sisters, OR meeting. Proposed solutions include:

                                                7
   Providing analytical capabilities to various organizations – shared positions and/or fund an
    analyst at each state
 Develop an apprentice/intern program between FIA units and the partner/cooperator
    organizations
 Create regional analysis centers where analysts are centralized
 Providing FIA database training curriculum for forestry (and other disciplines) through
    universities:
        o Build on some activities already initiated
        o Develop some FIA database query exercises and provide to universities
        o FIA needs to actively participate in this
        o This effort could be with the national NFS silviculturalist training
 Develop FIA database training sessions for on-line users
        o Coordinate training sessions with other related meetings
        o Develop webinars to make the training more widely available
        o Develop on-line tutorials
Next steps:
        Need timeline and funding. It was suggested that FIA put out an RFP to get good ideas
and products from our partners and universities. The National FS University is one opportunity.
We need to get our training materials together and identify our key target audiences. We need to
figure out how to organize to handle an all-lands approach (vulnerability assessments, landscape
assessments, etc.). Identify the current staffing within FIA and its partners, and then identify the
capabilities and analytical methods. The intern program seems like a good opportunity to grow
new FIA analysts. ACTION: John Shaw will talk with the Analysis Band about following
up with this. ACTION: Continue to develop core curricula for undergraduates (Brad);
identify state analytical needs (Gary, Dave, Burl – Sherri Wormstead?); identify Regional
NFS analytical needs for planning and monitoring (Rick, David, and Greg); and identify
NGO analytical needs (Brad). Report back in 4 months. Bill will provide points of
contacts. With this information, we can discuss how best to deliver the information.

Status on FIA Atlas – Ty Wilson
        See PPT “A Forest Atlas of the United States” by Hobie Perry and Ty Wilson. Maps will
be created at the national level but can be scaled down to the local level. They have enlisted
RSAC who hired a graphics designer, Linda Smith, plus Publishing Arts and GSTC. There are
12 chapters with leads for each. There will be a CD that is more comprehensive than the atlas
itself. They are also building supporting infrastructure, such as web tools. They are developing
a poster to test workflow. It will be released in 2011 for the UN International Year of the Forest.
There will need to be a coordinated review, and will need to be done by December 15, 2010,
so the analysts/reviewers need the materials by Oct. 15. This will provide input prior to the
layout. A subsequent review would be needed after layout. The atlas will be published in a
variety of formats: hardcopy, webpage, web tools, and RMAPs, which are a new form of R&D
publication. We will need to consider how to maintain the websites in the future.
        See PPT “TRB efforts Supporting the FIA Atlas and State Forest Assessments.” The
Techniques Research Band (TRB) is working on the Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN)
technique that Ohmann and Gregory developed. The method was originally developed for

                                                 8
Landsat (30m), but there is too much data to process nationally, so they are focusing on MODIS
(250m). They are evaluating phenology, climate coefficients, topography, and ecoregions. They
can apply the GNN to identify nearest neighbors for all MODIS pixels then use the higher
resolution NCLD to stratify. We can then develop estimates based on the map and the pixels
selected. This helps avoid disclosure problems. They just completed the lower 48 states. They
are working on the links to FIDO; mapping growth, removals and mortality (just remeasures);
and replacing calculated carbon estimates with field data (just use P3 plots).

Revisit FIA Management Team and FIA Core Team roles and functions – All
         Each of the Group Leaders has differing abilities to task their staff with national
           work.
         Generally things have been quiet for a while, and we have not discussed strategic
           issues. The presentation on GRM was an example of the team raising an issue for a
           full MT discussion.
         It would have been better to have had more MT involvement in the response to the
           NASF letter. It was noted that the response was just cost estimates, and did not
           provide a sense of priorities.
         There is also lack of connection between some of the teams (example of the TPO
           Task Team and the lack of connection with the AB).
         Are the partners actively involved in the Bands?
         There are some opportunities to play a significant role in emerging issues, such as
           landscape conservation, economic development, ecosystem services, and
           carbon/climate change.
         It was suggested that we be more proactive by stating what role we could play with
           current resources and what we could do with additional resources. DECISION: We
           agree to begin preparing proposed responses to create a prioritized list of
           emerging issues. Discuss on next call, Tuesday July 20 at 2:00 ET.

Status of Inventory and Monitoring Program from Canada – Mark Gillis
        Refer to Mark’s PPT. Even though National Inventory budget is only $4 million ($1.5
Federal, $1.5 Provincial in-kind, so $1.0 short), the Provincial inventories are about $65 mil/yr.
Canada has a collaborator site for downloading raw data but with no cost recovery.

