Notes from Day 1
Inventorying Alaska’s Forests: An
Opportunity for Integrating Interagency
Needs with FIA
Wednesday 5 February 2014: Matt Bowser – Notes
Morning: Introductory Presentations
08:30 Greg Reams. Implementing FIA for all of Alaska: FIA & Partners
The quest to cover all states and territories began in earnest more than 20 years ago. 1992 – blue ribbon
panel focused on shortening cycle from 5-10 years. This did not work because we were like gypsies,
would come and disappear every 5-10 years, losing connections with people and ownerships within
states. 1997 – blue ribbon panel 2, annual system begins. Call for national program, standardizing
methods. 1998 farm -> standardizing core, deciding forest/non-forest.
Four regions. Some difficulty working across these boundaries.
What did we say we would do? Work with partners defining direction and implementation. Inclusive of
forest health issues. Support sustainability criteria and indicators. Develop national core attributes,
reports with regional flexibility, supporting partner user needs.
What we need to do. In Alaska, we must work with partners. This is necessary. Enhance social,
ecological, and economic integration. FIA may help provide infrastructure and information needs.
Extent, type of forests. How forests are changing. Climate impacts? State of carbon emission and
sequestration? –Alaska is biggest unknown in national estimation. Want to be able to forecast change
in greenhouse gas emission/sequestration. Dodged bullet by saying interior Alaska is unmanaged, but
many would disagree. Handle on current and future biomass needs for energy.
Old data acquisition picture was cluttered.
Alaska partner needs (word cloud slide of many needs, e.g. data, inventory, monitoring, use, including
unknowns)
FIA National Sample Design. Hexagonal grid over the globe and U.S. provides random locations of each
plot. One P2 plot represents ~6,000 acres. Remeasure each individual plot every 10 years. This is the
annual measurement system.
Coastal Alaska FIA Plots. Previous periodic inventory started in SE AK in 1995, finishing south-central in
2003. Coastal annual inventory started 2004 and finishes 2014. Remeasurement starts in 2015.
Integrating Interagency Needs FIA Meeting
February 5, 2014
Coastal AK FIA Research. 5-year report in 2011. First 10 year report in 2015.
Heading next to Interior, Tanana Valley.
Our expectations. Inventory and monitor forests of all of AK. Good handle on coastal, need interior.
Identify shared interests and common avenues for collaboration among agencies. Gain understanding of
FIA and its capacity. Additional data that is out there to share. How can this be leveraged? Look at
ways to integrate inventories to minimize costs for all agencies. Need an AK I & M working group and
yield information on AK’s most pressing issues.
No time for questions, but there was one from Beth: Farm Bill asks FIA to figure out how FIA will survey
interior AK. Strategic plan is supposed to be out in 180 days.
08:57 Mark Rosenberg. Western States Representative to FIA: an introduction
He was recently appointed to FIA management team as representative from states. Coordinates veg
mapping and monitoring. Uses products for fire planning, biomass. Used FIA data for accuracy
assessment of change detection. Generated GIS data to generate timber volume reports. In California,
FIA provides much data useful to CA: Global warming solutions act, cap and trade, air quality, forest
biomass and wood energy, forest policy statement, fire protection, forest health, forest pests, urban
forests, carbon sequestration capacity, climate action reserve base line, post fire GHG emissions, forest
biomass supply and sustainability estimates, forest action plan, insect mortality, urban forest inventory.
Questions/Discussion:
Comment from Gretchen Nicholas: Mark is on team representing states’ interest to FIA.
Rob DeVelice comment: saw no biodiversity applications in CA list. Mark responded that he had only
chosen a sampling.
Beth commented on Mark pushing for P3 veg in CA to address biodiversity concerns and to see how
areas are changing in terms of rare plants or species of concern.
Chris Mark on baseline data for carbon emissions. Needed for registering projects.
John Morton gave overview of agenda. 1. Presentations 2. Examples. These set up for discussions of 1.
