1. Information Management
John Vissage Regional Management Team December 2016

2. Information Management
Select sample
Data collection tools
Data transfer tools
Data storage
Compilation and stratification
Quality checks
Table production
Post data to on-line FIADB
Tools for internal and external users
State Analysis
About 20 people designated in this group – duties vary widely
Data transfer
data manipulation
( data checking )
data serving

3. IM FY 2016 Accomplishments Compiled FY 2015data
Posted FY 2015 data to FIADB
Selected FY 2017 plots for measurement
Using Urban FIA as the ‘platform’ to re-think FIA’s system
Posted more Urban FIADB data
Implemented MIDAS system to handle 7.0 Field Guide
Began working on NIMS, FIADB, and On-line tools for Field Guide 7.0
Big year - All the usual PLUS urban FIADB put in place and data posted
National TPO system
all of the Southern States;
2) historical data for the Northern States for years ; and
3) the Western States of Alaska, California, Idaho, and Nevada. 
Data is currently being incorporated for all States that completed TPO surveys in 2013 and 2014.

4. Post data to FIA website 6 months after last plot measured
NRS FIA Program Goal
Post data to FIA website 6 months after last plot measured
Milestone - Draft tables to State analyst 120 days after last plot measured

5. Deviation from 6 month goal FY 2011
This is the slide from the 2011 meeting. The unit goal is to post FIADB data 6 months after the last plot is completed.
Looks not so great.
An average for 2011 is 189 days (just over 6 months).
Vertical axis is in days. Negative numbers are good and means we beat the goal. Positive numbers mean we did not meet the goal.

6. Deviation from 6 month goal FY 2012
This is the slide for Looks better but still not great.
Average for 2012 data is days.
For example the last plot in Minnesota was completed on January 10, 2012: the data were posted to the website on May 7 – over 2 months early.

7. Deviation from 6 month goal FY2013
FY 2013 – looks excellent!
Looks like one day over for KS.

8. Deviation from 6 month goal FY2014
New Slide for FY 2014.
Over all states, we beat the goal (6 months) by an average of 30 days.
We were two days over for Iowa and 5 days over for South Dakota. While the analysts and reviewers, completed their work in plenty of time the release of National FIADB tables for 6.0 were delayed. Although the late release did not make other States “late”, it delayed posting dates for Illinois, North Dakota, and Wisconsin.

9. Derivation from 6 month goal FY2015
New Slide for FY 2015.
Over all states, we beat the goal by an average of 30 days.
We were 14 days over for Maine - due to installation at MCI. IM provided the analyst with a draft set of tables from the PHE server so that preliminary work could be started on reports.

10. Deviation from 6month Goal FY 2016

11. Time from last plot to posting to FIADB

13. So what? Why should we care?
No system to process the Field Guide 7.0 data.
No place to post the Field Guide 7.0 data.

14. So what? Why should we care?
This graph shows why we should care. NRS has made significant improvement cutting the time to deliver draft tables and data to the state analyst. Since 2011, the average has gone from about 87 days to 50.5 – about a 42 percent decrease. Notice the increase in That coincides with implementation of field guide 6.0 by NRS. Delivery of NIMS for field guide 6.0 was delivered April 25, 2014 according to my notes.
We waited until the last possible minute in order to meet the 6 month deadline for 5 states.
That means that analysts and State reviews were rushed at best.
My best estimate is that this delayed posting the 5 states from 1.5 to over 4 weeks.

15. Options to deal with version change ?
Hope a FIA miracle happens and the 7.0 changes are delivered on time or early.
Ignore the 6-month deadline.
Use the current system and re-compile later.

16. A Miracle happens….. Never happened before.
Missed delivery deadlines before.

17. Ignore the 6-month deadline?
It is part of our CRITICAL standards and elements!!!
Missing the deadline causes a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), first step required to remove/fire a Fed.

18. Use current and re-compile later?
Missing 7.0 attributes and data (dead saplings).
Duplication of effort.
Statistics may change.

