# Contiuation and divergance of last email



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 30, 2007)

> > > From: "Brown, Ian 
> > >
> > > Mr. J
> > > I echo your thoughts on the issues with the posted Champion Tree
> list.
> > > When I started my appointment at the beginning of the summer the
> > > deficiencies of the list format became very apparent. One of the
> > > trees in Stevens Point I had previous knowledge of, and found that

> > > tree to be listed 5 separate times. Additionally, many of the
> > > trees
>
> > > had incomplete records (i.e. missing contact information,
> > > measurements, vague location). The first thing I did was to
> > > develop
>
> > > a
> >
> > > new Champion Tree database that would help to mitigate repeat
> > > records of the same tree. I also set it up to mandate having a
> > > complete nomination form so whoever takes over the program
> > > following
>
> > > me will not have the same set of issues. I reorganized the paper
> > > nomination form and have also asked for some new information (i.e.
> > > GPS coordinates, tree condition, trunk character, owner
permission).
>
> > > This
> >
> > > is the link for the form
> > > (http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/forestry/UF/champion/). The most
> > > significant change in my opinion will be the requirement of GPS
> > > coordinates because that will precisely specify the location for
> > > each tree. Coordinates can easily be entered into a GPS unit for
> > > someone trying to relocate a tree and/or integrated into a GIS
> > > layer
>
> > > for representing all champion tree locations around the state. It

> > > is a readily available technology that the program is now taking
> > > advantage
> > of.
> > > 
> > > To aid in taking more accurate measurements, I have purchased new
> > > equipment for the program. I am putting together field kits that
> > > will
> >
> > > be held at each regional urban forestry office. These kits are
> > > designed to allow the Champion Tree inspectors to have access to
> > > very accurate equipment without having to buy it themselves. Each

> > > kit includes a GPS unit, laser hypsometer and tape measure. The
> > > laser hypsometer is very easy to use and is accurate to +- 1 foot
> > > at
>
> > > 100 yards. I believe that I have provided the means to take
> > > accurate tree
> >
> > > measurements and location information, enabling the tree to be
> > > monitored over time. The new standards for the Wisconsin Champion

> > > Tree publication also mimic the National Big Tree Registry
> > > standards
>
> > > in that a tree must be measured within the last 10 years to be
> > eligible for publication.
> > > 
> > > I understand that there have been shortcomings in the past. It is

> > > my job to get the program up and running again. I am in the
> > > process
>
> > > of developing a new volunteer inspector network to aid in the
> > > updating of
> >
> > > the current database. This past weekend I had my first inspector
> > > training workshop. I plan on holding more as interest grows. I
> > > will also be making a presentation for the Champion Tree program
> > > at the WAA/DNR annual conference this weekend. This a re-release
> > > of the program because I have made some changes and public
> > > awareness has faded over the years. You should also know that my
> > > position is a new temporary appointment with a focus on getting
> > > the program running
> > again.
> > > The future goal is to have the program run itself, primarily by
> > > volunteers (utilizing tools like the forum) with minimal input
> > > from the DNR. The DNR would basically serve in an administrative
> > > role and work with regional volunteer coordinators around the
> > > state to keep the
> >
> > > program running. The DNR would also publish a biennial print copy

> > > of the Champion Tree list that would be available to anyone. I'm
> > > sorry that you have had a poor experience with the Wisconsin
> > > Champion Tree program in the past. I can assure you that we are
> > > moving forward to provide the best possible service with the
> available technology.
> > > Thank you for your interest and concern. We are doing our best to

> > > address the past issues and carry forward into the future.
> > > 
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Ian Brown
> > > Champion Tree Program Coordinator


----
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: paul
> >
> > Ian,
> >
> > My understanding is most if not all laser hypsometers on the market
> > have a height mode that uses three measurements:
> > one "shot" to the trunk for distance and angle measurements to the
> > top
>
> > and bottom. This is unacceptable on spreading hardwoods and leaning

> > trees. If the users take advantage of the dV or vertical component
> > mode, there is no dependency on the distance to the trunk being in
> > the
>
> > same vertical line as the top and bottom of the tree. Instead, it
> > gives the true vertical height to the points being measured. It
> > creates the sum of the sine x range products with minimum error
> > since there is no dependencies of the two critical points on a third

> > otherwise more critical point. When using a laser hypsometer,
> > unless it is using the sine method, the built in height mode should
> > be avoided. If not, error rates exceed 20% are possible. Which
> > method are you training for height measurements?
> >
> > My method is being used by other state champion tree program
> > coordinators: Robert Van Pelt of Washington (had cleaned up the
> > Wisconsin records during his college years at UW-Madison), Will Fell

> > of Georgia, Scott Wade of Pennsylvania, and formerly by the now
> > deceased Colby Rucker of Maryland. They are discouraging the three
> > point method and any method that doesn't exclusively use vertical
> > components for the height. Robert Van Pelt was on the team that
> > recently confirmed the new tallest tree in the world in California
> > and
>
> > used the same method with his Laser Tech unit. There may also be
> > others. I can provide email addresses for them if you would like to
> discuss it with them.