Sample frame. 2. Attributes. Tanana pilot study at end
09:13 Robert Pattison. FIA background
Interior AK could be 15% of forested area of U.S., a huge area.
History. Forest inventories started in the 1930s with hand-drawn sketch maps. Focused on dense,
harvestable stands. Many plot/sampling designs over the years, region-specific methodologies. There
used to be periodic inventories. By 1980s,90s, realized that this wasn’t working well.
2 – Day 1
Integrating Interagency Needs FIA Meeting
February 5, 2014
Periodic inventories – field crews sampled 1-2 states. Data were difficult to analyze because of
inconsistent methods.
1998 Farm Bill: nationally consistent plot, 4 fixed radius subplots. Systematic national design for all lands
(grid). Complete, systematic, annual sample of each state. Combine FIA with Forest Health Management
(P3).
P1,P2, P3?
System of generating sample based estimates.
P1 used to classify forest/non-forest
P2 ground measurement on grid, traditional suite of FIA variables. P2 plots located randomly within
hexagons. 1P2 plot per hexagon (6000 acres).
P3 is merger of forest health monitoring with FIA. 1/16 of P2 plots have additional variables measured.
1/96000 acres.
New annual design mandated 4 fixed subplots. 6.8 ft. microplot for small trees. Macroplot in CA, OR,
WA.
Locations are confidential to protect plot integrity, land ownership info. MOUs can be arranged.
Questions/Discussion:
Rob DeVelice: asking whether going back to periodic methods. Answer is that interior may be sort-of
periodic, but this is not settled yet.
09:32 Ray Koleser. FIA Alaska perspective: a history and status
Alaska’s FIA. Past-legacy data (pre FIA inventory data). Most inventories in state varied in their methods.
Generally not remeasured. Only interior AK data
Present coastal inventories are post-FIA national inventories. Adopted grid, periodic.
Special studies: Tanana Valley State Forest pilot, Bonanza Creek intensification, Kenai Lidar study, AIRIS
remeasurement.
First AK plots in 1950s in SE AK. Interior plots installed in 1960s. By late 1960s, considered Alaska
inventoried to some extent.
Late 1970s to mid 1980s used 4 phase inventory design in parts of interior and SEAK
FIA Data in AK, initial SE Coastal inventory. Forest Survey started 1955-1957. 2-phase sample based on
aerial photos, 716 ground samples.
3 – Day 1
Integrating Interagency Needs FIA Meeting
February 5, 2014
Initial Interior Inventories. 1958-1960. Very photo oriented, 37K photos. ½ acre photo sample at center
of each photo. 3774 air-check points, 355 ground plots. Obtained basic information.
After initial inventories were completed, more intensive “periodic inventories” completed. 2-phase
sample, with photography, ground plots using Bitterlich method.
A hodge-podge of “periodic” Inventories in AK, not covering whole area. 10-point cluster sample.
Special Projects, including KP bark beetle project. Used 5 point cluster.
Full legacy plot distribution provides fair coverage of the state.
Most sampling was focused on timber production.
In 1980s, started looking at veg in terms of biomass using HV method. 100m2 plot. Layer, cover,
composition. Dropped when we went to the annual inventory system.
In 1990’s went to grid design, standard plot footprint. Completed 1995-2003.
4 fixed radius plots at each site close to what would be adopted as plot design.
Starting in 2004, had to cover all of coastal AK, 3200 miles for the boat.
Finished first annual cycle in 2013. 1998 forested plots. 146 nonforested. 130 P3 plots.
110K crew hours for annual inventory. 74K trees measured.
Next steps. Current coastal cycle completed. Budget snafus led to delaying implementation of 2nd annual
cycle except for sampling Kenai NWR and Tanana Valley State Forest.
10:06 Tara Barrett. Uses of FIA data for monitoring.
Had been bread and butter reporting on forest use.
Now lichens used by EPA for air quality, fuels mapping, habitat, biomass, etc.
TADIA: Things are different in Alaska. Has been treated like poor step child compared to other states.
