This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. Challenges and Opportunities for Integrating Inventory and Monitoring Into the Work of a Land Management Agency1 Douglas S. Powell 2 Abstract-Inventorying and monitoring the forest ecosystems of the United States are important missions of the U.S. Forest Service in order for it to know if it is meeting its management objectives, to determine the best adjustments to make to management, and to meet the public's needs for resource information. Despite the agency's long history and substantial investments in inventorying and monitoring, the Forest Service still faces many challenges and opportunities. New and increasing demands for information by both the agency and the public; agency culture, organization and procedures; and the need for perpetual, continuous forest ecosystem inventorying and monitoring contribute to these challenges. This paper explores these challenges and offers some approaches for dealing with them. The challenges are organized into eight categories: (1) information management, (2) indicator development and selection, (3) inventory and monitoring methods, (4) scale issues, (5) adaptive management, (6) science, research, and development, (7) organizational constraints, and (8) coordination with others. Each section contains a description and rationale for the category, a discussion of the major challenges to integration of inventorying and monitoring for the Forest Service, and some suggestions for overcoming these obstacles and barriers. The paper presents a Forest Service perspective. However, since these challenges are not unique to the Forest Service or to the United States, the paper has the potential for much broader application. Inventorying and monitoring the forest ecosystems of the United States are important missions of the U.s. Forest Service in order for it to know ifi t is meeting its management objectives, to determine the best adjustments to make to management, and to meet the public's needs for resource information. The agency has a long history and has made substantial investments in design and implementation of inventory and monitoring systems. Despite this experience, the Forest Service faces numerous challenges and opportunities. These are attributable to a variety of causes, such as new and increasing demands for information or agency organization and procedures. Others are perpetual features of inventory and monitoring forest ecosystems that must be addressed continually. This paper will explore these challenges and offer some approaches for dealing with them. While the paper is presented from an agency's perspective, it has broader application in that these challenges are not Ipaper presented at the North American Science Symposium: Toward a Unified Framework for Inventorying and Monitoring Forest Ecosystem Resources, Guadalajara, Mexico, November 1-6,1998. 2 Douglas S. Powell is National Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Telephone: (202) 205-1724. Email: dpoweillwo@fs.fed.us USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999 unique to the Forest Service or to the United States. Other agencies, organizations, and countries that conduct inventories and monitoring will recognize similar issues, concerns, and opportunities. Information Management _ _ __ Information management is a structured process to bring quality information in the right form to the right people at the right time to support sound and deliberate decisions, and to generate ideas (USDA Forest Service 1992). It encompasses practically every aspect of inventory and monitoring, including planning, data collection, compilation, analysis, interpretation, storing, reporting, display, accessing, and archiving. Most of the people engaged in inventory and monitoring are resource specialists with little formal training or expertise in information management. This has exacerbated the situation. But there is reason for optimism due to the blossoming field of information management, increased agency emphasis and support, and continual improvements in computer systems. The Forest Service's information environment consists of hundreds of databases, applications, and standards that, because of their functional development, are not well linked. This results in redundant data; inconsistent, incompatible information; duplication with high retrieval and analysis costs; systems that are unable to share data electronically; and "islands" of information in unconnected databases and systems (USDA Forest Service 1992). Other more specific challenges include: • A workforce that can meet information management needs, such as people with relational database and metadata skills; • More demand for raw data without knowing how to use it properly; • Use of ecoregions instead of political boundaries-and there are many systems to choose from; • Demand for different data (greater ecological focus) on a more frequent basis (annual vs. every ten years); • Overwhelming volume of data, especially for large areas; • Great emphasis on data collection often with comparatively little attention paid to other aspects ofinformation management; • Poor documentation; • Too little attention to quality assurance and control; and • The design of database management and information systems so that data quality is assured, efficiency is optimized, and data are protected. 