Mexico and P3 – Borys
       Starting in 2009, Mexico requested assistance for risk mapping and to help with
developing and implementing P3 in Mexico to integrate with their National Inventory. Mexico
appointed P3 indicator leads (CONIFOR and faculty) to coordinate with US leads. In 2010
hosted P3 Mexico leads in US (crowns/ozone). They may participate in FIA symposium.

Status of National FIA Efforts: Legacy Database Project, Performance Accountability
Evaluation, Standard Tables vs. Core Tables, FIA Webinar for loading FIA data into FSVeg –
Brad Smith
         See Brad’s handouts (ACTION: Brad will email them out).
         Legacy database – VPI is creating a DVD with results from 1934 through 2000.
         Standard State tables – Brad has developed a draft list of standardized (formatted)
           tables to include in all reports, and we should also consider some standard maps.

                                                 9
         FIA Essentials Sourcebook DVD –a beta version of a DVD containing important FIA
          documents has been developed and includes state reports, assessments, brochures,
          symposia, Blue Ribbon Panel reports, etc. ACTION: FIA Units will review the list
          of documents on the DVD and provide feedback to Brad.
         National User Straw Poll – see the handout of results.
         Tree Planting Data – working with Auburn Univ. to collect and process for FIA to
          distribute.
         NRI-FIA – see the handout of the 2007 NRI-FIA comparison. There are some big
          discrepancies in MN. In other states, eastern red cedar creates a classification
          problem.

Review of FY10 Band Workplans and Discussion of FY11 Band Focus Areas – Band Leaders

      Techniques Research Band (TRB) – Ty Wilson
          See the TRB PPT for a review of the FY09 and FY10 efforts.
           The Kenai multi-level sampling project will be done in 3-6 months.
           The NIMS compilation rules effort has several subtasks.
           The non-response team is working on a manuscript with a recommendation not to
              replace plots.
           New variable team is writing up their report.
           The stratification team is completing their manuscript for publication.
           The GRM team has completed its task. An FIA Symposium session is planned
              that will present all team outcomes.
           The P3 correlation team is completing their analyses.
           The FIA Atlas was mentioned above.
           There are two manuscripts on the map methods – one in print and one in revision.
           Tom Luther with S&PF is distributing datasets for the east to state partners.
              Western datasets are being developed.
           Pre-field – RSAC has completed the accelerated delivery of NAIP imagery. Need
              to decide if this is an ongoing effort.
           The canopy cover tool team has identified their list of enhancements to use for
              NLCD project.
           ROADMAP is a database of all TRB research projects. Ken Winterberger
              developed a template which was sent to TRB staff to be filled out by June 15.
           NLCD Canopy Cover update to the 2001 product – picked five pilot areas. PI
              work almost complete. Results will be presented at the FIA Symposium. This
              will be an ongoing effort.
              They will be sending out the RFP for FY11 soon. The Core TRB meets annually
      to develop annual workplans. Other issues for the team to consider include how to use
      actual coordinates securely (joint effort with NRDD’s?) and various aspects of ratio
      estimation; volume, biomass, and carbon; the new effort on the Existing Vegetation
      Classification, Mapping Guide – needs more on accuracy assessment, and possible
      collaboration with Canada on estimating interior AK (the issue of remote access is a
      global one).


                                            10
Analysis Band – John Shaw
     The AB has 17 items on their workplan in FY10.
      The Core Table list is done from AB’s perspective and now it needs to go to IMB.
      P2 Down-Woody and Damage are done for 6.0. Manfred Mielke recommended
         John Shaw to become the new Indicator Advisor. ACTION: AB should discuss
         options for Indicator advisor leadership (if needed)
      There are 3 CRM3 pre-proposals.
      Ownership proposal still needs work, so IMB and DAB will make their needs
         clear. Dennis will call Brett Butler to have him contact the Core Band
         Leaders to see what needs to be done.
      Land Cover is moving forward.
      The Analytical QA effort will result in QA Tools with an initial release by end of
         July.
      National Analytical Strategy – not much progress yet. Reporting
         Consistency – only have a few folks and they would like written guidance on
         what the MT wants.
      Undocumented Features – working on a mechanism for documenting and
         addressing some surprises or inconsistencies.
      Remeasurement – DAB has some concerns about what variables are carried over
         and presented to the crew, but the AB is not yet engaged.
      Woodlands – Mike Thompson at IW-FIA is taking the lead with the goal of
         resolving before remeasurement in the West begins in earnest.
      TPO – the AB is not directly involved in the directed Task Team effort.
      Trend Analysis Methods – there are many methods with no consensus on
         approaches. Mike Thompson and Ray Czaplewski are looking at alternatives,
         such as those recommended by Paul Van Deusen and Frank Roesch. Good topic
         to add to the TRB list. Initially focus on internal use, then could put them as
         optional tools on our websites.
      FIADB 4.0 manual is to the Station editor.
      Measurements of cover – there is interest in evaluating field cover measures.
     The question was raised as to who will determine the standard tables for the 5-year
reports. Brad provided a proposal designed as a coherent set, rather than the Core Table
list of independently developed tables. ACTION: John will take Brad’s proposal to
the AB for consideration and will report back in September.