Left out 1990s forest health inventories. Nationally, strong stable support of FIA program. 127 million
acre statistic of forest land in AK was from 1960s forest inventories.
This leads to negative I&M cycle. Relatively little data -> less use of data -> client perception, data not
that useful -> national FIA perception is that AK only needed for AK inventory.
But could have positive I&M cycle. Ongoing coverage for entire state -> data useful -> …
What can change the cycle? 2014 farm bill. New tech: GPS, Lidar, other remote sensing. New needs:
climate change, carbon monitoring, bioenergy. Coastal inventory data now can be used. Working with
4 – Day 1
Integrating Interagency Needs FIA Meeting
February 5, 2014
partners. Data and analysis that meets needs, political support, additional resources (expertise,
funding), compatible information systems.
Major strengths: statistically sound sampling design, well accepted methods. Extensive amount of field
data. Remeasured permanent plots. Across all ownerships. Provides regional context for change.
8 examples of using Coastal AK data for monitoring change.
#1 Chugach climate change vulnerability assessment. For monitoring changes in tree species. Live tree
biomass increasing in gulf ecoregion.
#2 tree rings from last summer analyzed at UAA to relate growth to climate.
#3 working with partners to figure out why shore pine is decreasing, disease and insects on shore pine.
#4 indirect indication that yellow cedar may be migrating. Mortality mostly at low elevations,
regeneration is pretty good.
#5 change in distribution of spruce species? Black, white, and sitka spruce. Models project that Sitka
spruce habitat will be increasing. FIA data powerful for forward projections.
#6 hemlock dwarf mistletoe projection over next 100 years. Western Hemlock gradually moving.
#7 carbon and biomass. New GTR on carbon change for Tongass and Chugach. 4.5% increase in biomass
in Chugach. Differences between managed and unmanaged lands.
#8 growth and yield modelling. FVS (what is this?)
Potential uses of interior AK data: Monitoring insects and disease impacts. Fire effects, fire risk, etc.
Mapping species habitat – good examples using FIA data from Oregon, California. Soils data. Understory
vegetation and lichen protocols. Invasive plants.
Yes we can have a positive I&M cycle. High quality data -> sustained funding.
Questions/Discussion:
Lisa Saperstein asked about potential Kenai FVS. Another person stressed usefulness of lichen data.
10:29 Steve Matthews. Atlas of climate chage effects on 150 bird: linking birds and
forest inventory data.
Using ecosystem level + species level to address climate change response.
Climate is changing and species are responding. Species distribution models can provide insight into
current patterns and how these habitats may shift. Link land uses to species. Building broad scale
models aligns with coarse distribution pressures. Must use multi-model approach.
5 – Day 1
Integrating Interagency Needs FIA Meeting
February 5, 2014
Climate is warming. What are the ecological impacts? This is part of a complicated network of
interconnected issues = global change.
Challenges of modeling species impacts of climate change. GCM uncertainty. Species likely to respond
individually. Biology of many species unknown. Need to incorporate different approaches. Modelling is
part of this.
What can broad-scale models provide to our understanding of species patterns? Specialized species
more responsive to local processes. But all should have response to long-wave influences.
Biogeography. Why do species occur where they do? Landforms, climate, biotic interactions, habitat,
dispersal. Can consider landforms, climate and habitat in these kinds of models.
Climate may play a very important role in shaping species distributions. E.g., energetics.
But there is a strong habitat component for many species.
Can use land cover types to look at habitat types.
Can utilize plot level data of individual trees to capture wildlife habitat. FIA matches extent of BBS data.
Both provide important broad scale monitoring data.
Advantages of using FIA inventory data. Can capture veg characteristics. Can link plant/animal
interactions / forest maturation / tree species composition.
Fearer et al. 2007 – associations of BBS routes in Appalachians, linked to FIA plots.
Twedt et al. detection of changes in forest and bird composition.
Species distributions are always changing and never static. Species can move independently of forest
types. Contemporary changes are unique-rapid and complicated.
Elaboration on our research program. 150 tree and bird atlases. Using multiple levels of data to make
something useful. 100K+ plots in E US.