505 In 1992 the Forest Service mounted an agency-wide effort to address these challenges consistently. The resulting framework document (USDA Forest Service 1992) outlined a vision for the future where: • People who develop and manage information are stewards, not owners; • Data are captured at their source as a natural course of conducting Forest Service business; • Data are entered once and used often; • A shared data environment consists of integratable databases coordinated through modern data management technology; • Widely used, commonly understood, and persistent data, information, and processes are standardized; and • Data are shared with external cooperators and the public. • Since then the agency has moved closer to this vision by: • Developing a consistent core of data elements and quality assurance protocols for the national Forest Inventory and Analysis program; • Developing a Forest Health Monitoring program information management system that assures high quality data, maintains records of all changes to the data, and assures timely and user-friendly access to data; • Developing corporate databases and applications for vegetation, soils, geology, climate, air, and water resources; • Documenting monitoring results and evaluation findings and improving accessibility; • Making inventory data available via Internet (such as at this website: www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/scripts/ ew.htm); and • Developing appropriate interagency metada ta standards so that data collected by one group of scientists may be utilized by other scientists and organizations effectively and appropriately. Indicator Development and Selection Indicators can be defined in a number ofways , but they are basically quantitative or qualitative variables that can be measured or described and, when observed periodically, demonstrate trends (Santiago Declaration. 1995). They form the basic information building blocks for inventory and moni toring. There are two basic challenges: (1) the proliferation of indicators in use can make sharing of information difficult, and (2) there is often little logic to support selection of indicators. The multiplicity ofindicators is due not only to the highly complex ecosystems that we are attempting to inventory and monitor but also to the different objectives and purposes of the myriad inventory and monitoring systems in existence. The solution is to standardize indicators or variables where it is appropriate to do so. The creation of corporate databases mentioned above is one attempt to introduce standardization into a very decentralized organization. Another major effort to report common indicators is occurring at the international level-the criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management (C&I). It is widely recognized that for 506 countries to assess their progress in sustainably managing their forests, indicators need to be monitored over time. There are several indicator development processes underway. One for temperate and boreal forests known as the Santiago Declaration (1995) involves 10 countries including Canada, United States, and Mexico. It has identified 67 different indicators that these countries have agreed they will use in common to assess sustainability. The Forest Service is actively engaged in implementing the Santiago Declaration for the United States. Several efforts have recognized the need to provide clear exposition of the logic and rationale that underlie the selection of the environmental attributes (indicators) to be measured. The Northwest Forest Plan monitoring work in Washington, Oregon, and California emphasizes identifying candidate indicators that reflect underlying ecological processes and changes in stressor levels, represent the larger resource of which they are a structural or compositional component, and are measurable (Noon 1997). The list can be further refined by using indicators with these properties: • Their dynamics parallel those of the larger environmental component or system of ultimate interest; • They each show a short-term but persistent response to change in the status of the environment; • They can be accurately and precisely estimated (that is, have a high signal-to-noise ratio); • The likelihood of detecting a change in their magnitude is high, given a change in the status of the system being monitored; • Each demonstrates low natural variability, or additive variation, and changes in their values can readily be distinguished from background variation; and • The costs of measurement are not prohibitive. The Forest Health Monitoring program of the Forest Service, which began in 1989, has been gradually adding indicators as funding and personnel resources have allowed. Their indicator development process includes these steps: 1. Identify relevant environmental or societal values of concern, 2. Formulate key questions relating to those values, 3. Review the scientific literature and available databases, 4. Note gaps in their conceptual model and select new candidate indicators, 5. Test indicators in pilot and demonstration studies, 6. Formulate plot-level indices, and 7. Review indicators by partners (participating agencies and organizations), external scientists, and interested individuals. Inventory and Monitoring Methods _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Once indicators have been selected, the next step in inventory and monitoring is to find the most efficient and cost-effective method of obtaining the necessary measurements or estimates. Techniques development in this area has generally been conducted by biometrics research and development experts or by technologists specializing in inventory and monitoring. USDA Forest Service ProceedinQs RMRS-P-12. 