REGIONAL MONITORING WITH PLOT NETWORKS V E R N O N J. L A B A U USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 201 East 9th Avenue, Suite 303, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (Received: 18 May 1992)
Abstract. The national Forest Health Detection Monitoring Program, was initiated first in the eastern United States, in partial response to findings from the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. This paper presents an overview of that program as it is extended from its focus in the eastern United States to a national program. The paper describes the basic concerns driving the program; presents a summary of the sampling design; emphasizes the importance of proper planning, beginning with an information needs assessment with the various data and information users; and discusses the process of selecting data elements and indicators of change to monitor.
1. Introduction
I appreciate this opportunity to explain what is happening with the Forest Service's and Environmental Protection Agency's national Forest Health Detection Monitoring Program, Shaw (In Press). I want to begin by clearly stating that this national program is not necessarily directly linked to the National Forest Monitoring effort. The National Forest Monitoring effort is aimed at monitoring the Forest Plans which have been developed for the various National Forests. Although, the national Forest Health Monitoring Detection Program ties to the National Forest Plan Monitoring system, this happens only in a somewhat peripheral manner. The national Forest Health Detection Monitoring Program focuses on detecting broad scale changes in ecosystems, and in the preliminary stages the Detection Monitoring sites will be too few to make legitimate scientific statements at the National Forest level. As the Detection Monitoring sample grid intensifies over time, the linkage between the Detection Monitoring Program and the National Forest Plan monitoring effort can be expected to become much more interactive and mutually supportive. The national Forest Health Monitoring Program (FHMP) has its historical roots in the National Atmospheric Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), which was initiated during the Carter Administration. As the NAPAP program phased down a need was expressed, particularly by State Foresters' Offices in the Eastern U.S., for an extension of that program, not only to monitor atmospheric precipitation (acid rain), but all aspects of forest health. It was from this basis that the FHM program evolved (Barnard, 1990). Although the FHM program had its roots in the eastern United states, that program is being extended to the Western United States during the summer of 1992, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 26: 283-294, 1993. (6) 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
284
VERNONJ.LABAU
with the establishment of monitoring sites in Colorado and California, (LaBan, in press). This morning, is for me, both a timely and an important opportunity for those I represent in the Forest Service's National Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) program to communicate to a community of concerned resource managers, scientists, academicia and others on this subject. The subject is high in all our professional and personal interests.
2. Forest Health Monitoring Background I will begin by briefly citing the legislative mandates supporting this effort, both for the Forest Service and for the Environmental Protection Agency, through their Environmental Monitoring Assessment Program (EMAP). EPA's EMAP program is intended to monitor seven basic ecosystems (Near Coastal, Wetlands, Surface Waters, Agro, Arid, and Forests), Palmer & Jones (In Press). In 1988 the U.S. Forest Service was handed a legislative ecosystem monitoring mandate via the Forest Ecosystems and Atmospheric Pollution Research Act (Public Law 100-521). PL 100-521 directed that The Secretary (of Agriculture), acting through the United States Forest Service shall...(a) increase the frequency of forest inventories in matters that relate to atmospheric pollution and conduct such surveys as are necessary to monitor long-term trends in the health and productivity of domestic forest ecosystems... EPA and the Forest Service subsequently agreed to cooperate in the monitoring of the Forest Ecosystem component. The Forest Service's Research arm took the Forest Service initiative and agreed to embark on this cooperative venture with EPA. It was recognized that the Forest Service's branch of State and Private Forestry had a role in this effort through their direction in Public Law 95-313 - the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 and through the more recent 'Farm Bill'. The third branch of the Forest Service was already involved in a program associated with monitoring National Forest Plans; although this monitoring was driven by different impetus. Forest Service Research began by establishing some basic definitions and terminology. For example, Forest Health was defined as "The state of the forest as measured by its functioning and with reference to its normality of any given time." It was intended in this definition that 'normality' would be established using the first monitoring data, generally assumed averaged over about 5 years. Another accepted definition was for the term 'Monitoring.' Monitoring was defined as "the long-term periodic measurement of selected physical and biological parameters for the establishment of baselines to detect and quantify change over time."
REGIONAL MONITORING WITH PLOT NETWORKS
285
3. Three-Tiered Approach The study approach was to divide the problem into three areas, and thus, perform the research effort using a long-term, multi-tiered approach. The three tiers would: (1) detect unexpected deviation from established baseline conditions (Detection Phase), (2) identify cause or develop research hypotheses (Evaluation Phase), and (3) define basic relationships sufficient to predict consequences (Intensive-site Ecosystem Monitoring Phase). In tier one (Detection Phase), four purposes were identified: (1) observe key monitoring elements in order to describe forest condition; (2) detect, at the earliest possible time, signals of change; (3) provide data for annual forest health reporting; and (4) activate the Evaluation Phase when appropriate. It was intended that there be two components to the Detection Phase. The first component utilizes the network of permanent plots established for forest inventory by Research and National Forest Systems. These would serve as 'sentinel' plots and sources of the initial baseline data. The second component of the Detection Phase utilizes the aerial and ground surveys of the Forest Service's State and Private Forestry to add critically needed information on the affect of forest pests on the health of the forest ecosystem. In tier two (Evaluation Phase) there were four purposes identified: (1) clarify concerns raised at the Detection Phase; (2) identify cause and control actions if possible; (3) identify research hypotheses when necessary; and (4) provide linkage to tier 3, the Intensive-site Ecosystem Monitoring Phase. Responsibility for implementing tier two was given to State and Private Forestry. In tier three, the Intensive-site Ecosystem Monitoring Phase, there were three main purposes: (1) provide very detailed information on all components of the forest ecosystem, (2) incorporate both special and continuing long-term studies (using sites such as the Long-Term Ecological Research - LTERs and the Research Natural Areas - RNAs), and (3) ensure sites are to be selected and maintained to provide information on the key forest ecosystems throughout the United States. For the remainder of this presentation, I will be focusing only on Tier One, the Detection Monitoring Phase.