FIA: Trees -> importance value -> measure of relative abundance
Birds: BBS -> incidence, coarse index of relative abundance
20km2 resolution. Modeled using random forest regression.
Lots of predictor variables. Soils, topographic, etc. for trees. Tree spp, temp., etc. for birds.
Example, increase in distribution of prothonatory warbler due to increase in water oak due to increase
in temp.
Assessing model drivers. Use randomforest, more robust than tree based, but need to recapture some
spatial interpretation.
6 – Day 1
Integrating Interagency Needs FIA Meeting
February 5, 2014
Species groups tend to vary in an expected fashion in what influences their distribution, e.g. some more
influenced by climate; others more influenced by tree species.
Atlases are available online. Some species increase; others decrease.
General trend across all 147, substantial changes predicted.
Do the models really benefit from FIA tree data? E.g., for black-throated blue warbler,
inclusion/exclusion of tree data drastically changes projections. FIA provides link to what is on ground in
terms of habitat.
Are these data being used? Used in local modeling efforts
Tree species change assembled to make projections of forest types.
But, many other factors, e.g. disturbance, can affect outcomes of future tree species assemblages.
Example from northern WI. Can zoom in and look at changes in distributions. Can put these data
together to look at likelihood and consequences of change.
Ecosystem vulnerabilities. Changes may lead to vulnerabilities. Some ecosystems may be better able to
accommodate change….
As we begin to think about management, underlying landscape complexities begins to emerge as reality
of contemporary changes. -> finer scale modeling…
Pushing resolution from 20km to 10km and 4km using new bird, FIA, and soil data. Nested grids an
effective way to make cross scale inference.
Useful for assisted migration, identifying corridors…
Broad scale approach allows for capture of probable contributing conditions. Landscape context…
Make results more transferable….
Questions/Discussion
Rob Pattison: have used previous FIA data (repeated measurements)? Not yet, but getting there.
Looking at seedlings v. existing trees.
Floristic composition (understory & lichens) and birds? Yes..
Have people been using your data for management? Yes. Workshops to talk about current and future
management. 20 cases where implementing, e.g., how will birds respond to oak wilt?
Are you using mean climate variables or extremes? Had been using means, but now have daily data and
moving toward using daily data including extremes.
7 – Day 1
Integrating Interagency Needs FIA Meeting
February 5, 2014
11:12 John Morton. Leveraging the FIA at the local scale - Multi-taxa inventory.
Tara talked about drilling into FIA database + climate data; Steve using two national programs, pulling
data together. I am talking about leveraging in another way: sampling in field to complement FIA data.
There are multiple ways to collaborate with FIA.
Provided KP/KNWR context. Our refuge is small by AK standards (2 million acres).
Refuge purposes: 1964 Wilderness Act, 1997 NWRS improvement act, 1980 ANILCA -> conserve fish &
wildlife populations and habitats in natural diversity, including broadly defined wildlife.
-> LTEMP
Use FIA coastal inventory grid. It is representative of the Refuge at this resolution.
We extended grid to non-forest. FIA completed 177 points 1999-2002. We finished up remaining 82
plots on terrestrial non-forested habitats.
Also resampled 50 FIA plots for mosses and lichens.
342 plots, 259 are terrestrial non-ice. Coordinates are protected, but we had MOU to obtain these.
Methods optimized around breeding birds, so sampling compressed into three weeks in years 20042006. Focues on HV method used in AK coastal inventory. Species list from this method was critical for
what we did. We sweep netted for insects on this 100m2 radius. We sampled veg later in the summer,
sharing FIA helicopter.
Example of data from one plot (3088). Abiotic and biotic data. Arthropod identifications still happening,
e.g. Phaenoglyphis kenaii, Sapromya TAW1.
Spatial data on ~1100 species. Can look at assemblages, model, predict.
Examples for uses of LTEMP data: prediction of species distributions, landcover classification, exotic
plant management context.
