Landfire Refresh AG-024B-S-10-0001 Body.doc

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

1. Contract administration matters will be handled by:

a. CONTRACTOR:

Point of Contact /Title _____________________________________________________________

Telephone Number __________________________________________________

Fax Number ________________________________________________________

Email _____________________________________________________________

DUNS Number _______________________Tax Identification Number _____________________ GSA/FSS Contract Number: ___________________________________________(as applicable)

Effective dates of GSA/FSS contract: ____________________________________(as applicable)

b. GOVERNMENT:

Matt Olson

Contracting Officer

United States Forest Service

Incident Support Branch

3833 S. Development Avenue

Boise, ID 83705-5354

(208) 387-5835

Fax (208) 387-5384

2. CONTRACTOR REMITTANCE ADDRESS: All payments by the Government to the contractor will be made in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.232-33, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer--Central Contractor Registration (October 2003).

3. INVOICES: Invoices shall be submitted to the following address:

US Forest Service Contracting

Incident Support Branch

Attn: Matt Olson 3833 S. Development Avenue

Boise, ID 83705-5354

Line Items Base Year (April 1, 2010 - March 31, 2011)

Option Year 1 (April 1, 2011 - March 31, 2012)

Option Year 2 (April 1, 2012 - March 31, 2013)

Option Year 3 (April 1, 2013 - March 31, 2014)

Task Orders will be issued against the line items listed above.

Statement of Work The government intends to award a requirements indefinite-delivery contract in accordance with FAR 16.503. Negotiated firm-fixed price Task Orders will be issued for various tasks related to the Landfire Refresh program as outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW). Sample tasks are included in the SOW that highlights the type of work you can expect to receive under this contract. One of the sample tasks (2.3.1) will require a priced quotation that will be used in the evaluation of the quotes.

The maximum quantity of services that the Government can acquire under this requirements contract on a yearly basis is $1,250,000.00. For the entire base and three option years the maximum quantity of services that the Government can acquire under this contract is $5,000,000.00.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 LANDFIRE Overall Project Background

1.1.1 Project Overview

LANDFIRE (LF), also known as the Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Program, is a joint program between the wildland fire management programs of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (USFS) and the United States Department of the Interior (DOI). LF applies consistent methodologies and processes to develop comprehensive maps and data describing vegetation and wildland fire/fuels characteristics across the United States.

LF is the first consistent and standardized implementation of methodologies and processes to develop fire and vegetation data for the United States. This collection of integrated geospatial vegetation, fuel, and fire regime dataset has never existed previously in the public or private sector. Data produced by LF are used in land and resource management domains for setting strategic direction, supporting resource and staffing determinations, designing conservation management activities, and assessing risks to the environment, public and private organizations, and communities.

1.1.2 Project Mission and Need

In particular, LF data products facilitate national, regional, and large landscape level fire planning activities, and reporting of wildland fire management activities. The consistently developed and standardized definitions of LF data provide for strategic analysis and planning to support the national prioritization of fire management resources. LF data supports management decision making in assessing wildland fire threats. LF products provide managers with the data to plan and implement in a collaborative, landscape-scale, cross-boundary, interagency approach. The analysis and planning is performed by decision support projects or systems. One example of a decision support system that relies upon LF data is the Fire Program Analysis (FPA) project.

LF data supports land management decisions to identify where fire hazards and fire risks to local communities are located, to identify where to rehabilitate fire-dependent landscapes, to analyze natural resources and habitats, and to enhance management knowledge of fire behavior to improve firefighting safety. Programs in this realm that use LF data include the Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS), and the Hazardous Fuels Prioritization and Allocation System (HFPAS).

Although LF provides significant value for the wildland fire community, it also provides extensive value for other land management disciplines. This includes providing an informational foundation to support applications in land management planning, environmental analyses, biological evaluations, monitoring, and resource assessments. Moreover, LF data is being considered as a key information input to a range of federal interagency Carbon Sequestration research initiatives.

1.2 LF Project Components and Status

The LF project was originally chartered in May 2004. To date, a full scope of effort, including project plans, project management processes, deliverable production processes, and performance monitoring, has been implemented with successful results. In accordance with the LF charter, an Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) was established to provide strategic direction to the project. Deliverable products have been completed or are in the final stage of completion for all phases of the project. The following table notes the key project components as described in the project charter document, and the completion status of each component.