4. The Driving Concerns There were some basic concerns driving this research effort for all three phases. These could be grouped into about five classes. They relate to monitoring: 1. the diversity of the forest ecosystem, 2. for changes in distribution of ecosystem components, 3. the productivity of the ecosystem, 4. for disturbances affecting the health of the forest ecosystem, and 5. for damages occurring from both biotic and abiotic influences. It was the intent of the research effort to conduct these monitoring activities in such a way as to be able to answer three basic forms of questions:
286
VERNONJ.LABAU
1. Is there a problem with forest health, 2. If so, how serious is the problem, 3. If there is a problem, what can be done about it? It was recognized that there will be many decisions to make regarding what form the research effort is to take. Some of these included: How do we best network the research effort? What ecosystem classification approach should be used in such a national effort? How many sites should be monitored in the various tiers? Should we focus on modal conditions, ecotonal conditions or some combination of the two? Should the focus be on pristine sites, or on perturbed sites, or again, some combination of the two? What data/variables/indicators of change should be measured, and so forth?
5. The Sampling Design The basic sampling frame for the contiguous U.S. is a grid of about 12600 hexagons. It is estimated that there are about 600 of these covering the state of California (Figure 1). However, in our studies of the forest ecosystem component, it is estimated that there are about 4000 forest ecosystem hexagons in the contiguous U.S., and an estimated 300 in California. Near the center of each of these hexagons, a 40 hectare sub-hexagon is selected for evaluation of landscape attributes. It is planned that satellite thematic mapping imagery will be classified to get information on attributes, (Czaplewski, in press), such as land cover (vegetation type) and land uses (ownership). Finally, the Detection Phase ground sample will be done on a 1 hectare area within the 40 hectare area. This ground sample site consists of 4 sub-sample points, located within the one hectare area. A sub-sample point is established at the center of the hectare; satellite sub-sample points are established at 36.6 meters north, 36.6 meters southeast, and 36.6 meters southwest. A nested sub-plot is set in at each point center, with a 1 meter radius sub-point nested within a 3.6 meter radius plot (Figure 2). Implementation of the forest ecosystem monitoring sites in California is scheduled to begin in 1992 with the establishment of one fourth of the total set of forest ecosystem sites. It is planned that implementation of the California grid will be completed in the summer of 1995, and a remeasurement of all of the grid completed in the summer of 1996.
6. Information Needs Assessment Workshop One of the most important aspects of a successful program is to have a strong supportive constituency. The best way to get a strong constituency is to have them willingly buy into the early phases of a program. Since this California FHM program got underway in the winter of 1990, we have solicited suggestions and support from as broad a spectrum of California users as
REGIONAL MONITORINGWITH PLOT NETWORKS
Gray t o n e s Black dots
o
o
287
= forest types = 1992 s i t e s
o
° i°:
o o oQ o •o o o o
i
~
o o o • o o •
o
o •
o
o
o
o
o
o o
•
Q
•
o o •
(
¢
o
o
3
o
o
o
•
0
o
o
•
•
• o
o o
o
o
o
o o
o b~
o
i
o •
o
.
o
o
o o
o
o
o o o
o
o
• o 0 0 . 0
o •
o
0
0
0
o
•
o
o
~
•
o
~
.
•
o
o
o i
o
04
•
o
o
o Q
"
o
o
o
0
I
o
o
~
.
o
[~
k~
o
o
°
0 0
o ° "
Q o •
o
o
o
o
o
' °l°o " ° ~0
0
Fig. l. Map of EMAP Grid of Forest Health Monitoring Sites, California.
was physically possible, with an eye on keeping the constituency and partnership informed on developments and interim results of the effort. Similar efforts are currently in process in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. The State Foresters in California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska have publicly indicated strong support for FHM program. In March of 1991, we began an Information Needs Assessment process in California. The California Assistant State Forester and his staff assisted us in
288
VERNONJ.LABAU
Distance between points is 120 ft. (36.6 m) Azimuth 1-2 360 ° Azimuth 1-3 120" Azimuth 1-4 240*
24.0 radius (7.32 m) \
/
nnular Plot 58.9' radius (17.95 m)
Micro-plot 6.8' radius (2.1 m) 12' @ 900 az. from subplot center (3.66 m). Fig. 2. Configurationof One-hectare Forest Health MonitoringGroundPlot.
compiling a list of over one hundred agencies and groups who should be included as potential partners or reviewers of the California FHM effort. A copy of that list is included as Appendix A in this paper. I solicit your suggestions for others who should be included in that list for upcoming INAs in Oregon and Washington, scheduled for November 1992. The goal of these Information Needs Assessment Workshops are threefold: 1. Give the participants a chance to review the Forest Service's and EPA's National FHM programs and to become partners in suggesting how that might best be implemented in California.
