Integrating Interagency Needs FIA Meetingfebruary 6, 2014

Integrating Interagency Needs FIA MeetingFebruary 6, 2014

Notes fromDay 2

Inventorying Alaska’s Forests: An Opportunity for Integrating Interagency Needs with FIA

Thursday 6 February 2014: Elizabeth Bella –Notes

Convene: 8:35AM

Morning: Discussion of additional measurement attributes

John Morton: introduction to discussion of attributes: when you get to the plot, what do you do?

Beth Schulz: P3 and other possible ground measurement attributes

Main theme of talk: discuss basic variables, forest health indicators, resources required for new variables, considerations for new variables

Core variables - required, core optional variables – if done, use standard method, regional add-on variables – requested special attributes

Guidance: national field guide, FIADB documentation (links available)

P3 (phase 3) – forest health indicators – developed between EPA and USFS. One plot per 96,000 acres. Extensive measurements to monitor forest health condition (e.g.crown condition, lichens, downed wood, vegetation diversity and structure, soils, ozone, damage)

History of first decade – methods evolved, established; database tables established, data incorporated. Analytical techniques established. Results and reports posted. 2010 – budget considerations halted the program nationally. Today – in transition, with reduced methods (e.g. P2 “lite”).

Preparing new attributes takes time for development for understanding and fitting collection purpose, implementing efficient data collection techniques, and ensuring accurate data collection approaches. Reality includes “hidden costs” of FIA data collection to meet needs of national database.

Questions/Discussion:

To develop a protocol for FIA collection, for public database, must follow FIA guidelines. P3 data collection may be possible with funding.

John Yarie: Soil depth question – depth horizon measurement? Soils protocol proposed for interior. Working with USGS to develop protocol. Will FIA dig soil pits? Probably not as they take time. Soil core – one per plot for good soils coverage.Temporal measurement of permafrost change question? Rob Smith will talk more about this. Will have date and depth.

Any investigation of published soil survey of area?If available.

Current plan – will P3 be on 1/3 or ¼ in current interior survey plan? Open to discussion, but no P3 are planned as this is a pilot study. There is value in P3. This summer will be a “Proof of concept” project, costs of implementation will be tracked, interior issues evaluated.Money may not be available again for many years, so efficiency in maximizing survey is important.

P2 to P3 plot – how many extra hours?Crew members?Full suite of variable – minimum of four people.An hour to lay out, vegetation and down wood take time. Down wood may take less time in interior than southeast.

Lichen protocol – will it include ground lichens? Rob will talk more on this. Interior moss and lichen layers in interior are critical for carbon accounting.

NRCS soils protocols should be brought in – one pit per site. Key to what’s growing on it, and what changes will happen in vegetation.Current protocol is 4 inches into mineral, unless frozen. Overall - pilot study will require rationalization of best use of number of personnel, and what variables are possible to collect.

Some protocols are Core Optional – some are not. Core Optional are defined.

Robert J. Smith: Ground Layer Indicator

From OSU, working on new attributes to measure ground layer of non-vascular vegetation including mosses and lichens. Carbon storage and functional importance in moss/lichen ground layers.

Carbon storage is of prime importance due to development of sphagnum moss. Giant carbon sink. Baseline information to track changes over time.Climate change, arctic greening, measurement of non-forest areas also important.

Nine functional groups (habitat/ecosystem) rather than species, e.g., forage lichens for caribou, N-fixing lichens, crust lichens, other lichens. Mosses – feathermosses for hydro functions, turf mosses to anchor soils, N-fixing feather mosses, sphagnum.

Data collection considerations: non-destructive measurement by developing calibration curve (Depth (total live plus dead) appears to be greatest predictor); functional groups differences (biomass and C/N differences investigated), time efficiency (about one hour per plot), minimum sampling requirements (test sampled micro-quads/microplots within subplots along transects). OR/AK forest differences highlighted (higher moss biomass in upland/higher lichen biomass in alpine).

32 micro-quads per subplot is most efficient/appropriate number/size for ground cover measurements. Challenges – deep permafrost, deep peat.

Questions/Discussion:

Rob DeVelice: Ground penetrating radar – remote sensing options – have been used, but not effectively in permafrost.

Amy Miller: Functional groups – what is the mean value within habitat type? Range from zero to nine. Max measured was seven. AK – four, five, six or so normal in AK.

Tina Boucher: Non-destructive measurements issues in interior AK – how to cope with lack of distinction in layers (brown vs. green, recognizable parts)? How did his crew deal with it? QA/QC checks possible this summer to check between-crew variation.

Connie Hubbard: Logistical Considerations

presentation on a day in the life of an FIA crew:

Unique operations – work platform, distance between plots, remoteness. Safety and risk management complexity. Intensity of operations, 7 day a week operations.Complexity of operations/planning/training.Documentation and data management in field.