1999 Anyone conducting research in inventory and monitoring methods can list a variety of challenges worthy of attention. Rather than try to list these definitively, I'll mention two that seem particularly important from my perspective. One is the integration of remote sensing (spatial) and samplebased inventories. This has been recognized nationally as a critical need in a Federal-wide effort to integrate inventory, monitoring, and research (Environmental Monitoring Team 1997). The Forest Service has inventories that are spatial and that are designed to meet managers needs at a fine scale. We also have strategic inventories that are sample-based for large areas, such as states and regions. There are discussions and research underway to bring these two types of inventories together to capitalize on the advantages of each. The Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Institute is working closely with the Northern Region (Montana and northern Idaho) to see how the spatial needs of national forests may be met at various scales by the strategic, samplebased Forest Inventory and Analysis inventories (personal communication, Thomas Hoekstra). Moisen and others (1998) are exploring various statistical methods for merging forest inventory data with satellite-based information to improve the efficiency of estimates of forest population totals, to produce regional maps of forest class and structure, and to explore ecological relationships. The other type of challenge relates to technical issues of remote sensing. As the technology rapidly evolves, a host of needs arise, such as coordinated acquisition of data from multiple sensors; highly automated data acquisition, archiving, retrieval, preprocessing, and distribution; global DEM (digital elevation models), especially for microwave data; robust mosaicing methods; highly automated yet interactive image classification; and validation procedures (personal communication, Frank Ahern). Solutions for these needs are being developed and tested in agencies, universities, and elsewhere in the private sector, but this will be a continual effort because the challenge is so dynamic. Scale Issues _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ In any discussion of inventory and monitoring, the first thing that must be commonly understood by participants is the scale of the activity. Inventory and monitoring occur at spatial scales from global to forest stand and at temporal scales from centuries to days. Not only do costs vary as scale changes, but so too does the utility of the information to answer certain questions. Several challenges confront us. We need to identify the loss or gain of information as one changes scale as well as the temporal and spatial resolution necessary to identify patterns and change. Methods for extrapolation from fine to broad spatial scales and from short- to long-term temporal scales need to be developed. And in some instances, strategies must be flexible to meet local needs while attentive to requirements at higher levels. To resolve scale issues, the best starting point is to identify the scale that is appropriate to the level of analysis. We must match the spatial and temporal monitoring scale to the question being asked or the issue being addressed. For example, the Forest Inventory and Analysis program is developing annual monitoring and evaluation approaches so that it can meet the needs of customers in areas where land USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999 use and timber volume changes are occurring rapidly. Ecosystem management demands resource informa tion for broad areas, and this has resulted in the Forest Service and its partners conducting large-area assessments to gain understanding of forest ecosystems at that scale. Inventory and monitoring data and information are vital inputs to these assessments. Adaptive Management And Decision Making Adaptive management is a continuing process of actionbased planning, monitoring, researching, and adjusting with the objective of improving implementation and achieving desired goals and objectives (Lessard 1998). Monitoring and evaluation are key aspects of adaptive management to provide the feedback to decision-makers or land managers to make necessary adjustments or improvements. A major challenge is that there is currently little connection between monitoring and evaluation and decision making. Tied to this, we rarely identify "trigger points" in our monitoring systems, that is thresholds or limits for indicators that when they are reached they trigger a management response or decision. Monitoring and evaluation requirements often are not based on clear objectives and do not address key management questions or issues. Monitoring for monitoring's sake is unacceptable. We must evaluate the results and put them to use in adaptive management. We find ourselves with a general inability to answer key questions about forests, such as: • Are we managing our forests sustainably? • How much and at what rate is deforestation or conversion occurring? • How