REGIONAL MONITORING WITH PLOT NETWORKS
289
2. The Forest Service and EPA wanted to determine what other agencies and potential partners were already doing in FHM activities in California. 3. Provide an opportunity for participants to suggest: Ways to improve the Program and process. Changes in data elements (indicators). Data modification, additions, deletions. The California INA was held on May 22, 1991 in Sacramento, with about 40 people attending from approximately 30 agencies and groups. It was a very worthwhile workshop, and results were mailed to all of the more than 100 agencies and groups that were invited. Copies of that report are available from the Pacific Northwest Forest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. A list of the major suggestions from that meeting are presented in Appendix B of this paper. 7. S e l e c t i o n o f F o r e s t H e a l t h C h a n g e I n d i c a t o r s
One of the most critical aspects of the national Forest Health Monitoring Program is the selection of attributes to monitor to detect change (Ritters et al., in press). EPA has developed a process of testing and selecting these attributes (called indicators) and the Forest Service has elected to follow their lead in applying those EPA techniques in the Forest Service research efforts. There are many desirable characteristics to look for in good indicators. Some of the more important ones are: - Early response to perturbation impacts. - High precision (low variation) for measurement recording. - Availability for remeasurement on successive occasion. - Inexpensive to implement. It was recognized that the Information Needs Assessment (INA) workshop would be a good opportunity to get suggestions from a cross-section of California's experienced forest resource managers and users regarding the type of indicators that should be measured. A summary of the indicators identified in the May 22 meeting are included in Appendix C of this paper. The day following the INA Workshop (May 23) a previously planned meeting was held in Redding, California to discuss Indicators to measure in an upcoming Pilot Study scheduled for August 1991 in Central California. At that meeting, attended by about twenty interested participants, the initial test indicator list was agreed upon. That general list is presented in Appendix D of this paper. The general categories of indicators identified in the Redding meeting included: (1) landscape characterizations, (2) visual symptoms, (3) growth efficiency, (4) foliar nutrients, and (5) soils. As mentioned, landscape characterizations of vegetative cover and land use would be done initially using thematic mapper satellite imagery, and then verified with ground truthing. The visual symptoms evaluations involved looking for biotic and abiotic impacts on the forest ecosystem. We must describe those impacts in a way that can be re-evaluated over time to see what changes are taking place
290
VERNONJ.LABAU
in those impacts, and if the forest health is being affected. Growth efficiency is evaluated primarily through coring of trees offthe nested plots. Foliar nutrients were evaluated in tree foliage from samples taken from the upper crowns of a number of trees selected off the nested plots. Finally, soils were evaluated for physical, chemical, and biological components using standard soil science techniques. In addition to measuring the accepted indicators associated with the five above categories, it was also decided that the following potential indicators should be tested: - Lichens (Characterization and chemistry) - Photosynthetic Active Radiation (PAR) emulating leaf area. - Root Disease - Shotgun Extraction of Foliar Samples - Soil Microbiology (Mycorrhizae) - Tree Height Growth, Testing a new Laser Height Finder - Vertical Vegetation Profiling - Tree Core Dendrochronology - Bioindicator plants (i.e. ozone impacts, etc.) Given the suggestions from the INA and the Redding meeting, we felt we were well prepared to proceed with the August Pilot study. This study was intended to primarily test the logistics of measuring the indicators selected at the Redding meeting. 8. T h e 1 9 9 1 W e s t e r n F H M P i l o t S t u d y i n C a l i f o r n i a
From July 29 through August 16, field crews were trained at Blodgett Forest and proceeded with logistics tests on a gradient running east to west across central California. This involved attempting to install 10 plots, using five-person multidiscipline crews. EPA's EMAP was a major partner in this effort, providing strong support in quality scientists, crew training, Quality Assurance/Quality Control, logistical support, Information Management, and critically needed funding. The August Pilot Study was very successful, and a considerable amount of good logistical information was attained. The preliminary results of that Pilot study are presented in separate reports. 9. P l a n s f o r F o r e s t H e a l t h M o n i t o r i n g i n C a l i f o r n i a i n 1 9 9 2
In 1992, there will be a two-pronged program put into effect in the western United States. This will include: The implementation of about 1/4 of the FHM monitoring sites in California and Colorado in 1992. The continuation of Pilot Study to further evaluate and refine the FHM indicator suite to be used in the west.
REGIONAL MONITORING WITH PLOT NETWORKS
291
We will have four five-person crews installing these FHM plots in the West in 1992, including: one mensuration forester, one pest management forester, one botanist, and one soil scientist, and a logistics support person on each crew. Two crews will work in Colorado and two in California. It is expected that these crews will be able to measure about 2.5-3 plots per work week. It is anticipated that the two California crews will install 50-75 plots in the forest ecosystems of California in 1992. To support that field effort, a California Forest Health Monitoring Plan is currently in final draft, including a set of report tables. In addition, a field manual is being updated and field data recorder programs are in the process of being written or updated. Equipment, maps, and photos, needed to support the two crews, are in the process of being ordered. Access permits must be requested where plots fall on private lands. Permits for sensitive archeological and nesting/habitat sites must be obtained to install plots on Reserved or Protected areas such as National Park Land. It is clear that there will be a broad base of cooperative effort and support from the various agencies and organizations throughout the west. I will close by saying that we can always improve the process with good reviewer input. We will continue to keep communication lines open with our current and potential partners. We solicit your advice. We deeply value the opinion of those concerned about the state of our forest's health, and who are willing to suggest ways of improving the forest health monitoring process. One of the most supportive and poignant comments received from our cooperators came when Laura Eckert, Deputy Supervisor for the Washington State Department of Natural Resources said "Forest Health Monitoring is a very important undertaking, not only because of its potential contribution to Science, but simply because it is the right thing to do."