Manage invasives at two levels: broader landscape context (FIA data) and human footprint(weed
monitoring surveys), so can tell if winning battle (on human footprint) and/or winning the war (broader
context from FIA).
Scaling up… heavy metal uptake at large scale.
What makes LTEMP work? Permanent sampling sites (FIA) that could be used for monitoring.
Statistically robust sample frame to survive planned and unplanned changes. Data are representative.
Colocation of biotic and abiotic data. All sampling methods are passive, non-destructive to habitat and
inexpensive. Multitaxa and interagency cost share.
8 – Day 1
Integrating Interagency Needs FIA Meeting
February 5, 2014
Why we have stalled/considerations for future inventories. Need to use occupancy modeling to address
imperfect detection. We cannot afford to sample multiple times, so looking at subsampling in time and
space while we visit plot. Also, we are heading toward DNA barcoding.
We have been building a DNA barcode library for identifications using second generation DNA
barcoding.
Also, classified LTEMP plots based on species assemblages. This was to define current assemblages in
context of detecting expected novel assemblages.
For us, all of our work had centered on the 100m2 plot. It is important to work with FIA to get what is
important for you.
There are lots of ways to collaborate with FIA. Scaling sideways – including non-forested plots. Scaling
up – look at regional scale. Scaling down – FIA provides context for more detailed work. Leveraging –
adjunct inventory.
Questions/Discussion:
Lori Winton – you are missing fungal taxa. FIA is beginning to address this, at least pathogens. Answer –
we would be glad to add. (Beth pointed out that Lori does training).
Q: Which symbiont of lichens are DNA barcoded? A: fungal symbiont.
Q: Were ID’s done in house or were specimens sent out for ID? Matt and Ed both processed specimens,
but sent out specimens to specialists.
Q: What was cost per year? A: no exact number, but biggest cost hands down was helicopter.
Q: did we do any soil sampling including invertebrates? A: no, but we intend to sample for earthworms
in future, perhaps also other soil invertebrates.
Q: What was the time frame for getting this work done? A: field work was fast, but the limiter is
specimen processing.
Q from lichenologist: part of mandate is creating species list. What is utility of morphological group
instead of species? Scaling up to ecosystem function? A: we don’t know function of most species. Some
looking into it. Fighting invasives. We’ll follow up on this.
Beth: asked for e-mails because this meeting might lead to working group. Request for way to exchange
information among us.
Lunch break
Introductions (we went around the room and also conference call lines to let everyone introduce
themselves and their interest in inventory in interior Alaska before the next presentation)
9 – Day 1
Integrating Interagency Needs FIA Meeting
February 5, 2014
1:37 Ken Winterberger. Proposed FIAsampling frame for Interior AK
Why we don’t use stratified sampling. Can result in higher precision within strata, can be more efficient.
But not useful for monitoring strata changes or when you are not sure what the strata are.
Example, plot in forest ended up in river.
Systematic sample – representative of poluation, easy to locate samples, easy to intensify/deintensify
sample. But assumes population is random, not truly a random sample, could interact with hidden
periodicity, no method to reliably estimate variance.
FIA sample frame based on EPA’s EMAP sampling grid. Allows sampling any distributed and well-defined
resource. Later developed program to develop hexagons around any convenient area. Expandable in
factors of 3,4,7, and 9…
Example, Bonanza Creek LTER and Caribou Poker Creek, plot intensification. For interior, looking at ¼ of
P2.
Questions/Discussion:
Brad Scotton – different size hexagon or reducing intensity? A: sampling 25% of hexagons.
1:49 Chris Woodall. Extending and intensifying the FIA inventory of down forest fuels
Looking at extending to Alaska …
Intensification vs. extension
Intensification - can increase sampling intensity from P3.
Extension – agents/individuals use FIA field protocols on other plots. No FIA affiliation.
Objectives: evaluate contribution of intensification to inventory/analysis…
BWCA was interested in fuels due to blow down in 1999. Did P2 * 2 (1 plot /3000 acres)
PRNL 1998. Had been collecting down woody data on the park. Wanted estimates. Lake shore is a
narrow strip, sampled much more intensely than FIA, but not on FIA sample frame.