Under the auspices of the LF project Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Handoff Plan and the LF O&M Business Plan, two operating components are providing updates to National Implementation data for selected products. Detail regarding the LF Program and components is provided in sections 1.5 and 1.6.

The following diagram relates the sequence of the LF project and program components within the context of the broad program timeline.

LF project to program context diagram

1.3 National Implementation Component – Status

The component entitled National Implementation of the LF Prototype (also referred to in this document as LF National) is in the final stages of completion. Products from the 67 map zones in the continental United States have been delivered. Products from the 13 map zones in Alaska and Hawaii are currently in process, with incremental delivery expected for completion in December 2009.

1.4 LF Project Deliverable Geospatial Data Products

The LF project charter specifies a standard suite of product deliverables for each map zone. The deliverables consists of 24 geospatial products with associated attribute data, metadata, and vegetation dynamics models. The LF project charter also specifies that product deliverables are required for 80 map zones, as defined in the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2001. Key products specified in the LF project charter are noted in the following tables:

1.4.1 Fire Behavior Layers

Forest Canopy Height (CH)

1.4.2 Fire Regime Layers

1.4.3 Vegetation Layers

Existing Vegetation Type (EVT)

1.4.4 Fire Effects Layers

1.5 LF Program - Background

1.5.1 Background and Overview

The LF charter includes a requirement to develop an “Operations and Maintenance Handoff Plan.” Within the context of the plan, an O&M Business Case and O&M Technical Plan have been completed, accepted by the LF EOC, and transmitted to the sponsoring agencies. In addition, a LF Program Implementation Plan has been completed, and provides reference to the Business Case and Technical Plan. The Implementation Plan describes the LF Program, with emphasis on the following elements: 1) Operations, 2) Maintenance, 3) Improvement, 4) Innovation, and 5) Governance. As needed, the LF Program Implementation Plan is expected to be updated and enhanced to reflect the most current requirements and operational strategy for the LF program. The LF program will be administered by United States Geological Survey (USGS) on behalf of the DOI and the USFS.

1.5.2 Principle Components

The LF program is a continuum of activities that addresses ongoing operation, maintenance, improvement, innovation, and governance related to LF data, products, and services. In the near term, the LF Refresh project serves as a first element of this program, providing critical updates to original LF data (circa 1999-2000) that reflect landscape changes having taken place since the onset of the LF project.

As a general “framework” for the LF Program, the following elements describe the major service and product components. Not all of the following program components are pertinent to the LF Refresh project, and therefore, may not be reflected in the vendor deliverables specified in this document.

Operations—refer to the continued archiving and distribution of data products through USGS web site map services, as well as scientific and technical documentation, technical transfer, user-support, and communications/outreach. Archiving and distribution includes providing and managing the computer infrastructure to support these services. Operation service providers will provide for the archiving of data products from the initial cycle of LF and provide access to program updates leading to the Decadal re-map. These updates will be replaced by the next generation of program updates.

Maintenance—refers to the actual updating of LF data products. LF maintenance will be implemented to capture landscape changes that have altered vegetation. For the purposes of this implementation plan, maintenance primarily focuses on the Biennial or Quinary update strategy. The Decadal update will be addressed as reference to updated interval products that support the comprehensive Decadal re-mapping effort.

Improvement—refers to developments (technological and scientific advancements) that will be approved through the governance process. The intent of the program improvements will maximize maintenance efficiencies, product quality, timeliness, and ensure that defensible science to benefit data products.

Innovation—refers to the development of new data products or changing existing products for applications outside of the scope of the existing approved LF program.

Governance—refers to oversight, roles and responsibilities, and a standard business process for implementing the LF program.

1.6 LF Refresh Project Component of LF Program

1.6.1 Background

The LF Refresh project extends the value of LF National data products and services by updating and improving base LF data. In particular, to update areas of landscape change since the incept of the LF National data (1999-2000). Updates have been requested by key stakeholders that utilize LF data to conduct strategic and tactical wildland fire management policy and decision making. As such, updated LF data is expected to improve relevance and reliability of the outcomes generated by wildland fire management decision support systems, as well as improving the accuracy of LF mapping data in reflecting near current conditions across the 50 state landscapes.