Appendix A: Summary List of Contacts California State Forest Health Monitoring FEDERAL AGENCIES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
NASA (Ames Research Center) US Army Corp of Engineers US Environmental Protection Agency, EMAP USDA, Agriculture Research Service USDA, Forest Service, Research USDA, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry USDA, Forest Service, National Forest Systems USDA, Soil Conservation Service US Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service USDI, Bureau of Indian Affairs USDI, Bureau of Land Management USDI, Bureau of Reclamation
292
VERNONJ.LABAU
13. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 14. USDI, Geological Survey 15. USDI, National Park Service CALIFORNIASTATEAGENCIES
16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Air Resources Board Board of Equalization (Timber Tax Division) Board of Forestry Department of Food and Agriculture Department of Forestry State Lands Commission Wildlife Conservation Board
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.
American Alpine Club Environmental Defense Fund Friends of the Earth Native Plant Society, California National Audubon Society National Wildlife Federation Parks and Recreation Society, California Planning and Conservation League Protection Nature Conservancy Save the Redwood League Sierra Club Tahoe Conservancy Trust for Public Land Trout, Inc., California Wilderness Coalition, California Wildlife Federation, California Wilderness Society
INDUSTRY/FORESTRY GROUPS
40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.
Associated California Loggers, Inc. California Pest Council Forest Land Owners of California Pacific Gas and Electric Redwood Association, California Redwood Region Conservation Council Sierra Pacific Industries Society of American Foresters California Forestry Association
REGIONALMONITORINGWITHPLOTNETWORKS UNIVERSITIES
49. 50. 51. 52.
California Polytechnic State University California State University, Sacramento Humboldt State University University of California, Berkeley
OTHER AGENCIES/GROUPS
53. Inter-Tribal Council of California 54. Tahoe Planning Agency 55. The Resources Agency STATE REPRESENTATIVES/SENATORS/ASSEMBLYMEN
56. 57. 58. 59.
Assemblyman Dan Hauser Assemblyman Byron Sher Sen. Dan McCorquodale Sen. Barry Keene
Appendix B: Results of May 1991, IRA Meeting in Sacramento SUGGESTIONS FROM IRA MEETING:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Interface research monitoring to forest plans Monitor the spatial aspects of the forests Monitor, not just at tree level, but also ecosystem Consider disturbance as a response to stress Be sure to implement the grid on private land Put a Forest Service FHM person in California Need a special forest typing system for California Mixed Conifers Oak Woodlands Consider using BIA forest inventory plots in test Increase sampling intensity; 300 plots not enough Include forest demography natality, recruitment, etc. Emphasize interagency cooperation Coordinate air monitoring with State and Private Forestry include RNA and LTSP areas in monitoring program Include forest history in the analysis process Accessibility criteria must be carefully considered
Appendix C: Results of the May 1991, INA meeting in Sacramento INDICATOR SUGGESTIONS:
1. Biodiversity of soil and terrestrial components 2. Evaluate Spatial and temporal components of the soil
293
294 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
VERNONJ. LABAU Evaluate Evaluate Evaluate Evaluate Evaluate
deep soil temperature over the long term available biomass as an indicator lichens as indicators of forest health fuel loading as an indicator o f forest health mineralization rates o f nutrients
Appendix D: Results of the May 1991, Indicator meeting in Redding INDICATORS SELECTED FOR TESTING IN THE WESTERN PILOTS: 1. Tree mensurational indicators growth, crown evaluations 2. Visual indicators 3. Foliar nutrients 4. Soils (physical, chemical, nutrient) PILOT STUDIES TO OCCUR ON: 1. Photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) 2. Lichens 3. Vertical vegetation profiling 4. Core d e n d r o c h r o n o l o g y 5. Branch extraction, via shotgun 6. M y c o r r h i z a l Roots 7. Soil M i c r o b i o l o g y 8. R o o t disease sampling 9. Tree heights with the laser 10. Understanding vegetation 11. Bioindicator plants
References Barnard, Joseph E.: 1990, 'Environmental Health Concerns: A Role for Forest Inventory and Monitoring' in: State-of-the-Art Methodology of Forest Inventory: A Symposium Proceedings; 1989, July 30-August 5; Syracuse, New York. PNW-GTR-263. Portland, OR: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, pp. 341-348. Czaplewski, Ray: in press, 'United States Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Landscape Characterization and Remote Sensing.' in Proceedings, IUFRO Remote Sensing and World Forest Monitoring International Workshop, Pattaya, Thailand, January 13-17, 1992. LaBau, Vernon J.: in press, 'The Forest Health Monitoring Program in California' in: Proceedings, California Forest Pest Council Annual Meeting, November 20 and 21, 1991, Sacramento, California. California Forest Pest Council, 15 pp. Palmer, Craig and Jones, Bruce: in press, 'United States Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program - an Overview', IUFRO Remote Sensing and World Forest Monitoring International Workshop Pattaya, Thailand, January 13-17, 1992. Riitters, K. H., Law, B.E., Kucera, R.C., Gallant, A.L., DeVelice, R.L., and Palmer, CJ.: in press, 'A Selection of Forest Condition Indicators for Monitoring', Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Shaw, Charles G. III: In Press, 'Forest Health Monitoring - a New Program of the USDA Forest Service and Environmental Protection Agency', IUFRO Remote Sensing and Worm Forest Monitoring International Workshop, Pattaya, Thailand, January 13-17, 1992.