much of each forest ecoregion is protected and how representative are protected areas? • Where is forest restoration most needed and achievable? and • How can terrestrial and aquatic conservation goals be integrated? Inventory and monitoring, in an adaptive management framework, can not only answer these questions but can also be used to correct undesirable situations that have been detected. To practice adaptive management requires a commitment by land management agencies. It may call for a change in agency culture such that management objectives are couched as experiments and that failure is acceptable. As a result, it also requires the support and approval of Congress and our partners as well as a comprehensive educational program for the public. But even without a full commitment to manage adaptively, we can take steps that will improve our inventory and monitoring systems. Examples include: • Monitoring needs to be designed to help managers understand the dynamics of forests and the underlying causes so that when decisions are made, they will have the desired effect to move the system toward the desired condition; • Provide a clear statement of why the monitoring program has value (such as how it ties to management goals and objectives), what information it will provide, and 507 how the interpretation of that information will lead to a more responsible management response or tie to decision processes; • Realize that there are many types of monitoring (e.g., baseline, compliance, effectiveness, and validation) so tailor monitoring designs appropriately; • Statistical precision must match manager's needs; i.e., sampling must address detecting a given magnitude of change and the likelihood of detecting this change should it occur; • Apply the appropriate design and quality standards to meet the monitoring objective, e.g., scientific rigor is not always needed; • Determine threshold indicator values that will trigger a management response; and • Use research natural areas, which are protected from harvesting, as reference monitoring sites to facilitate understanding of the effects that such management has on forests versus natural dynamics. Science, Research and Development, Theory Ifinventory and monitoring are going to be truly effective in describing forest resource conditions and in improving land management decisions, then they should be based on the best science and research available. There is widespread agreement that science and research playa vital role in integrating monitoring information (Environmental Monitoring Team 1997). Monitoring ecosystems to draw reliable inferences about system integrity before irreversible degradation occurs is daunting, given that these ecosystems are poorly understood, complex systems subject to stochastic variation and unpredictable behaviors. This calls for close involvement by research in the monitoring process. The challenges are worthy of any research organization. This list of "gnarly" problems in monitoring ecological resources, such as forests, provides a flavor of the daunting task before us (personal communication, Barry Noon): • Predicting across temporal and spatial scales; • Estimating "normal" rates of change of ecosystem processes; • Defining the expected ''range of variation" in natural processes; • Identifying threshold regions of change that trigger management responses; • Defining a "desired future condition" for dynamic systems; • Detecting causation when there are time lags and synergistic effects; • Linking physical and biological process in the form of predictive models; and • Drawing inferences to the population of interest from non-probability based samples. Other challenges include: • Appropriate scientific methods frequently are not used in conducting monitoring and evaluation; • Minimal foundation in ecological theory or knowledge; 508 • Monitoring single specIes or simple systems is more straightforward and easier than assessing integrity of entire ecosystems, which may be the real need; and • How to best integrate the human, biological, and physical dimensions of forests into-inventory and monitoring systems. The first step in integrating science with inventory and monitoring is conceptually simple but often difficult in practice: get scientists and land managers to work together for the common good. Each group provides essential pieces of this puzzle and for either one to attempt to solve it independently is doomed to failure. Researchers, scientists, and land managers need to bring their different perspectives, training, and experiences together to collaborate in the various aspects of inventory and monitoring. One pDsitive step the FDrest Service has taken is to. create a mDnitDring and evaluatiDn cDDrdinatDr pDsitiDn that is funded equally by the research and natiDnal fDrest system branches of the agency. Since much Dfthe inventDry and monitDring the Dry is already well develDped, anDther useful step is to. synthesize and interpret the the Dry fDr land managers and perSDnnel who. are tasked to. develDp inventDry and mDnitoring systems. If the resulting systems are sDlidly grDunded in sDund theory they will be much mDre efficient and useful in the shDrt- and IDng-term. Here are a cDuple Df Dther suggestions. Inventory and mDnitDring designers can establish the relation (pathway) between thDse factDrs that may cDmprDmise the management gDals (stressDrs) and their eCDlogical effects. This is anDther way Df saying that they shDuld develop a cDnceptual mDdel Df hDW fDrests wDrk. Designers can also. provide a mechanism fDr adDpting, adapting, Dr developing new technDIDgy Dr applicatiDns (e.g., remDte sensing, sampling equi pment, cDmputer models and infDrmatiDn systems) to maintain a state-Df-the-art mDnitDring system. Organizational/Institutional Constraints Even if an agency can DverCDme all the previDusly described challenges to. integrating inventDry and mDnitDring, success will not be achieved unless and until organizational and institutiDnal cDnstraints are satisfactDrily dealt with. The human reSDurces that make up an agency fDrm the vital cDnnectiDn between a well designed monitDring system and a mDnitDring system that is actually implemented and achieving the desired DutcDmes. This is nDt an area Df scientific Dr technical sDlutiDns but rather an area Dfadministrative and persDnnel management sDlutiDns. The FDrest Service faces numerDUS institutiDnal challenges thDugh many of these are CDmmDn to. Dther agencies as well. MonitDring and evaluatiDn techniques, methDdolDgies, and philDsDphies vary widely resulting in incDnsistent findings and repDrting methDds that affect Dur credibility. Our decentralized DrganizatiDnal structure has encDuraged and exacerbated this situatiDn. There is a lack ofintegration and interdisciplinary apprDach in mDnitDring and evaluatiDn activities resulting in duplicatiDn Df effDrts and redundant Dr incDnsistent data. FunctiDnal staffs do not promote USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999 integration among disciplines. Land managers and researchers, who must work cooperatively, often do not understand each other's needs and approaches, which breeds mistrust. There is no incentive for doing monitoring and evaluation and little or no perceived risk for not doing it. Line officers and staff differ in their understanding of what monitoring is, how it works, what its value and benefits are, and how to implement it. Legal challenges to agency monitoring are mounting. There is also a reluctance to cooperate and share, i.e., public data and information are often considered as proprietary. Inventory and monitoring can be very expensive and yet financial resources have been steadily decreasing for these activities. The Forest Service is working on solutions to these challenges on several fronts. We recently created the Inventory and Monitoring Institute to facilitate and support the collection, management, and analysis of compatible, scientifically reliable social and ecological information at the national, regional, state, and national forest levels to support ecosystem management. A strategic plan or framework is under development that will describe all of the various inventory and monitoring efforts and their relationships as well identify critical gaps and duplications of efforts. The Forest Inventory and Analysis program is working closely with the National Forest System inventories in order to fulfill its mandate of reporting on forest lands of all ownerships. A National Resource Information System (NRIS) is being developed and implemented across the agency to standardize and integrate inventories conducted at the forest and district level. Since line officers playa critical role to implement inventory and monitoring, the agency is emphasizing the benefits of monitoring and institutionalizing accountability to encourage them to be more powerful and committed advocates. But all levels of the organization must be involved, so we are pursuing a combination of "top-down" and "bottom-up" approaches. We are encouraging the use of interdisciplinary teams in designing monitoring systems so that these systems are integrated and cost-effective. Monitoring takes commitment of human and financial resources, more often than not in short supply as government continues to follow the corporate model of downsizing. These resources need to be explicitly obligated at the initiation of projects rather than added on at the end as an afterthought. Guidance has been issued to develop realistic and practical inventory and monitoring goals so that we can avoid commi tting to do work that we are unlikely to be able to do. Coordination, Partnerships, Volunteers Finally, the Forest Service, despite its talented workforce, realizes that trying to integrate inventory and monitoring in isolation from other agencies, organizations, stakeholders, and publics is not only inefficient but often counter productive. Our agency does not have a monopoly on forest resource issues, ideas, and approaches, and so our inventory and monitoring systems must be integrated with similar systems used elsewhere. Challenges for inventory and monitoring collaboration are varied. A major one is simply lack of information on what inventory and monitoring work is being conducted USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999 elsewhere that may be useful and helpful. Once such information is obtained, another major challenge is how to adapt and/or adopt different yet related inventory and monitoring systems with ones already in use. Another one is the not uncommon view that if someone else is doing inventory and monitoring it cannot be applicable to my situation. This is known as the "not invented here" syndrome, and it is a real barrier to working cooperatively. Part