A prototype for the LF Refresh project, known as the Rapid Refresh project (depicted in the context diagram section 1.2), was initiated in January 2008. This effort consisted of 1) a prototype to confirm the viability of a Refresh science and technical approach, and 2) a rapid response update of selected LF National data products to address the most pressing concerns of customers regarding the need for more current product data. The Rapid Refresh project concluded in June 2008, structured as a partnership of teams from the USFS Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, the National Interagency Fuels, Fire, and Vegetation Technology Transfer (NIFTT) the USFS Remote Sensing Applications Center (RSAC), and the USGS National Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS), and delivered final products in June 2008. The primary focus of Rapid Refresh was wildland fire disturbances that occurred between 1999 and 2007 to update LF Vegetation and Fire Behavior Fuel layers. Updates were made to 30+ map zones in 11 western states based on field submitted disturbance data, and adjustments requested through the LF National after action reviews. Rapid Refresh data was evaluated by a subject matter expert (SME) focus group at the geographic area scale.

The LF Refresh project leverages the processes, methods, and lessons learned developed by the Rapid Refresh project. LF Refresh involves a significantly larger project scope as compared to Rapid Refresh; consisting of updates for the entire United States, versus updates for selected Western states in Rapid Refresh. In addition, essentially all LF data products will be updated in LF Refresh, utilizing an expanded range of landscape change data from 2001 through 2008, as well as advanced change detection and processing methods.

1.6.2 Sponsors

The LF Refresh project is sponsored by the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC). WFLC is a multi-agency oversight group responsible for implementing and coordinating the National Fire Plan and Federal Wildland Fire Management Policies. Membership is represented by senior level USDA and DOI officials and other federal, state, tribal, and county representatives, including all federal wildland firefighting agency executives.

1.6.3 Overview

The purpose of the LF Refresh project is to develop and implement technologies for consistent and comprehensive updates of LF data. These technologies are implemented through a system of interconnected tasks conducted by government and contracted specialists.

The recent implementation of LF vegetation and fuels mapping across the nation has precipitated a need for annual or within year updates. Updates are needed for mapped data layers for download by the broad range of users for day-to-day applications. All technical materials contained in the LF Refresh components must be cross-referenced for methods and metadata.

In general, the LF Refresh project applies lessons learned from the LF National project and the LF Rapid Refresh project. In addition to providing enhancements to original LF data with updates to improve accuracy and quality, the LF Refresh project prototypes and develops methods and processes that will contribute to the LF program, in particular, the Biennial and Decadal updates.

The overall technical design of the LF Refresh project has been established and draft descriptions of project task components are provided in following sections of this document. The project contains continuing elements of scientific development that will require ample flexibility, coordination, and collaboration among government and contracted specialists that support the project effort.

The functional aspects of the LF Refresh project require a highly capable cadre of specialists to Maintain, upgrade, and distribute components of LF vegetation, fire behavior, effects, and regime Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers, and vegetation dynamics change coefficients; to Analyze field inventory and monitoring plot data for description, correlation, and modeling of data layers; to Inventory field inventory and monitoring plot data where field data gaps exist; and, to document and communicate developed methods and processes, as well as maintain adequate metadata that represents the data products generated by the project.

In general, the task activities defined for the LF Refresh project will primarily focus effort in four segments of technical and science activity: 1) develop and implement data analysis processes; 2) perform technical spatial data coordination; 3) conduct testing of data and refining mapping methods; and, 4) perform technical editing and coordination of informational materials.

The LF Refresh project, for which contracted technical and scientific support is required and specified in this document, is expected to commence in October 2009 and conclude in the summer of 2011.

1.6.4 Services Required

The LF Refresh project requires scientific and technical services to complete tasks and deliverables specified as vendor work elements within the overall LF Refresh effort. These services support the development of deliverables that are described in section 2.0 of this document. Categories of vendor services required are as follows:

· Technical services to support completion of updated Landfire mapping layer products for seven geographic areas that represent the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii.

· Technical services to support completion of new source data sets for updated landscape conditions, from land management field office contributions, academic collections, and land management agency project collections.

· Technical services to support completion of final products, intermediate products, base products.

· Technical services to support completion of advanced methods, processes, and automated toolsets that offer enhancements to accuracy, quality, and timeliness of product updates.