Abstract. The national Forest Health Detection Monitoring Program, was initiated first in the eastern United States, in partial response to findings from the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. This paper presents an overview of that program as it is extended from its focus in the eastern United States to a national program. The paper describes the basic concerns driving the program; presents a summary of the sampling design; emphasizes the importance of proper planning, beginning with an information needs assessment with the various data and information users; and discusses the process of selecting data elements and indicators of change to monitor.
1. Introduction
I appreciate this opportunity to explain what is happening with the Forest Service's and Environmental Protection Agency's national Forest Health Detection Monitoring Program, Shaw (In Press). I want to begin by clearly stating that this national program is not necessarily directly linked to the National Forest Monitoring effort. The National Forest Monitoring effort is aimed at monitoring the Forest Plans which have been developed for the various National Forests. Although, the national Forest Health Monitoring Detection Program ties to the National Forest Plan Monitoring system, this happens only in a somewhat peripheral manner. The national Forest Health Detection Monitoring Program focuses on detecting broad scale changes in ecosystems, and in the preliminary stages the Detection Monitoring sites will be too few to make legitimate scientific statements at the National Forest level. As the Detection Monitoring sample grid intensifies over time, the linkage between the Detection Monitoring Program and the National Forest Plan monitoring effort can be expected to become much more interactive and mutually supportive. The national Forest Health Monitoring Program (FHMP) has its historical roots in the National Atmospheric Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), which was initiated during the Carter Administration. As the NAPAP program phased down a need was expressed, particularly by State Foresters' Offices in the Eastern U.S., for an extension of that program, not only to monitor atmospheric precipitation (acid rain), but all aspects of forest health. It was from this basis that the FHM program evolved (Barnard, 1990). Although the FHM program had its roots in the eastern United states, that program is being extended to the Western United States during the summer of 1992, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 26: 283-294, 1993. (6) 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
284
VERNONJ.LABAU
with the establishment of monitoring sites in Colorado and California, (LaBan, in press). This morning, is for me, both a timely and an important opportunity for those I represent in the Forest Service's National Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) program to communicate to a community of concerned resource managers, scientists, academicia and others on this subject. The subject is high in all our professional and personal interests.
2. Forest Health Monitoring Background I will begin by briefly citing the legislative mandates supporting this effort, both for the Forest Service and for the Environmental Protection Agency, through their Environmental Monitoring Assessment Program (EMAP). EPA's EMAP program is intended to monitor seven basic ecosystems (Near Coastal, Wetlands, Surface Waters, Agro, Arid, and Forests), Palmer & Jones (In Press). In 1988 the U.S. Forest Service was handed a legislative ecosystem monitoring mandate via the Forest Ecosystems and Atmospheric Pollution Research Act (Public Law 100-521). PL 100-521 directed that The Secretary (of Agriculture), acting through the United States Forest Service shall...(a) increase the frequency of forest inventories in matters that relate to atmospheric pollution and conduct such surveys as are necessary to monitor long-term trends in the health and productivity of domestic forest ecosystems... EPA and the Forest Service subsequently agreed to cooperate in the monitoring of the Forest Ecosystem component. The Forest Service's Research arm took the Forest Service initiative and agreed to embark on this cooperative venture with EPA. It was recognized that the Forest Service's branch of State and Private Forestry had a role in this effort through their direction in Public Law 95-313 - the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 and through the more recent 'Farm Bill'. The third branch of the Forest Service was already involved in a program associated with monitoring National Forest Plans; although this monitoring was driven by different impetus. Forest Service Research began by establishing some basic definitions and terminology. For example, Forest Health was defined as "The state of the forest as measured by its functioning and with reference to its normality of any given time." It was intended in this definition that 'normality' would be established using the first monitoring data, generally assumed averaged over about 5 years. Another accepted definition was for the term 'Monitoring.' Monitoring was defined as "the long-term periodic measurement of selected physical and biological parameters for the establishment of baselines to detect and quantify change over time."
REGIONAL MONITORING WITH PLOT NETWORKS
285
3. Three-Tiered Approach The study approach was to divide the problem into three areas, and thus, perform the research effort using a long-term, multi-tiered approach. The three tiers would: (1) detect unexpected deviation from established baseline conditions (Detection Phase), (2) identify cause or develop research hypotheses (Evaluation Phase), and (3) define basic relationships sufficient to predict consequences (Intensive-site Ecosystem Monitoring Phase). In tier one (Detection Phase), four purposes were identified: (1) observe key monitoring elements in order to describe forest condition; (2) detect, at the earliest possible time, signals of change; (3) provide data for annual forest health reporting; and (4) activate the Evaluation Phase when appropriate. It was intended that there be two components to the Detection Phase. The first component utilizes the network of permanent plots established for forest inventory by Research and National Forest Systems. These would serve as 'sentinel' plots and sources of the initial baseline data. The second component of the Detection Phase utilizes the aerial and ground surveys of the Forest Service's State and Private Forestry to add critically needed information on the affect of forest pests on the health of the forest ecosystem. In tier two (Evaluation Phase) there were four purposes identified: (1) clarify concerns raised at the Detection Phase; (2) identify cause and control actions if possible; (3) identify research hypotheses when necessary; and (4) provide linkage to tier 3, the Intensive-site Ecosystem Monitoring Phase. Responsibility for implementing tier two was given to State and Private Forestry. In tier three, the Intensive-site Ecosystem Monitoring Phase, there were three main purposes: (1) provide very detailed information on all components of the forest ecosystem, (2) incorporate both special and continuing long-term studies (using sites such as the Long-Term Ecological Research - LTERs and the Research Natural Areas - RNAs), and (3) ensure sites are to be selected and maintained to provide information on the key forest ecosystems throughout the United States. For the remainder of this presentation, I will be focusing only on Tier One, the Detection Monitoring Phase.
