Steve, Send me the LAS metadata file in whatever format it is in, txt or xml.
Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Galehouse To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:10 PM Subject: Re: [ENTS] Ohio Lidar 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 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
-- 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