· Technical services to support completion of briefings and presentations describing project design, methods, performance, products, and uses, provided to partners, contributors, and stakeholders.

· Technical services to support completion of comprehensive project records, performance metrics, and lessons learned to benefit future LF program initiatives

2.0 Objective and Scope

This document serves as a statement of work (SOW) for the vendor component of the LF Refresh project. Vendor deliverables are products to be provided via contracted technical services and capabilities that will enable the project team to complete updates to LF data products organized in seven geographic areas within the United States. The work scope includes the characteristics of technical activities. This scope is accompanied by key resources, primarily as government furnished property (GFP). GFP includes products, information and services provided by the government; and, the government program and project management and quality assurance and quality control procedures described through the remainder of this document.

2.1 Government Furnished Information, Products, or Services

The following table contains a list of government furnished information, products, and services. A detailed description of LF Refresh project GFP is provided in Appendix 3. Descriptions of Government Furnished Information, Products, or Services. GFP may be provided by LF Refresh project personnel employed as permanent or term government staff or by contracted staff acting on behalf of the LF Refresh project sponsors. A WBS notation to the third level is provided with the list to aid in organization and reference to GFP components.

LF National Data Products

2.1.1

LF Ancillary Geo-Spatial Products

2.1.2

Other Geo-Spatial layers

2.1.3

Databases

2.1.4

LF Reference Database (LFRDB)

2.1.5

Software Tools

2.1.6

Rulesets and Lookup Tables

2.1.7

Central data hub for vendor product delivery /acceptance

2.1.8

2.1.9 Methods documentation and other project documentation templates

An important element of the LF Refresh project is documentation of scientific and procedural methods that are developed and implemented in a production environment. Templates are to be provided to the vendor for documenting elements of production, science, and management processes employed in the fulfillment of the project deliverables.

2.1.10 Program Oversight: Science, Technical, Project Management

The LF Refresh project assembles a unique portfolio of advanced expertise through project team members consisting of government staff and contracted staff (provided through vendors selected on the basis of best value to the government). This assembly of team members requires an umbrella program and project management component to ensure that all team members are contributing to the project objectives in coordinated and effective manner. As such, the LF Refresh project will provide scientific, technical, and project management direction to integrate all efforts across government and contracted staff.

2.1.11 Government Furnished Computing Resources

The government shall provide computing workstations, storage media, and software that may be required for completion of the vendor (contractor) work elements.

Prior Use Requirements: Vendor is required to successfully complete any security or safety requirements established by the relevant government agencies needed for the performance of this work. The government will provide any access to training course(s) requirements such as the use of Government computer-Security Training and any other Safety or Security requirements required for the use of Government Property, Services, and Equipment prior to use.

2.2 Vendor Deliverables List

Products by Geographic Area

Seven geographic areas are defined to include all map zones defined in the LF National project. Vendor deliverables are to be produced for all geographic areas (GeoArea). Deliverables for the Southeast GeoArea are expected to be completed in the fall of 2009. For purposes of this SOW the Southeast GeoArea is considered GFP. The GeoAreas and associated LF mapping zones that represent vendor deliverables are detailed in the following table.

Geographic Area Deliverable Inventory

The inventory of deliverables for each GeoArea generally remains constant across all of the 50 states landscape. Therefore, the inventory of vendor deliverables and production process will essentially be repeated for the seven geographic areas noted in the GeoArea and LF Map Zone table. In general, it is expected that production processes will involve uniform resource burdens to fulfill deliverable requirements. However, it is acknowledged from experience in the LF National project that regions across the United States vary in landscape characteristics. Thus, it is possible for certain GeoAreas to differ from the normalized effort expected to complete deliverable or a GeoArea of average size and complexity. This uncertainty is expected and should be manageable through prudent application of standard program and project management processes, guided by insight from science and technical personnel.

An inventory of product deliverables for each geographic area is specified in the following table. The deliverables are cross referenced to the WBS element numbers referenced in the product and task descriptions contained in section 2.3 of this document.

2.3.1

2.3.3

2.3.4

2.3.6

2.3.7

2.3.8

2.3.9

2.3.10

2.3.11

2.3.12

2.3.13

PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION

2.3.14

2.3 Vendor Sample Tasks & Deliverables – Product and Task Descriptions

This section provides task descriptions to complete the inventory of deliverables itemized in section 2.2.