4. The Driving Concerns There were some basic concerns driving this research effort for all three phases. These could be grouped into about five classes. They relate to monitoring: 1. the diversity of the forest ecosystem, 2. for changes in distribution of ecosystem components, 3. the productivity of the ecosystem, 4. for disturbances affecting the health of the forest ecosystem, and 5. for damages occurring from both biotic and abiotic influences. It was the intent of the research effort to conduct these monitoring activities in such a way as to be able to answer three basic forms of questions:
286
VERNONJ.LABAU
1. Is there a problem with forest health, 2. If so, how serious is the problem, 3. If there is a problem, what can be done about it? It was recognized that there will be many decisions to make regarding what form the research effort is to take. Some of these included: How do we best network the research effort? What ecosystem classification approach should be used in such a national effort? How many sites should be monitored in the various tiers? Should we focus on modal conditions, ecotonal conditions or some combination of the two? Should the focus be on pristine sites, or on perturbed sites, or again, some combination of the two? What data/variables/indicators of change should be measured, and so forth?
5. The Sampling Design The basic sampling frame for the contiguous U.S. is a grid of about 12600 hexagons. It is estimated that there are about 600 of these covering the state of California (Figure 1). However, in our studies of the forest ecosystem component, it is estimated that there are about 4000 forest ecosystem hexagons in the contiguous U.S., and an estimated 300 in California. Near the center of each of these hexagons, a 40 hectare sub-hexagon is selected for evaluation of landscape attributes. It is planned that satellite thematic mapping imagery will be classified to get information on attributes, (Czaplewski, in press), such as land cover (vegetation type) and land uses (ownership). Finally, the Detection Phase ground sample will be done on a 1 hectare area within the 40 hectare area. This ground sample site consists of 4 sub-sample points, located within the one hectare area. A sub-sample point is established at the center of the hectare; satellite sub-sample points are established at 36.6 meters north, 36.6 meters southeast, and 36.6 meters southwest. A nested sub-plot is set in at each point center, with a 1 meter radius sub-point nested within a 3.6 meter radius plot (Figure 2). Implementation of the forest ecosystem monitoring sites in California is scheduled to begin in 1992 with the establishment of one fourth of the total set of forest ecosystem sites. It is planned that implementation of the California grid will be completed in the summer of 1995, and a remeasurement of all of the grid completed in the summer of 1996.
6. Information Needs Assessment Workshop One of the most important aspects of a successful program is to have a strong supportive constituency. The best way to get a strong constituency is to have them willingly buy into the early phases of a program. Since this California FHM program got underway in the winter of 1990, we have solicited suggestions and support from as broad a spectrum of California users as
REGIONAL MONITORINGWITH PLOT NETWORKS
Gray t o n e s Black dots
o
o
287
= forest types = 1992 s i t e s
o
° i°:
o o oQ o •o o o o
i
~
o o o • o o •
o
o •
o
o
o
o
o
o o
•
Q
•
o o •
(
¢
o
o
3
o
o
o
•
0
o
o
•
•
• o
o o
o
o
o
o o
o b~
o
i
o •
o
.
o
o
o o
o
o
o o o
o
o
• o 0 0 . 0
o •
o
0
0
0
o
•
o
o
~
•
o
~
.
•
o
o
o i
o
04
•
o
o
o Q
"
o
o
o
0
I
o
o
~
.
o
[~
k~
o
o
°
0 0
o ° "
Q o •
o
o
o
o
o
' °l°o " ° ~0
0
Fig. l. Map of EMAP Grid of Forest Health Monitoring Sites, California.
was physically possible, with an eye on keeping the constituency and partnership informed on developments and interim results of the effort. Similar efforts are currently in process in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. The State Foresters in California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska have publicly indicated strong support for FHM program. In March of 1991, we began an Information Needs Assessment process in California. The California Assistant State Forester and his staff assisted us in
288
VERNONJ.LABAU
Distance between points is 120 ft. (36.6 m) Azimuth 1-2 360 ° Azimuth 1-3 120" Azimuth 1-4 240*
24.0 radius (7.32 m) \
/
nnular Plot 58.9' radius (17.95 m)
Micro-plot 6.8' radius (2.1 m) 12' @ 900 az. from subplot center (3.66 m). Fig. 2. Configurationof One-hectare Forest Health MonitoringGroundPlot.
compiling a list of over one hundred agencies and groups who should be included as potential partners or reviewers of the California FHM effort. A copy of that list is included as Appendix A in this paper. I solicit your suggestions for others who should be included in that list for upcoming INAs in Oregon and Washington, scheduled for November 1992. The goal of these Information Needs Assessment Workshops are threefold: 1. Give the participants a chance to review the Forest Service's and EPA's National FHM programs and to become partners in suggesting how that might best be implemented in California.