Results: BWCA, lots of duff. Could compare estimates with NC states surrounding them. Can also
compare BWCA with Bailey’s ecoprovince.
This enables looking at various scales with valid statistical approach for comparison. Woodall and Nagel
(2007)
Extension work: FS processed data for Park Service. Provided context for fuel loading to states and
ecological province. For park itself, could zoom in to look at fuel loading for management.
10 – Day 1
Integrating Interagency Needs FIA Meeting
February 5, 2014
Conclusions: framework for regional monitoring? FIA provides context. Economics of scale when non-FIA
partners adopt FIA-like protocols/sample design. FIA produces field guides/protocols. NIMAC (National
Inventory and Monitoring…)
Questions/Discussion:
John Morton asked about Patrick Leske, who leveraged FIA data for fuel loading, doing bird work and P3
veg work on intensified sample in Pictured Rocks.
Discussion
Ken Winterberger: When we first started out looking at grid for interior, decided this was impossible.
Tried to figure out what intensity. Can only do it in factors of 3,4,7,9, etc. Played around more last fall.
1/3 was too intense, 1/7 was not intense enough. Worked with 1/5 for a while, settled on ¼. Was not a
huge difference between 1/5 vs. ¼. Started looking at collaborative pilot between NASA and FIA. To
make it more feasible, working along roads. Picked one entity so that we can say something about this
unit. Settled on Tanana Valley State Forest and Tetlin NWR, a total of 99 plots. Now calling this a proof
of concept? How much time per plot? Most time is for access. Will be mostly helicopter access. ¼ is 1
plot / 24000 acres. Decided to go with land management units so (1) it is a realistic proof of concept and
(2) at end of day, can have useful products.
Q: 1 plot per day? A: yes
Q: how many people per crew? A: 4 Ken elaborated on add-ons: soils, ground cover
Q: Are there any historic plots in the pilot area? A: yes. will be visiting a subset of historical plots in
Tanana area. Large scale photograph on 20km grid, will be flown again this summer. NASA proposal
associated with this did not happen.
Q: Are legacy data available? A: yes or will be soon.
Q: time per plot? Depends on add-ons. Sapling microplots will probably be added. Need to make sure
these can be processed in our analysis programs, though. Sampling must fit within one day. Multiple
ways to add on though, including staff from other agencies, etc. to do additional sampling. Estimate is
$9K/plot. Morton: can collaborate in a number of ways, e.g. supplemental plots.
John wanted to keep inventory and monitoring discussions separate. Looking at one time inventory at
present.
Ray Koleser mentioned that costs per plot do not increase linearly, e.g. at some point need two
helicopters, etc.
Amy Miller asked how helicopter logistics/sharing worked out for us. How much planning, how far in
advance did helicopter/etc. need to be planned arranged? A: collaboration with FIA helo was more-orless last-minute.
11 – Day 1
Integrating Interagency Needs FIA Meeting
February 5, 2014
Ken Winterberger: Access is the difficulty and helicopters are expensive. Also pilot/duty day limitations.
Diane Granfors: What factors went into ¼ number? A (Tara): much has to do with what Washington
Office ok’s. Starting point was how to get interior AK funded? Initial approach (P2) too expensive. So,
Hans came up with 1/5 based on previous work led by Tara. Ray went into great detail costing out 1/5.
But, decided that 1/5 was not workable to be consistent with national grid. Led to ¼ or 1/7, which fit
with national cycle better. Chose ¼ because it is close to 1/5, give more samples.
Ray: must keep in mind that what we are doing on pilot is trying to link advanced remote sensing so not
losing as much as if only deintensifying. For pilot study, high res multispectral and lidar, new system
developed by NASA, ideal for this kind of monitoring. NASA is providing ~50% of funding for this project.
Rob DeVelice: Has anybody done a ¼ sampling to see what statistics cold be generated from such a grid?