Note, that element 2.3.1 is focused on “staging” activities to prepare for GeoArea production of AK HI. Elements 2.3.2 through 2.3.14 include deliverables and tasks that are necessary to produce the intermediate and final products for all GeoAreas. These deliverables are generally consistent across the seven geographic processing areas specified in section 2.2 (exceptions noted in the vendor deliverable table). The following summary product list serves as a “table of contents” for the remainder of this document section (2.3) and is cross referenced to the vendor deliverable table in section 2.2.

All vendor deliverables are subject to an acceptance criteria, which are typically specified for each product and task description. The deliverable acceptance process will be conducted for all deliverables, and is explained in Section 3.7 of this document. Lastly, a notional timeline for delivery of vendor products is provided in Appendix 4.

2.3.1 Alaska/Hawaii Staging Activities (SAMPLE PRICING TASK!!!!!!!!!!!)

> BPS Refine-Reclassify

Product Description

Simplify BPS models by collapsing redundant/similar models together.

Tasks

· Review BPS model descriptions and the MTDBs for each Map Zone.

· Assess model states, reference conditions, fire-regime group and ancillary information to determine similarity.

· Propose grouping strategy.

Deliverables

A LUT relating LF National BPS and Grouped BPS

Dependencies

· Government provided MTDBs and VDDT models for each AK and HI Map Zone

· Government provides a timely review of task deliverables

Deliverable Acceptance Criteria

· Redundant/similar BPS models have been collapsed into a group.

· Each original LF National BPS code must have a corresponding LF Refresh Grouped BPS code in the LUT.

> LF Refresh Model Tracker (RMT.mdb) – One Microsoft Access ® Database

Product Description

The RMT is a Microsoft Access ® database (.mdb) containing information pertaining to the succession and disturbance transitions of each BPS. Modify the RMT by including the re-classed BPS’ for AK and HI.

Tasks

· Import reclassed BPS’ from MTDB into RMT.mdb.

· Adjust S-class mapping rules if necessary.

· Add multiple lifeforms to S-class’ if necessary

· Assign appropriate ages and most probable EVT Group (System Group) to each lifeform within each S-class

Deliverables

· RMT database with AK and HI re-classed models incorporated and ready for processing VTT.

Dependencies

· Government provided RMT.mdb for lower 48

· Government provides a timely review of task deliverables

Deliverable Acceptance Criteria

Updated RMT.mdb must include records for each re-classed AK and HI model in the following tables:

· AllModels

· AllModels_S-class

· AllModels_S-class_Lifeform

· AllModels_Fire

· AllModels_Geo

· AllModels_QAQC

· AllModels_src

Table fields must be populated with information for the representative model, imported from the appropriate MTDB.

> Calibration Workshops

Product Description

LF fuel layers were originally produced to support incident decision making. LF data layers are model inputs to FPA and have also been adopted as standard vegetation and fuels data utilized by HFPAS and WFDSS. To provide for quality data, the National Interagency Fuels Coordination Group (NIFCG) has requested a review and calibration of fuel layers. The last three of these “Calibration Workshops” will take place during this phase of the project, with one workshop in Hawaii and two workshops in Alaska. The workshops are being held to solicit expert feedback on fuel layers within specific Map Zones.

Tasks

· Incorporate Alaska and Hawaii fuel rule sets (FBFM40, FBFM13, CFFDRS, CBD, and CBH) into the LF Fuels Mapping Tool.

· Facilitate three LF Fuel Calibration workshops

· Summarize feedback from workshop participants, and assimilate results into changes and edits to the LF fuel layers

Deliverables

“Calibrated” LF National Surface Fuel Model layers for all Map Zones in Hawaii and Alaska.

· 40 Scott and Burgan Fire Behavior Fuel Models geospatial product complete with attributes for each map zone delivered according to the production sequence provided in Appendix 4.

· 13 Anderson Fire Behavior Fuel Models geospatial product complete with attributes for each map zone delivered according to the production sequence provided in Appendix 4.

· CFFDRS Fuel Models geospatial product complete with attributes for each Map Zone in Alaska delivered according to the production sequence provided in Appendix 4.

· Updated Canopy Mask layer used to update CC, CH, CBH, and CBD

Dependencies

· Government provided LF Fuels Mapping Tool.