REGIONAL MONITORING WITH PLOT NETWORKS
289
2. The Forest Service and EPA wanted to determine what other agencies and potential partners were already doing in FHM activities in California. 3. Provide an opportunity for participants to suggest: Ways to improve the Program and process. Changes in data elements (indicators). Data modification, additions, deletions. The California INA was held on May 22, 1991 in Sacramento, with about 40 people attending from approximately 30 agencies and groups. It was a very worthwhile workshop, and results were mailed to all of the more than 100 agencies and groups that were invited. Copies of that report are available from the Pacific Northwest Forest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. A list of the major suggestions from that meeting are presented in Appendix B of this paper. 7. S e l e c t i o n o f F o r e s t H e a l t h C h a n g e I n d i c a t o r s
One of the most critical aspects of the national Forest Health Monitoring Program is the selection of attributes to monitor to detect change (Ritters et al., in press). EPA has developed a process of testing and selecting these attributes (called indicators) and the Forest Service has elected to follow their lead in applying those EPA techniques in the Forest Service research efforts. There are many desirable characteristics to look for in good indicators. Some of the more important ones are: - Early response to perturbation impacts. - High precision (low variation) for measurement recording. - Availability for remeasurement on successive occasion. - Inexpensive to implement. It was recognized that the Information Needs Assessment (INA) workshop would be a good opportunity to get suggestions from a cross-section of California's experienced forest resource managers and users regarding the type of indicators that should be measured. A summary of the indicators identified in the May 22 meeting are included in Appendix C of this paper. The day following the INA Workshop (May 23) a previously planned meeting was held in Redding, California to discuss Indicators to measure in an upcoming Pilot Study scheduled for August 1991 in Central California. At that meeting, attended by about twenty interested participants, the initial test indicator list was agreed upon. That general list is presented in Appendix D of this paper. The general categories of indicators identified in the Redding meeting included: (1) landscape characterizations, (2) visual symptoms, (3) growth efficiency, (4) foliar nutrients, and (5) soils. As mentioned, landscape characterizations of vegetative cover and land use would be done initially using thematic mapper satellite imagery, and then verified with ground truthing. The visual symptoms evaluations involved looking for biotic and abiotic impacts on the forest ecosystem. We must describe those impacts in a way that can be re-evaluated over time to see what changes are taking place
290
VERNONJ.LABAU
in those impacts, and if the forest health is being affected. Growth efficiency is evaluated primarily through coring of trees offthe nested plots. Foliar nutrients were evaluated in tree foliage from samples taken from the upper crowns of a number of trees selected off the nested plots. Finally, soils were evaluated for physical, chemical, and biological components using standard soil science techniques. In addition to measuring the accepted indicators associated with the five above categories, it was also decided that the following potential indicators should be tested: - Lichens (Characterization and chemistry) - Photosynthetic Active Radiation (PAR) emulating leaf area. - Root Disease - Shotgun Extraction of Foliar Samples - Soil Microbiology (Mycorrhizae) - Tree Height Growth, Testing a new Laser Height Finder - Vertical Vegetation Profiling - Tree Core Dendrochronology - Bioindicator plants (i.e. ozone impacts, etc.) Given the suggestions from the INA and the Redding meeting, we felt we were well prepared to proceed with the August Pilot study. This study was intended to primarily test the logistics of measuring the indicators selected at the Redding meeting. 8. T h e 1 9 9 1 W e s t e r n F H M P i l o t S t u d y i n C a l i f o r n i a
From July 29 through August 16, field crews were trained at Blodgett Forest and proceeded with logistics tests on a gradient running east to west across central California. This involved attempting to install 10 plots, using five-person multidiscipline crews. EPA's EMAP was a major partner in this effort, providing strong support in quality scientists, crew training, Quality Assurance/Quality Control, logistical support, Information Management, and critically needed funding. The August Pilot Study was very successful, and a considerable amount of good logistical information was attained. The preliminary results of that Pilot study are presented in separate reports. 9. P l a n s f o r F o r e s t H e a l t h M o n i t o r i n g i n C a l i f o r n i a i n 1 9 9 2
In 1992, there will be a two-pronged program put into effect in the western United States. This will include: The implementation of about 1/4 of the FHM monitoring sites in California and Colorado in 1992. The continuation of Pilot Study to further evaluate and refine the FHM indicator suite to be used in the west.
REGIONAL MONITORING WITH PLOT NETWORKS
291
We will have four five-person crews installing these FHM plots in the West in 1992, including: one mensuration forester, one pest management forester, one botanist, and one soil scientist, and a logistics support person on each crew. Two crews will work in Colorado and two in California. It is expected that these crews will be able to measure about 2.5-3 plots per work week. It is anticipated that the two California crews will install 50-75 plots in the forest ecosystems of California in 1992. To support that field effort, a California Forest Health Monitoring Plan is currently in final draft, including a set of report tables. In addition, a field manual is being updated and field data recorder programs are in the process of being written or updated. Equipment, maps, and photos, needed to support the two crews, are in the process of being ordered. Access permits must be requested where plots fall on private lands. Permits for sensitive archeological and nesting/habitat sites must be obtained to install plots on Reserved or Protected areas such as National Park Land. It is clear that there will be a broad base of cooperative effort and support from the various agencies and organizations throughout the west. I will close by saying that we can always improve the process with good reviewer input. We will continue to keep communication lines open with our current and potential partners. We solicit your advice. We deeply value the opinion of those concerned about the state of our forest's health, and who are willing to suggest ways of improving the forest health monitoring process. One of the most supportive and poignant comments received from our cooperators came when Laura Eckert, Deputy Supervisor for the Washington State Department of Natural Resources said "Forest Health Monitoring is a very important undertaking, not only because of its potential contribution to Science, but simply because it is the right thing to do."