Information Management Band – Ali Conner
    The Band is composed of three teams: the MIDAS team working on the data
collection recorder software, the National Information Management System –
Compilation System (NIMS-CS Team) and the National Resource Data Distribution
Team.
 NIMS 4.0 is done. NIMS and FIADB 5.0 will be in test mode by October. IMB is
    working with national pre-field folks to incorporate their data into NIMS. They are
    working on MIDAS loaders, with an emphasis on DWM issues.
 The MIDAS team is doing great. They have developed a truly national data
    collection system. Next version is due for production in October – they are on target.

                                        11
          Continuing to work on FIDO and getting the tables out, as well as user training and
           tools.
          We are continuing work on the Data Center migration. FIDO is installed and being
           tested by CIO (due by end of August). NIMS and FIADB have been added to the
           migration list. There are challenges with managing the Task Teams. They would like
           to focus more on documentation.
          Need to find another contracting mechanism for UNLV.
          Need a backup plan in case the migration fails.
          Need a tracking mechanism for tracking P3 data, especially lab data.
          Need an implementation strategy for development work.
          Need compilation system for other P3 attributes, then can integrate into FIDO. There
           is a compilation system for DWM that needs to be integrated into NIMS.

       Data Acquisition Band – Bob Rhoads
          The DAB is working on nine major issues:
        Field Guide 5.0 and 6.0 simultaneously. 5.0 is now finalized and posted. 6.0 is due
          to be implemented Oct. 2011. The first draft will be posted within a month or so.
        Developing an approach to revamp the Guide to handle other than just accessible
          forest land, such as urban.
        Pre-field Task Team along with IMB and AB. They will report out in September.
        Developing a National Safety vision/culture – they have started on it and discuss it on
          all calls. Charley is working with them on this effort. The National Safety
          Conference is in San Diego the same week as the Symposium (Michael will attend).
        National standard position descriptions and on the open continuous recruitment
          (OCR) process.
        Cold Check Scoring Process – Phyllis Adams is leading this effort. She is on detail
          with PNW field operations, so this is behind schedule.
        Training Standards – Phyllis is also leading this effort.
        Security Plan for PDRs and Laptops – Dave Polak (SRS-FIA) is working with the
          CIO on this.
        Remeasurement – working on what data to show on a remeasure and what to do when
          measurements don’t agree.
       A number of these items will carry over into FY11.

FY11 Strategic Discussion – All
       It would have been helpful to have the all handouts and Band reports ahead of time to
          review prior to the meeting and to refer back to.
       Band Leaders should collectively discuss the individual Band workplans since there
          is often more overlap between Bands than is obvious. The Band Lead calls tend to
          focus only on Change Management.
       MT could discuss ideas for projections, such as presented by Paul Van Deusen at the
          Park City Symposium in 2008. Current efforts are focused on the RPA and on the
          Southern and Northern Forest Futures projects, working with Dave Wear. Climate
          Change is being factored into the analysis.


                                              12
         The P3 Core Tables have been designed and are beginning to be developed for FIDO.
          It is unclear what needs to be done in NIMS (compilation) vs. FIDO (estimation).
          Chip will follow up with Ty, John, and Ali.
        NFS is very interested in getting all the data into FSVeg in a timely fashion, including
          P3.
        QA of data and data processing is an issue.
        NFS has identified representatives for each of the Bands. David sent the names to
          Barb O’Connell.
        WO_NFS has a strong interest in the identification of multi-level monitoring and
          analysis needs for NFS.
        Identification of priority landscapes and the issue of data security (coordinates).
        Are we measuring what we need for estimating carbon, such as belowground
          processes? The EF&R effort might help address this need.
        What is the appropriate remeasurement cycle for the indicators based on power
          analyses?
        Need to address the heavy analysis workload,
        Selection of Standard (vs. Core) Tables and selecting key attributes to report in
          annual Business Summary.
        Biomass availability map based on the two Congressional definitions of renewable
          biomass released last by SRS FIA year was very important. Need to produce more
          maps with FIA’s name on it.
        Bioenergy is a big issue.
       We will continue to collect ideas prior to the September 14-16 Core Band/PM
       meeting where FY11 work planning will be discussed.