· Government provided LF National FBFM40

· Government provided LF National FBFM13

· Government provided LF National CFFDRS

· Government provided LF National EVT

· Government provided LF National EVC

· Government provided LF National EVH

· Government provided rules for deriving FBFM40, FBFM13, CFFRDS, CBD and CBH

Deliverable Acceptance Criteria

FBFM13, FBFM40, and CFFRDS should capture a reasonable approximation of current fire behavior represented by the Anderson 1982, Scott and Burgan 2005, and Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System models. FBFM13, FBFM40, and CFFRDS geospatial products for a map zone should meet the following acceptance criteria. If any one of these criteria is not met, LF team will provide written documentation to justify why that criterion is not met, in accordance with Section 3.7 Deliverable Acceptance Process.

· Fuel models are developed using rules / crosswalks based on EVT. When additional clarity is needed each EVT can be broken into smaller sub pieces using only EVC, EVH, and BPS. Rules / crosswalks must have notes of generalized rational for each fuel model assignment.

· Map units shall be developed mostly within appropriate EVTs and EVC densities. An exception to this criterion may occur if an EVT or other rule / crosswalk product is inadequately distributed for a given map zone.

· The spatial distribution of map units shall be generally consistent with adjacent Map Zones to minimize seamlines.

· All map units shall represent fire behavior based on average burning conditions. Average burning conditions are not the benign or extreme, but the conditions when the majority of fires occur.

· All anthropogenic features present in EVT shall be evident and mapped as the appropriate non-burnable fuel type models per Anderson 1982, Scott and Burgan 2005 and CFFRDS, including roads, developed/urban areas, agricultural fields, etc.

2.3.2 Create, Maintain and Update the LANDFIRE Reference Database > Create, Maintain, and Update the LANDFIRE Reference Database Product Description

The LFRDB is a compilation of existing geo-referenced field data available for the United States, including those acquired from the FIA Program and USFS Natural Resources Information System (NRIS), the USGS-National Park Service (NPS) Vegetation Characterization Program, the USGS Gap Analysis Program (GAP), the US Army’s Integrated Training Area Management program, the DOI Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Continuous Forest Inventory, and various state natural resource programs. Field-referenced data compiled in the LFRDB form a critical foundation for most tasks in the LF project. Availability and application of comprehensive, consistent, and extensive field referenced data are critical technical design features of the overall LF methodology.

Tasks

· Acquire geo-referenced, field-sampled vegetation and fuel data from existing national and local programs. This work requires extensive communication with representatives of governmental and non-governmental entities throughout the US and work with FIA staff to draw all relevant data from that key USFS program.

· Maintain a catalog and archive of all acquired data and metadata in their original formats using existing LF data-catalog template and file structure.

· Assess and prepare acquired data for LF processing. This work requires thorough inventory of acquired geospatial data (in tabular format or as shapefiles, coverages, geodatabases, etc.) with regard to distribution and information content and removal of records with irreconcilable geospatial or information errors/omissions.

· Convert relevant/viable data into LF format such that they conform to standards defined in the data dictionaries for the Source Database, AutoKey Database, and LFRDB. This work requires application of intermediate to advanced techniques for relational database management, manipulation and management of point and vector geospatial data, and regular documentation of data-conversion processes and quality-control measures.

· Acquire and incorporate into the LFRDB all ancillary spatial data needed for LF production (e.g., data extracted from LF base and product layers). This work requires support from FIA staff and representatives of other entities providing data with plot locations that must remain confidential.

· Derive and incorporate into the LFRDB any attributes necessary for LF production but not acquired as part of the original data sets. This work includes derivation of canopy cover and and height estimates from FIA tree records, fuel loading estimates from DWM records, uncompacted crown ratios from compacted crown ratios, vegetation map-unit assignments from the Ecological Systems AutoKey, canopy fuel attributes from FuelCalc, and various attributes from the FVS and FFE.

· Check for information and spatial errors, as detailed in LFRDB QA checklist, and, once removed or appropriately identified, distribute inaugural LFRDB for LF production,

· Maintain and update the LFRDB after the inaugural posting by archiving relevant LF production information, including results of QA/QC on LFRDB records performed by mapping teams, and additional data as requested/permitted by LF mapping teams and leadership.