Weight and space/size limitations with helicopter work (or float plane or boat) with field gear, fuel, safety gear, people. Generally 12 people is optimal. No P3 – 3 runs with helicopter, 2 hours to get crews out, 2 more to get crews back, walk to plot from landing site, one plot per crew per day. 15 day schedule. Limitations in hours per day, pilot safety hours, seasonal consideration – elevation (snow), latitude. Day to day equipment failures, weather/floods/aircraft availability changes.

15 minute break

Discussion on Attributes:

Introduction by Beth on pre-workshop survey results – FIA knowledge level, FIA data use; top five topics of interest; top ten attributes of interest.

Diane Granfors: Tying data collection and attributes to objectives is important and should be considered.

John Morton: Example of LTEMP, within FIA frame but specific to Refuge objectives.

Gretchen Nicholas: East coast example – protocols paid for by large users for extra data collection. Variations exist that don’t have to do with current FIA data, can be measured concurrently and put in landowner’s database.

Barb Schrader: Investment for field work – complete census necessary. We don’t have a diverse flora in AK, so well worth the time and expense as a good investment at least once, whether or not we continue to monitor.

Dan Reese: Army system (Ft. Wainwright) – uses FIA system, fits large DOD land base. Adding cryptogam measurement would be valuable to add to their data.

Lori Winton: add to Barb’s comment, and comparability – insects and disease not specifically discussed. Problem of definition of “forest health.”Risk map (mentioned yesterday) – comparable for all managers across AK. Beth: indicators already well developed (forest health protection)- damage was well-instituted, but problems with repeatability. Reworked, taken a number of years. Damage is now Core in P2 (per tree). Complete species list (complete census) captures non-native species even if invasive species protocol is not implemented. Barb: make a point to hire taxonomically skilled team.

Beth: AK tries to hire individuals with these skills.

TomMalone: Forest health considerations: does not take long to measure visual defects in trees.

Eric S: Once a team learns protocol, becomes easier and second nature.

Ray K: High botanical skills need (HV plot days). Good crew with botanical skills; annual (less people) still had good bot people; once P3 was eliminated there was less need for particular bot skills.

John M: 19 votes in favor of a complete census, supported by other comments, non-FIA people in room please raise hand if you are in favor of a complete census. Quite a few in hand raised hand (maybe 15 or so?)

Lisa Saperstein: fire perspective – basic tree measurements inform fire models in interior. Post-fire monitoring also a benefit.

Diane G: Do you have protocols for all attributes listed (top 10 on slide)? Beth: most of them, John may have some protocols for others. Simplify methods is tricky – no clear answer on what to pare down. Today, use resources wisely.

Sydney (NRCS): soils perspective – different objectives. Some collaboration could be mutually beneficial with some effort put into soil measurements.

Dan R: Army protocol definitions for moss layer, great manual. Soils – frozen soil does not equal permafrost.

Sydney: avoid conflicting information within agencies.

Robert Pattison: works with USGS – will come out and train FIA in their methods. Issue – work is done in early fall or have to use gas-powered auger. Specialized bit for O layer.Early season measurements are hard to make sense of. Ideal world is a whole soils and a whole plant survey (separate). Some overlap may occur.

Beth: Extra variables cannot all be done perfectly – must be fit into what FIA’s core program is. Brochure – rapid assessment for soil –at least one sample to mineral soil in absence of frozen soil. Most efficient and most useful for what soil data can be.

Eric: How important is it, if not done well or useful for other agencies?

Beth: Not perfect, but depth with a date and current thaw is a point on the ground. More than what we have now.

Robert P.: USGS – Below ground carbon sampling mostly done in areas with really deep soils. All done along the roads in Tanana, for example. Off-road sites are really valuable. Non-deep off-road samples are limited, would be useful. Data can be combined, can also use LIDAR biomass data, above and below-ground carbon.

Gretchen: What people want is something repeatable for soils protocols.

Sydney: carbon is a primary goal for this group, NRCS has different objective, but goals can be compatible.

Gretchen: protocol should dovetail (as already discussed).

Eric S.: field actual conditions may surprise you.

Beth: you never know what you will find – and all will add to the knowledge database.

Eric Geisler: would like to incorporate NRCS protocol.

Rob D: separate study like NRCS – network for soil modelling. Quick measurement attributes to predict broader characteristics

Sydney: STATSGO exists for the state for general attributes, state-wide basis.

BradScotton:What is main issue for collaboration between NRCS and FIA soil collection: On-site longer for NRCS?

Sydney: Describes general approach (3rd/4th order soil interpretation) currently in use.

Ken W./Beth S.: Legacy plot data exists, may be available (ask him). Some go back to 1950s.

Lisa S: cryptic due to number codes.

Ken W: working on this to provide a single unified data dictionary.

John M: summary – a lot of support for soils with NRCS, complete vegetation inventory, and discussion on insects and disease.

Diane G: objective, for example climate change, what variables would be important? Complete vegetation inventory would be important. Wrap around some objectives.

John DeLapp: Each agency has different objectives.

Gretchen: we are primarily tasked with inventorying vegetation; other agencies like NRCS have a soil inventory objective. Carbon flux assessment example. Working with other agencies with different missions enhances FIA mission.