ofthis concern, however, arises from the lack of control over the quality and timeliness of the data, and thus can be valid. Volunteers or other assistants may not have adequate training to conduct inventories and monitoring. Working with others can slow inventory and monitoring progress and thus be an impediment to timely release of resource data and information. So while coordination, cooperation, and collaboration sound worthy, they are not easily implemented. The Forest Service is actively engaged in a variety of efforts to work with others in the inventory and monitoring of forest ecosystems. Guidance and direction have been issued for specialists not to design a system in isolation, i.e., find out what others are doing and adapt as appropriate. Also, before collecting your own data, search for comparable data from other sources. We are working to involve partners (including the public) in all phases of system design and implementation. The Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota, for instance, has invited the public to see its monitoring work in action and to participate in it themselves. The Forest Service participated in the framework to integrate environmental monitoring and research (Environmental Monitoring Team 1997) and is active in collaboratively designing and conducting the necessary inven tory and monitoring for the national report card on the health of forest ecosystems. The Forest Inventory and Analysis and Forest Health Monitoring programs work very closely with State Foresters and their respective agencies, especially in the area of intensifying the sample to improve the resolution of the data and estimates. The agency also organized a roundtable discussion with many other partner agencies and organizations on approaches to use criteria and indicators to monitor progress toward sustainable forest management. We have worked with other agencies and organizations in Washington, DC to create a forest and grassland inventory and monitoring forum where interested parties meet regularly to share information and approaches to common problems. This forum resulted in a website (www.mp1-pwrc.usgs.gov/fgim/index.htm) that permits anyone in the world to link with a host of inventory and monitoring activities and information. And finally, through meetings like this symposium, we are striving to reach across international boundaries to work with our counterparts in other countries to develop forest inventory and monitoring systems that are compatible and integrated and that will yield information efficiently at the continental and global scale. Conclusions __________ The challenges of properly integrating inventory and monitoring into the work of a land management agency are myriad and complex. They touch on topics such as 509 information management, indicator selection and development, methods, scale, adaptive management, decision making, science, research and development, organizational constraints, and coordination with others. In the face of such obstacles and barriers, it would be tempting to despair. But we understand the critical importance of inventory and monitoring information to sound forest management, and so we have been addressing and confronting these challenges on a wide front for a number of years. We are making progress both internally andin cooperation with many other agencies and organizations. Momentum is building to focus more attention and resources on inventory and monitoring issues, and this can only accelerate transforming these challenges into opportunities that we can take advantage of. The "information age" demands the natural resource management agencies to provide complete information about the resources under their responsibility in a manner that can be easily accessed through modern delivery mechanisms. The Forest Service is positioning itself, in partnership with others, to be a major provider of high quality, timely, and useful forest ecosystem information. It is well worth the effort to do so. 510 Literature Cited Environmental Monitoring Team. 1997. Integrating the nation's environmental monitoring and research networks and programs: a proposed framework. Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology Council. Washington, DC. 102 p. Lessard, Gene. 1998. An adaptive approach .to planning and decision-making. Landscape and Urban Planning 40: 81-87. Moisen, G. G., Edwards, T. C., Jr., and Van Hooser, D. 1998. Merging regional forest inventory data with satellite-based information through nonlinear regression methods. In: Ranchin, Thierry and Wald, Lucien, eds., proceedings ofthe Second International Conference on the Fusion ofEarth Data, Sophia Antipolis, France, January 1998. p. 123-128. Noon, Barry R. 1997. Scientific framework for effectiveness monitoringofthe Northwest Forest Plan. In: Mulder, Barry S., Noon, Barry R., Spies, Thomas A., Raphael, Martin G., Olsen, Anthony R., Palmer, Craig J., Reeves, Gordon H., and Hart, Hartwell H., The Strategy and Design of the Effectiveness Monitoring Program for the Northwest Forest Plan. Final Report. Regional Ecosystem Office, Portland, OR. p. 40-56. Santiago Declaration. 1995. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. J. Forestry 93(4): 18-21. USDA Forest Service. 1992. Information management: a framework for the future. Washington, DC. 17 p. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999