Deliverables

· Catalog (spreadsheet) and archive (file system) of all acquired data

· Source Database (FIREMON-based Microsoft Access ® database) for each GeoArea

· AutoKey Database (Microsoft Access ® database) for each mapzone group

· LFRDB (Microsoft Access ® database) for each GeoArea

· Documentation of data conversion processes and quality-control measures taken during data-loading stages

Dependencies

· Government-provided LF data-catalog and file-structure templates

· Government-provided data already acquired for LF Refresh

· Government-provided data dictionaries and templates for the Source Database, AutoKey Database, and LFRDB

· Government-provided Source and AutoKey databases and LFRDBs already created for LF Refresh

· Government-provided utilities to derive attributes necessary for LF production but not included as part of the original data sets (e.g., AutoKey and FuelCalc programs and documentation, EVT/ESP sequence tables)

· Government-provided support from FIA staff to acquire relevant Program data and to derive attributes necessary for LF production but not included as part of the original dataset (e.g., canopy cover and and height estimates from tree records, fuel- loading estimates from DWM records, uncompacted crown ratios from compacted ratios) using FIA-developed algorithms

· Government-provided ancillary spatial data, including LF base and product layers containing attributes that must be incorporated into the Source Database, AutoKey Database, or LFRDB

· Government-provided spatial-data services (e.g., plot overlays) from FIA staff and representatives of other entities providing data with plot locations that must remain confidential

· Government-provided LFRDB QA checklist

· Government-provided results of QA/QC performed on LFRDB records by mapping teams after inaugural posting and access to any additional data to be incorporated after inaugural posting at the request of LF mapping teams and leadership

Deliverable Acceptance Criteria – Catalog and Archive of Original Datasets and Metadata

All acquired data and metadata are fully cataloged and archived in their original formats using existing LF data-catalog and file-structure templates.

Deliverable Acceptance Criteria – Source Database

All relevant/viable elements of acquired data sets have been loaded into the Source Database template such that they conform to standards defined in the Source Database data dictionary

Deliverable Acceptance Criteria – AutoKey Database

· All relevant/viable elements of acquired data sets have been loaded into the AutoKey Database template such that they conform to standards defined in the AutoKey Database data dictionary

· AutoKey has been run, relevant Sequence Table has been applied, and the full suite of output tables has been generated and populated in the AutoKey Database

Deliverable Acceptance Criteria – LFRDB

· All relevant/viable elements of acquired data sets have been loaded into the LFRDB template such that they conform to standards defined in the LFRDB data dictionary

· All data necessary for LF production but not acquired as part of the original data sets have been derived and incorporated into the LFRDB such that they conform to standards defined in the LFRDB data dictionary

· LFRDB QA checklist has been followed and information/spatial errors have been removed or appropriately identified

Deliverable Acceptance Criteria – Process Documentation

Data conversion processes and quality-control measures have been documented such that the deliverable databases could be re-created from the original datasets, if necessary

2.3.3 Biophysical Settings – Five Geospatial Products

> Western Non-forest Remap of Biophysical Settings – Two Geospatial Layers Product Description

The BPS layer represents the vegetation that may have been dominant on the landscape prior to Euro-American settlement and is based on both the current biophysical environment and an approximation of the historical disturbance regime. It is a refinement of the ESP layer; in this refinement, we attempt to incorporate current scientific knowledge regarding the functioning of ecological processes – such as fire – in the centuries preceding non-indigenous human influence. Map units are based on NatureServe's (NS) Ecological Systems classification, which is a nationally consistent set of mid-scale ecological units (Comer and others 2003). LF’s use of these classification units to describe biophysical settings differs from their intended use as units of existing vegetation. As used in LF, map unit names represent the natural plant communities that may have been present during the reference period. Each BPS map unit is matched with a model of vegetation succession. The LF BPS concept is similar to the concept of potential natural vegetation groups used in mapping and modeling efforts related to FRCC (Schmidt and others 2002; www.frcc.gov).

The non-forest remap of biophysical settings involves incorporating available SSURGO data that may not have been available in the west during the original BPS mapping process. It involves See5 classification modeling to create a complete coverage of BPS that is used to replace the LF National BPS in non-forested areas.