Brad (USFWS):ecoregional objectives in USFWS for example – change in species composition over time, through different ecotypes on the ground. Species change on ecotonal boundaries. Change documentation over long term can clearly articulate species/assemblage change. Regional I&M objective – lends itself to FIA mission/group objective being discussed.

Gretchen: Collaboration is possible. FIA job to assess/monitor vegetation (mostly with trees). FIA can connect the dots between agencies.

Brad: cost estimates – stretch “tree” areas – as that is where species/assemblage change will take place. Discussion of aircraft cost and time application.

John Y: post-disturbance years, key times to get a lot of data from these areas/temporal opportunities.

Lisa S.: existing plots can be coded open and recon after.

Gretchen: FIA has a fire effects protocol – burn intensity and carbon flux, on a grant-based basis.

Jennifer (on phone): to Lisa – may be a DOI thing, may work on a Refuge etc. General discussion on ways to make it work. Are fire effects protocols on line? Beth: probably not, but she will look.

Tara Barrett: Tried fire effects plots on Caribou Hills fire, worked out OK (despite giant CALCAN).

Andy (on phone): NRI (National Resources Inventory) program (USDA, NRCS) and FIA (nonforest monitoring) – sampling frame may be opportunity for non-forest side, direct collaboration with NRI.

Sydney: Familiar with 2007 AK NRI? AK is behind country as these are for non-fed lands. Done statewide but entirely focused on remote sensing information.

Gretchen: Key in approaching nonforest inventory is to reduce duplicate efforts among agencies.

Barb S.: National issues (terrestrial condition assessment) – we lack a way to systematically categorize nonforested lands. Important here in AK, but also nationally.

Hans Anderson: NASA is a major partner with a separate set of objectives, although they are similar. Strong remote sensing element to their interest.Significant resources available for project support.

Eric G.: Ecological site description protocol from NRCS is available.

Andy Gray: Pilot tests combine efforts – downward slide may be underway although a publication is coming out on western efforts. NRI vegetation sampling AK to OR similarity? There is a lot of opportunity for melding sampling systems. GTR out of RMRS.

John M.: Wildlife sampling (birds too) efforts –wildlife and insect area often involves traps, which require repeated site visits, which may limit thinking. Steve Matsuoko, USFWS, collaborator for possible pilot study with good sound recorders to leave for extended periods. Can be employed en masse to many plots in one day via helicopter, then leave on site until FIA crew comes. Good presence/absence data.

Eric/Ray: plot directions would also be known, can be shared with subsequent crews.

John: deploy all kinds of data collection at once, a whole suite of data collectors to a site with only one visit, to be picked up by FIA crew. Eric: yes, and help speed them up with known coordinates to land and proceed to plot.

Rob: Devices possibly dropped from air to plot? Connie: access issue, so dropping equipment may be beneficial/efficient. Can add things like bug traps, etc. Beth: John Lundquist transect example, Barrow to Homer, road-based survey. Laurie: early warning EDRR traps, mostly around ports, airports, towns.

Beth: back to Diane’s comment on objectives – climate change is hot, but FIA is a long-standing, long-term program. We will have new objectives over time. Invasive species, for example; now climate change/carbon storage.

Diane: modeling projections, would certain variables inform models?

Peter Neitlich (on phone) (NPS): NPS has well-developed I&M program (mostly nonforested areas). Habitat trajectories over time, future forest distribution, types of forest/nonforest projections. Interests: habitat type conversion, pollution effects on habitat/range.

Amy M. (NPS): SWAN (southwest network) – interest in forest expansion to west and southwest. LIDAR flights should capture shrub increases as well as tree. Full vegetation census would be favorable if possible. Sparse data points in AK, so anything we can get would be great. NPS has vegetation plots that can add into modeling efforts.

Amanda Robertson: Integrated ecosystem model (IEM) – limited in terms of input. Any attributes would be excellent for IEM. Limitation is spare data points. Improvements would be increase in grid (more plots), and forest/tundra ecotone change monitoring, and change after disturbance (primary change driver in interior) for shift or change to different state.

Beth: FIA moving towards All Lands inventory (pre-budget issues) for data collection on nonforested lands.

Adjourn at 11:50AM.

Lunch break

Reconvene at 1:32PM.

Hans Anderson. 2014 pilot/proof of concept project.

Objectives –extend FIA footprint into interior AK, from Bonanza Creek/CPCRW experimental forests to Tanana Valley State Forest and Tetlin NWR. Increase/develop familiarity with interior AK logistics. Evaluate LIDAR/hyperspectral remote sensing information. Build relationshipswith cooperators (UAF, NASA (ABoVE, CMS), USFWS, AKDNR).

UAF staff will access plots by ATV by road. Helicopter plots accessed and established by PNW lab in Fairbanks.Around 99 total plots.

Pilot project in 2007 (Tara Barrett) – tested modified protocols around Anchorage.

Robert P. Plot measurement description

Current tree protocols with an additional microplot, to accommodate black spruce size.