Meeting Feedback – All
   Focus next year’s meeting on a few key strategic issues. The full MT will need to
      provide the list in advance of the meeting. The FIA 5-Year Strategic Plan runs out next
      year, so we need to begin that dialogue.
   Discussion needed on the “Lessons Learned from State Forest Assessments” topic. The
      Western Forest Leadership Coalition will look at the ones from the West for common
      themes. The R8 office will do something similar for the South. There is a Presidential
      Management Fellow is working on this. We need to know how the ESRI contract
      worked. It would be good to get some feedback from the state planners and analysts in
      the next 6 months. It might be good for the AB folks to be involved in some of these
      discussions.

Compatible Biomass and Volume – Bill
        Bill presented a draft statement of the issue with supporting information and proposed
solution.

           Next Steps for National Volume/Biomass/Carbon Algorithm Development
                                      DRAFT 6/23/2010




                                               13
Issue: As the FIA Program moved forward to nationalize volume equations, some estimates
have changed over a short period of time and the numbers have changed due to different
algorithms. There appears to be problems in compatible biomass and volume data for each
component part of the tree (branches, main stem, bark, specific gravity) and these data gaps
profoundly influence the estimation processes. FIA needs to be accurate, timely, unbiased and
relevant. FIA needs to develop a path forward to maintain our credibility. The component ratio
method (CRM) 2 needs to be expanded into the next step that has been planned – CRM3.

Supporting information: Compatible volume and biomass data by components of the tree may
be available for select species and geographic regions. National Forest Systems (NFS) has been
validating taper equations to develop compatible volume and biomass models by region for some
years. FIA might be able to draw upon these models, methods, and/or data. Some data may also
exist to support this effort once the necessary components have been identified.

Solution/Proposal: The agreed proposal is to identify the necessary components to develop the
appropriate volume/biomass models and collect some new data (where needed) on biomass by
tree species in order to develop consistent and accurate models and estimates. FIA may need to
talk with various partners to fund a Request for Proposals (RFP) to find cost-effective ways to
meet this need. One source might be the Agenda 2020 funding program – a joint effort between
USDA FS Research and Development and NCASI.

The FIA Program (and USDA Forest Service Research and Development) agrees to work
with NCASI to develop a process to allocate Agenda 2020 funding to develop cost-effective
methodology for compatible volume and biomass models for each component part of the
tree, to identify data needed (information gaps) and how to sample it through a RFP
process. A lead individual needs to be identified to lead this effort.

Key elements of the RFP should include:
    A comprehensive evaluation of the volume/biomass equations available to FIA and NFS
       (i.e., the National Volume Estimation Library).
    An evaluation of geographic variation and minimum scale at which equations should be
       parameterized – i.e., the trade-off between one-size-fits-all and highly localized models,
       or national consistency vs. local accuracy.
    Development of model validation standards and consistent methods for data acquisition;
       data needs should be based on a recommended suite of input and modeled variables.
    Plan for validation on an equation by geographic area basis. Validation plan should
       consider regional validation efforts that are under way or already accomplished (Forest
       Management Service Center [FMSC] is a key contact).

Land Cover, Use, and Change – Ken Brewer and Ty Wilson

                                                14
       Ken described two new projects (see Ken’s notes and PPT). The SOFI project could be
funded in another next year and will be complete in 5 years, so could go into production in 6
years. We need to be looking for long term funding – NASA, USGS and the FS Information
Resources Board (IRB). It would be good to initiate a study of Land Use change in a year or so
to dovetail with the Land Cover change study. NASF mentioned this kind of work in their letter.

Next Year’s Meeting
      IW-FIA will host the summer meeting next year. We will plan on the week of June 13,
2011.

Field Trip
       Burl handed out four aerial photos and a description of the four stops.

Next Calls/Meetings:
Conference Calls -
      FIA PMs – Wed. July 7 at 2:00 ET
      FIA Mgt. Team - Tuesday July 20 at 2:00 ET
      FIA PMs – Wed. July 21 at 11:00 ET
      Core Band and PMs – Monday Aug. 16 at 2:00 ET
      FIA PMs – Tue. Aug. 24 at 2:00 ET
      FIA PMs – Mon. Sept. 13 at 2:00 MT in Denver
Meetings -
      Core Bands and PMs – Sept. 14-16 in Denver
      FIA Symposium – Oct. 5-7 in Knoxville, TN

Bin Items:
    Lessons Learned from State Forest Assessments
    Damage Indicator Lead
    P3 Estimation




                                                15

								
To top