Paul- I downloaded and extracted the LiDar LAS Tiled files from the http://gis1.oit.ohio.gov/geodatadownload/osip.aspx server from the seventh column after county name(I'm focusing on Summit County right now); from which column should I download the aerial photos from(second option mentioned, same server as above)? I have downloaded and installed Fusion. Thanks for our help---
Steve On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Paul Jost <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve, > > You need to download the 2m point cloud Lidar data for your part of > northern Ohio at: > http://lidar.cr.usgs.gov/LIDAR_Viewer/ > or the Lidar LAS files from here: > http://gis1.oit.ohio.gov/geodatadownload/osip.aspx > > Then, you need to download the aerial photo of the corresponding area from > one of these links: > http://edcsns17.cr.usgs.gov/EarthExplorer/ > http://gis1.oit.ohio.gov/geodatadownload/osip.aspx > You may need to modify the world files for either the Lidar or imagery > files to get them into the same units (feet vs. meters) and coordinates > (UTM, etc.) Every state is slightly different with regards to imagery > formats and coordinate systems used, so the process may be slightly > different for each state. > > Finally, download the USFS Fusion software at: > http://forsys.cfr.washington.edu/fusion/fusionlatest.html > and the tutorials at: > http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/rsac/fusion/ > > Run through them until you are comfortable with the process, then apply > them to your data. The command line filters need to be tweaked to a larger > grid to be used with the coarser public data, and some of the other > parameters should be tweaked, too. Create *.bat batch files like the old > DOS days to run the scripts for the files all at once and to save settings, > or perform the lines individually with a shortcut/link. > > You will need a reasonable fast computer with at least 2GB of memory, > preferably more. You may need to disable your virus scanner when doing this > so that the processor doesn't get slowed down by trying to scan these large > files. Don't have email or other applications active while processing large > files. > > When you are ready, I might be of help with setup and procedural issues. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Steve Galehouse <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Monday, January 11, 2010 7:38 PM > *Subject:* Re: [ENTS] Re: Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest LiDAR > ground-truthing expedition 1-2010 > > Will- > > Great trees! I envy the forests in the Southern Appalachians--we have Mixed > Mesophytic Lite here in N Ohio. How accessible are the LiDAR data for other > parts of the country? > > Steve > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Will Blozan <[email protected]>wrote: > >> James, >> >> I too hope the tree is there and that tall! I'll include it in a >> "potential >> Rucker" when I get the final numbers from Jess. We can also do a historic >> Rucker- the tallest hemlock is now stone dead. >> >> Will F. Blozan >> President, Eastern Native Tree Society >> President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc. >> >> "No sympathy for apathy" >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of James Parton >> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 7:51 PM >> To: ENTSTrees >> Subject: [ENTS] Re: Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest LiDAR ground-truthing >> expedition 1-2010 >> >> Will, ENTS. >> >> I have always planned on re-visiting and re-measuring that pine I >> measured there almost two years ago. At the time I measured that pine >> I was very new to height measuring and still needed much honing on my >> skills. Still, that tree was really tall. An old scraggly fellow. I >> don't think my measurements are off that much but still I agree with >> Will in recommending a re-measure of it. Hopefully it has not fell. I >> got an e-mail from Josh Kelly stating " There is a 161' LiDAR hit >> quite near James' point. I reckon there could be a tall tree there. >> The point is at least 150' off the trail. ", So LiDAR may indeed show >> a tall tree at or near that location. I gave Will an approximate >> location but the tree cannot be missed from the trail, unless it is >> gone! >> >> Another thing I have noted to Will. Joy and I came out barely before >> dark. Measuring in twilight can be challenging and could intoduce >> error. But I hope on a re-measure my figure comes out close, or better >> yet dead-on! >> >> Another thing I would like to see. Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest excels >> in large-girth trees. With my data, Jess's data etc shurely we can do >> a Rucker Girth Index. That I would like to see! >> >> >> James Parton >> >> >> On Jan 11, 6:43 pm, "Will Blozan" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > ENTS, >> > >> > Last week, I was invited to accompany Josh Kelly, Jess Riddle, and Hugh >> > Irwin on a trip to Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest in Graham County, NC. >> The >> > purpose of the trip was spawned by some unusually high LiDAR canopy >> height >> > "hits" in fly-over data Josh had been reviewing. The data set included >> > several hits in the mid to upper 170's and a few over 180'. Past ENTS >> trips >> > to JKMF have not located heights of the magnitude indicated by the data >> > except for some white pines in the upper 160's and mid 170's. A pine >> > measured by James Parton in 2008 at 176' is the tallest tree known from >> this >> > forest relic, and needs a re-visit to substantiate its current >> condition. >> > The current LiDAR data does not indicate a tree of such height in the >> area; >> > perhaps it has fallen. >> > >> > In general though, most prior trips focused on the "Poplar Loop" in the >> > productive flats of the lower, heavily visited cove. Canopy heights of >> > 140-165', though impressive, were not exceptional. Thus, the extreme >> canopy >> > hits caused quite a stir in us southern Appalachian tree hunters! >> > >> > The main