Tasks

· Establish a crosswalk between SSURGO Ecological Site polygon data to BPS units – these polygons will be used to map BPS directly into the updated LF BPS map. Base the crosswalk assignments primarily on similar dominant vegetation types. Use additional spatial information like elevation, ecoregion, subsection, etc to distinguish between possible BPS assignments.

· Build a GIS map of BPS assigned to existing SSURGO ecological site polygon data.

· “Fill” in BPS with predictive modeling using the following steps:

· Sample cross-walked polygons for “pseudo” plots, using ERDAS imagine NLCD sampling tool.

· Use “pseudo plots” of Bps to classify entire zone with See5 into a “pseudo” map.

· Combine layers with original BPS layers in order to update BPS in non-forest areas. Base the combination on keeping all original conifer forest, riparian, and non-vegetated areas. Replace all original grassland and shrubland types with pseudo map assignments. In areas of actual SSURGO data only, replace woodland types with pseudo map assignments.

· Provide draft spatial data layer for SME evaluation and review. Contact area experts and have them evaluate the new BPS product for each Map Zone.

· Rectify new BPS layer with ESP layer. There should not be any combinations that would be impossible. Either change BPS or ESP to be consistent.

· Address results of evaluation and review and provide final BPS layer.

· Deliver geospatial products to central data hub, according to Section 3.7 Deliverable Acceptance Process.

Deliverables

· BPS raster data layer (grid), complete with attributes for each map zone delivered according to the production sequence provided in Appendix 4. See Section 3.7, Deliverable Acceptance Process for information about the deliverable format.

· ESP raster data layer (grid), only if rectification involves changing the LF National ESP layer, complete with attributes for each map zone delivered according to the production sequence provided in Appendix 4.

Dependencies

· LFDRB and tabular data/

· Government provides LF National version of BPS spatial data layer/

· Government provided BPGs/

· Government provided foundation geospatial data (elevation, aspect, soils, etc.)

· Government provided SSURGO data/

· Government provided descriptive information about the map units, descriptions of ecological systems classifications and MTDB.

· Government provides a timely review of task deliverables/

Deliverable Acceptance Criteria - Biophysical Settings BPS should capture a reasonable approximation of pre-EuroAmerican settlement conditions for all non-forested Biophysical Settings. BPS geospatial product for a map zone should meet the following acceptance criteria:

· Map units shall be distributed mostly within appropriate geographic ranges (i.e., sections/subsections/ecoregions described in the MTDB and NS descriptions). An exception to this criterion may occur if geographic ranges are inadequately described for a given map zone.

· The general distribution and patch size of map units shall be consistent with information in the MTDB and NS descriptions regarding biophysical site (e.g., topographic settings, soil types, etc.).

· The spatial distribution of map units shall be generally consistent with adjacent map zones to minimize seam lines.

· Riparian and wetland map units shall be depicted in appropriate locations and with appropriate spatial patterns (i.e., riparian systems restricted to more or less linear valley bottoms or drainages; wetland systems generally in non-linear patterns).

· All map units shall represent natural, native vegetation types.

· No anthropogenic features shall be evident, including roads, developed/urban areas, agricultural fields, etc. The only exceptions may be human-created water features (i.e., reservoirs) or barren areas from NLCD.

· Using the MTDB, cross-reference and insure there is a one-to-one correspondence between BPS map units and vegetation dynamics models.

Deliverable Acceptance Criteria – Ecological Site Potential ESP should capture a reasonable approximation of current site potential, using only natural, native vegetation types. ESP geospatial product for a map zone should meet the following acceptance criteria.

· Map units shall be distributed mostly within appropriate geographic ranges (i.e., sections/subsections/ecoregions described in the MTDB and NS descriptions). An exception to this criterion may occur if geographic ranges are inadequately described for a given map zone.

· The general distribution and patch size of map units shall be consistent with information in the MTDB and NS descriptions regarding biophysical site (e.g., topographic settings, soil types, etc.).

· The spatial distribution of map units shall be generally consistent with adjacent map zones to minimize seam lines.

· Riparian and wetland map units shall be depicted in appropriate locations and with appropriate spatial patterns (i.e., riparian systems restricted to more or less linear valley bottoms or drainages; wetland systems generally in non-linear patterns).

· All map units shall represent natural, native vegetation types.

· No anthropogenic features shall be evident,…