Appendix A: Summary List of Contacts California State Forest Health Monitoring FEDERAL AGENCIES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
NASA (Ames Research Center) US Army Corp of Engineers US Environmental Protection Agency, EMAP USDA, Agriculture Research Service USDA, Forest Service, Research USDA, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry USDA, Forest Service, National Forest Systems USDA, Soil Conservation Service US Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service USDI, Bureau of Indian Affairs USDI, Bureau of Land Management USDI, Bureau of Reclamation
292
VERNONJ.LABAU
13. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 14. USDI, Geological Survey 15. USDI, National Park Service CALIFORNIASTATEAGENCIES
16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Air Resources Board Board of Equalization (Timber Tax Division) Board of Forestry Department of Food and Agriculture Department of Forestry State Lands Commission Wildlife Conservation Board
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.
American Alpine Club Environmental Defense Fund Friends of the Earth Native Plant Society, California National Audubon Society National Wildlife Federation Parks and Recreation Society, California Planning and Conservation League Protection Nature Conservancy Save the Redwood League Sierra Club Tahoe Conservancy Trust for Public Land Trout, Inc., California Wilderness Coalition, California Wildlife Federation, California Wilderness Society
INDUSTRY/FORESTRY GROUPS
40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.
Associated California Loggers, Inc. California Pest Council Forest Land Owners of California Pacific Gas and Electric Redwood Association, California Redwood Region Conservation Council Sierra Pacific Industries Society of American Foresters California Forestry Association
REGIONALMONITORINGWITHPLOTNETWORKS UNIVERSITIES
49. 50. 51. 52.
California Polytechnic State University California State University, Sacramento Humboldt State University University of California, Berkeley
OTHER AGENCIES/GROUPS
53. Inter-Tribal Council of California 54. Tahoe Planning Agency 55. The Resources Agency STATE REPRESENTATIVES/SENATORS/ASSEMBLYMEN
56. 57. 58. 59.
Assemblyman Dan Hauser Assemblyman Byron Sher Sen. Dan McCorquodale Sen. Barry Keene
Appendix B: Results of May 1991, IRA Meeting in Sacramento SUGGESTIONS FROM IRA MEETING:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Interface research monitoring to forest plans Monitor the spatial aspects of the forests Monitor, not just at tree level, but also ecosystem Consider disturbance as a response to stress Be sure to implement the grid on private land Put a Forest Service FHM person in California Need a special forest typing system for California Mixed Conifers Oak Woodlands Consider using BIA forest inventory plots in test Increase sampling intensity; 300 plots not enough Include forest demography natality, recruitment, etc. Emphasize interagency cooperation Coordinate air monitoring with State and Private Forestry include RNA and LTSP areas in monitoring program Include forest history in the analysis process Accessibility criteria must be carefully considered
Appendix C: Results of the May 1991, INA meeting in Sacramento INDICATOR SUGGESTIONS:
1. Biodiversity of soil and terrestrial components 2. Evaluate Spatial and temporal components of the soil
293
294 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
VERNONJ. LABAU Evaluate Evaluate Evaluate Evaluate Evaluate
deep soil temperature over the long term available biomass as an indicator lichens as indicators of forest health fuel loading as an indicator o f forest health mineralization rates o f nutrients
Appendix D: Results of the May 1991, Indicator meeting in Redding INDICATORS SELECTED FOR TESTING IN THE WESTERN PILOTS: 1. Tree mensurational indicators growth, crown evaluations 2. Visual indicators 3. Foliar nutrients 4. Soils (physical, chemical, nutrient) PILOT STUDIES TO OCCUR ON: 1. Photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) 2. Lichens 3. Vertical vegetation profiling 4. Core d e n d r o c h r o n o l o g y 5. Branch extraction, via shotgun 6. M y c o r r h i z a l Roots 7. Soil M i c r o b i o l o g y 8. R o o t disease sampling 9. Tree heights with the laser 10. Understanding vegetation 11. Bioindicator plants
References Barnard, Joseph E.: 1990, 'Environmental Health Concerns: A Role for Forest Inventory and Monitoring' in: State-of-the-Art Methodology of Forest Inventory: A Symposium Proceedings; 1989, July 30-August 5; Syracuse, New York. PNW-GTR-263. Portland, OR: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, pp. 341-348. Czaplewski, Ray: in press, 'United States Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Landscape Characterization and Remote Sensing.' in Proceedings, IUFRO Remote Sensing and World Forest Monitoring International Workshop, Pattaya, Thailand, January 13-17, 1992. LaBau, Vernon J.: in press, 'The Forest Health Monitoring Program in California' in: Proceedings, California Forest Pest Council Annual Meeting, November 20 and 21, 1991, Sacramento, California. California Forest Pest Council, 15 pp. Palmer, Craig and Jones, Bruce: in press, 'United States Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program - an Overview', IUFRO Remote Sensing and World Forest Monitoring International Workshop Pattaya, Thailand, January 13-17, 1992. Riitters, K. H., Law, B.E., Kucera, R.C., Gallant, A.L., DeVelice, R.L., and Palmer, CJ.: in press, 'A Selection of Forest Condition Indicators for Monitoring', Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Shaw, Charles G. III: In Press, 'Forest Health Monitoring - a New Program of the USDA Forest Service and Environmental Protection Agency', IUFRO Remote Sensing and Worm Forest Monitoring International Workshop, Pattaya, Thailand, January 13-17, 1992.