A (Tara): can be efficient w/Lidar for metrics like biomass, basal area, but not for lichens, etc.
Going to be tying any of the pilot work with Bonanza LTER? A: yes, NASA will be flying intensively over
Bonanza/Poker Flats LTER. Also going to be flying over plots in military areas.
Beth: Dan, did you intensify on military lands? A: yes, 1/3000 – 1/6000 in forested. Remeasured P3
three times.
Morton: manager must decide what management unit is, e.g., all AK National Parks, just Denali, etc. Do
the math to see if ¼ is enough or if need more.
Steve: what is the plan for rest of interior? Gretchen: must get funded. Must get funded for base
program. Have more potential for funding now than we have had at any time. Need to have base
program others can hang stuff off of.
Also an opportunity to revise national strategic plan. Readjust numbers nation-wide to provide funding
for Alaska.
LCC’s can express support in various ways.
Agencies can help with permitting/access.
Q: is farm bill limited to forests? A: yes. But, FIA does non-forest on National Forest lands. NFS works
with FIA to add things to plots.
Q (Ruth) interested in FIA P1 protocols over area of 40 mile caribou herd.
Q How is forest/non forest defined? E.g., what if an area burns and grass comes back? A: still called
forest. Andy Gray: go back 30 years after a fire to decide if it is converted or not. Also, P1 classification
reclassified every time. Ken: if we think there might be trees there, we are obligated to sample it.
Q (Brad): asking about collaboration, summed up well purpose of meeting: FIA asking for help and for
what is needed from land managers (I did not capture this especially well).
12 – Day 1
Integrating Interagency Needs FIA Meeting
February 5, 2014
Q (Brad) is there flexibility for the ¼, e.g. supplemental along rivers?
Amy Miller: with remote sensing strips, would strips be continuous over whole or just forested? A:
would be over entire Tanana basin with exception over “super steep crazy stuff”.
Morton: at least two levels of cooperators 1. Individual unit negotiating with FIA 2. Interagency between
UWSFS regional inventory. Brad pointed out that can access most of his 11 million acres with airplane
much more cheaply than helo. Hans, Ray answered Brad’s earlier question that it has to be a systematic
Grid. Brad has asked about deviating from this to improve logistical efficiency.
Q: would additional funds/services support additional protocols? A: there could be swapping that would
occur to share. Cost efficient swapping is having someone from unit accompany field crew to collect
additional information.
Q: on strategic plan ~ 6 months ago. Need to look at this on a country wide perspective – might have to
save money in other states to make AK possible, maybe making more efficient by using lidar, etc. A: may
be funded by Congress or Forest Service. We do have national management team meeting coming up.
There were a group of FIA folks gotten together to find efficiencies/save money. One way was
cooperation (e.g. -> this meeting), but doing this nationally. 12-15 methods found to make FIA more
efficient under budget reductions. Gretchen – there would be ways to reprioritize, but can only cut so
far at present before running into permanent staffing. (original question asker) – seems like we have
been downsizing Alaska a lot already, could ask other regions to improve their efficiency some. A
(Andy): there was a lot of interested in these new NASA methods to see if they will transfer to lower 48.
FIA lost ~$5.1 million, from $71.2 to $66.8 million.
Wrap up…. Tomorrow may discuss next steps. National need for agency I&M leads to get funding for
interior AK. Working group to prioritize regionally. Common for FIA to have regional advisory groups. ->
down to individual cooperators.
Brad mentioned other big land holders, e.g. Doyon. Biomass has become very important. There is great
interest in connecting with native organizations. Every state has to have an SAP, State Action Plan.
Lisa – on biomass and carbon reserves, “land carbon”. Starting on Alaska, but not sure where this went…
USGS project done north of Fairbanks. Done at Yukon Flats. Estimating carbon reserves nationwide.
Beth wrapping up for the day. We now understand better what everyone else is doing. In prep for
tomorrow, we will not go into every variable we collect. Start with P3 or P3 “lite”. Wrapping up around
4:00pm.
13 – Day 1