target was a small cove to the south of the famous Poplar Loop >> > Trail. The LiDAR data indicated a pocket of exceptionally tall and >> tightly >> > clustered trees. Josh had seen the area in the summer and was stunned to >> see >> > it was not in the old-growth section but an old clear cut near the >> homestead >> > of the prior owners of the tract. In the summertime clutter of leaves >> Josh >> > was able to substantiate that the trees were indeed tall but would need >> to >> > be visited when the leaves were off for best measurements. >> > >> > To get to the cove we proceeded off trail from the Poplar Loop and >> headed >> up >> > a small ravine. At the base of the ravine Jess spotted a fine pignut >> hickory >> > 10'1" X 141.1' tall. As we progressed further up the ravine I spotted >> > another pignut of similar size. This one scaled 10'10" X 142.7' tall. >> The >> > ravine offered more tall trees; one of the most impressive was another >> > pignut with perfect form. I shot up in the crown from below and realized >> it >> > would exceed 150'- a height that is quite impressive for the species. >> Jess >> > zeroed the base as I went upslope to measure the height. WOW! This >> slender >> > tree turned out to be 9'10" X 157.5' tall! >> > >> > Jess located a huge snag of a tuliptree that had fallen and the immense >> bulk >> > had slid down the slope quite a distance. White ash reached 12'4" in >> girth >> > and up to 130.7' tall, and also in this cove were a 14'3" X 166.1' >> tuliptree >> > and a 8'6" X 130.1' sugar maple. But stealing the show in the upper >> reaches >> > of this cove rimmed with frozen cascades was a large bitternut, 9'2" X >> > 150.3'. Second new species for the site over 150'! >> > >> > Having exhausted the tall tree resources of this small cove, we >> slide-sloped >> > with great difficulty over the frozen ground into another small cove. We >> > found nothing of significance in this one and proceeded on to the "hot >> > spot". We crested the ridge and WHAM! Shafts of arrow straight tuliptree >> and >> > other hardwoods dominated the deep but narrow ravine. There was so much >> > potential in this dense pocket it was hard to know where to start. We >> began >> > by shooting up into the crowns to seek out the tall ones and then >> consulted >> > the GPS points for the "hits" of tall canopy we were after. Jess was >> > exclaiming of straight up laser shots into the young trees of 55 yards >> > (165')! Jess and I stayed upslope to perform the height routines while >> Josh >> > and Hugh measured girth and GPS points of the trees. >> > >> > The LiDar data was filtered to only show points over 160 feet so shorter >> > trees- even though exceptional for the species- would not even show up. >> Thus >> > "hiding" in the tall forests of tuliptree were trees that don't quite >> make >> > it as tall but are none-the-less record breaking for the species. This >> was >> > the case with the first tree I measured in the hot spot. This was a >> black >> > cherry that looked really tall yet was obviously shorter than the >> tuliptrees >> > around it. I found a solid sighting position while Josh measured the >> girth. >> > Well, this tree shattered the former height record by 11 feet! At 152.2 >> feet >> > tall this tree is a new 150 club member! >> > >> > Josh and Hugh would walk in the base of the ravine and state that, >> according >> > to the LiDAR data there should be a 175' tree within 10 feet or so. Sure >> > enough, the LiDAR was dead-on. The 178 foot hit was also dead on, and >> the >> > 178.1 foot tree is now the tallest tree in JKMF and the second tallest >> > currently known (The Rucker Tuliptree, formerly 178.2', has died back >> from >> > the extreme frost of 2008). In all we measured six tuliptrees over 170' >> and >> > there are probably a few more in this one small cove. >> > >> > After detailed measurements of the tallest in the ravine we headed up a >> flat >> > cove to check out more hot spots and check out a 175' LiDAR return. On >> the >> > way Jess spotted a fine white ash that proved to be of exceptional >> height. >> > This tree fell below the 160' threshold but not by much! The 9'10" tree >> > reached an impressive 157.3' tall. More 170+ tulips were scattered in >> the >> > small cove we went up, the tallest 174.5'. Jess measured a cucumbertree >> to >> > 134.5' and I measured a decent white basswood to 139.7'. In this cove, >> aside >> > from the tuliptree, white ash and cherry nothing else made it into the >> > Rucker Index. >> > >> > We headed down to find the 175'+ point. We used the GPS to get to the >> spot >> > yet no tree of that height was found. However, a 135 foot tuliptree was >> > leaning heavy over a small ravine. Guess what? The leaning tree's top >> was >> > ~185 feet above the ravine! So, ground-truthing is still a very >> important >> > part of the LiDAR process and this error shows that it is certainly not >> > full-proof. Same happened with a leaning white pine on a steep slope. >> The >> > tree was only 149 feet tall but the ground was easily 170 feet below the >> > top. But, pretty dag-gone awesome to say the least! I was floored at the >> > height accuracy and the ground placement of the hits. Incredible! >> > >> > We wish to point out that no 170+ LiDAR hits in the old-growth have yet >> > proven to be legitimate; it looks as though the tallest trees in JKMF >> are >> > second-growth. This finding is mirrored in the Smokies and other sites >> as >> > well. What is also striking about this site is the impressive Rucker >> Index >> > is composed of trees in a very small area. This suggests that there is >> more >> > to be found in this impressive forest relic! >> > >> > So, the current Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest Rucker Index stands at >> 15#.#: >> > >> > Will F. Blozan >> > >> > Josh Kelly >> > >> > Jess Riddle >> > >> > Hugh Irwin >> > >> > Eastern Native Tree Society >> >> >
-- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] Email Options: http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/subscribe?hl=en