19. Options for future version changes?
Let someone else be the early adopter/Guinea Pig.
Pull NRS people from national teams and projects.
Sync the Data Collection/MIDAS effort with NIMS/Tool development.

20. Priority for FIA IM Improve the delivery of entire IM system.
Sync plot selection, pre-field, MIDAS, NIMS, FIADB, and data retrieval tool requirements with the current/latest Field Guide version.
Transition IM systems to All-land, All-veg.
Re-think and re-build FIA’s IM systems for more flexibility.

21. Questions?

23. When to use the previous, current, or accounting temporal basis?
Net growth reporting –
When to use the previous, current, or accounting temporal basis?
The question at hand may determine the method employed.
Net growth on stands formerly nonstocked at time 1? – report by previous
Net growth that occurred on stands between time 1 and time 2? – report by accounting
Net growth on forest land currently in private ownership? – report by current
Or the need for temporal comparisons dictate the method.
Most net growth estimates in historical reports were summarized by current attribute values
Tables will be produced using the accounting method and will be required with the published annual report. The tables summarizing by previous attribute values will also be available as an option.

24. DESCRIPTION
Example 4.16
ESTIMATE_ACCOUNTING
Example 4.14
ESTIMATE_CURRENT
Example 4.15
ESTIMATE_PAST
Nonforest land or water
-1,307,392
100,792,524
Large diameter stands
255,647,327
147,444,679
53,137,114
Medium diameter stands
122,604,649
208,622,122
142,269,318
Small diameter stands
18,103,383
42,857,128
93,771,161
Nonstocked stands
-4,778,189
-6,039,360
1,607,059
SUM
391,577,170
391,577,177
391,577,176
MN 2012
This results in an estimated stand-size class distribution that is quite different from the distribution in any of the previous estimates. Note there is also a slight difference in the total estimate of growth due to rounding.
The accounting script assigns the net growth on reverted and diverted conditions to the current and previous stand-size classes, respectively. As a result, there is not an estimate of net growth on nonforest conditions using the accounting script.
The time 1 volume on trees associated with diversions to nonforest is counted as a negative and associated with the time 1 stand size. The time 2 volume on those same trees is based on an estimated midpoint diameter and counted as positive volume minus mortality and is attributed to the time 1 stand size class (otherwise stand size would be null).

25. MN 2012
** Difference between volume estimates at time 1 and time 2 based on current samples from respective inventories plus removals (removals estimated from the remeasurement sample from time 1 to time 2).

26. Deviation from 4 month processing goal FY2011
This is the time it took to process data in 2011.
The goal is to deliver draft tables to the State Analyst 120 days after the last plot is completed.
On average the tables were delivered 87.5 days after the last plot in the panel was completed.
Negative numbers are good and mean we beat the goal: positive numbers mean we exceeded the four month goal.
Looks pretty good – most states made it.

27. Deviation from 4 month processing goal FY2012
This is the time to process data during FY Even better. Only MI exceeded.
On average the tables were delivered 72.5 days after the last plot in the panel was completed.
For example the last plot in Minnesota was competed January 10, The data were edited and compiled, and the tables were delivered on March 8 and we beat the goal by 62 days or two months.

28. Deviation from 4 month processing goal FY2013
Average of 88 days from field work complete to draft tables to analyst.
Still excellent – MI looks a day over, SD a couple.
Maine – finished field work 12/14/2012, edited and compiled the data, and had draft tables out 3/22/2013 – 22 days ahead of schedule.

29. Deviation from 4 month processing goal FY2014
Average of 86 days from field work complete to draft tables to analyst.
Wisconsin – finished field work 11/06/2014, edited and compiled the data, and had draft tables out 3/10/2014 – 4 days behind of schedule.
In both Minnesota and Wisconsin, the analysts and reviewers completed their work early and enabled NRS FIA to post the data ahead of the 6-month FIA goal.

30. Deviation from 4 months processing goal FY2015
ME – due to MCI installation being delayed. 19 days overdue (cut that to 14 days overdue on our 6 month goal – we made up 5 days!)