---


> >
> > From: "Brown, Ian 
> >
> > Paul,
> > The laser hypsometers I have use the 3 shot method. However, I have

> > been doing and teaching to not use the "apparent" top of the tree
> > (where the crown touches the sky). Measurements are taken shooting
> > through the crown to find the top of the tree rather than the crown
> > arching toward the measurer. These measurement techniques have been

> > supported by other research seeking the true vertical height. The
> > website that I have been directed to in the past illustrates
> > measurement techniques
> > (http://www.nativetreesociety.org/measure/tree_measuring_guidelines.htm) These are the same techniques I have used. 
> > Cross-triangulation is encouraged when possible. I'm open to
> > discussing my methods with other coordinators as any scientific
methods should be discussed.
> > Ian


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 30, 2007)

-----Original Message-----
> From: paul
>
> Ian,
>
> I have been an active member of ENTS (Eastern Native Tree Society) for

> nearly 10 years. The state champion tree coordinators that I
> mentioned previously are also members of the group. I'm glad that
> you've referenced their site. I've been on big tree hunts with other
> members of the group in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York,
> Massachusetts, Connecticut, Tennesee, North Carolina, and South
> Carolina. I measured the former National Champion Eastern White Pine
> in the Porcupine Mountains of Michigan before it was nominated and
> listed. Anyway, back to the method...
>
> What make and model of hypsometer are you using? If it displays
> angles to fractions of a degree and ranges, it can be used with a
> manual calculation for the two point method. Then, you don't have to
> worry about shot selection and any measurement at all will be a real
> height of a point on the tree. Then, you can measure the heights to
> multiple branches and find the real highest point of the tree, not
> just what looks like the tallest spot at your perspective.
>
> I believe that for a modern list, the three point method shouldn't be
> used for anything other than scouting or prescreening. There is just
> too much of a chance for error in the measurement. The two point
> method reduces the total errors to only errors in the equipment. It
> also speeds the measurement process to allow multiple verifications in

> a shorter time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul 

---
>
> From: "Brown, Ian 
>
> Paul,
> I'm using the Opti-Logic 100LH. I chose it because it is relatively
> inexpensive ($400 vs. $2,300), easy to use and accurate enough for
> what we're doing. It has 4 modes including range, vertical height and

> angle measurement. I had played with it doing the automatic
> calculation and manual calculation. I was consistently finding the
> same result. Even using the 3 point method, a height calculation is
> obtained within a matter of seconds. I've been taking at least 3
> measurements at each tree and then averaging them if they were close
> to one another. Moving around the tree to take measurements from
> multiple spots is also advised to get a better idea of the true
canopy.
> Ian

---
-----Original Message-----
From: paul

Ian,

We looked at the Optilogic units in the past but were put off by it's 1
degree accuracy clinometer. I had talked with the President of
Opti-Logic about 6-7 years ago and he said that these units were
designed for USFS technicians doing field work. The original software
had the two point method, but the USFS asked them to change to the
3-point method when they found that they were having trouble getting the
laser to shoot through the trees own branches or the crowns of adjacent
trees in forested settings. They didn't want the technicians to have to
look for a clear path to the crown so they intentionally compromised the
method to increase sampling speed. Since the software was already
written and debugged, he was at the time willing to reprogram the units
for a fee if we had multiple units to reprogram. At the time, I was the
only one at ENTS interested in trying it, so the deal fell through.

I agree, that for most urban trees, your equipment is a good choice when
combined with properly trained people. I know that the 3-point method
could have reasonably significant errors on really big trees if the
measurer doesn't practice due diligence, but these limitations can be
overcome with reasonable effort. If you are called to measure a tree,
then I am just biased to the methods that I use. It suits my practice
of searching for big trees in a forested setting and having to measure
many trees quickly and accurately in a short time. Near bodies of
water, in dense woods, or on steep hillsides, triangulation is
impossible. With the 2-point method, you only need to be able to see
the trees top and bottom from one spot. I also know that there are some
cases where I can't use the 2-point method, such as in really dense, big
pines, but that is rare. I own my own equipment, a laser rangefinder,
clinometer, DBH tape, and GPS. So, I am equipped to help out, if
desired. 

Thanks for giving me the time to babble on...

Regards,

Paul 

---

-----Original Message-----
From: Brown, Ian 


Paul,
Thank you for the information. It's interesting that the company was
willing to be so flexible. I have tried to stress correct measurement
technique with the inspectors that I have trained so far (all 20 of
them). I will keep you in mind for helping to find/measure trees. I
will not post your name publicly per your previous request. You have
found many more big trees than I and I welcome your help, especially
given your attention to detail. Perhaps what would work best is to keep
in touch with Mr. Sanborn, Mr. Gere and myself. We can forward along
nominations as you like. Mr. Sanborn and Mr. Gere are moderating the
forum and we're hoping that people will use it as a resource when they
would like to get their tree measured. I expect that I will continue to
receive tree nominations and I would be happy to forward them on to you
if they are in your area. Thank you once again.
Ian

---

Ian,

I see from the web site that your inspectors don't cover northwestern or
north central Wisconsin. I own land in Iron County near the Ashland County
line in the Mellen Upson area. I visit it or pass through several times a
year and could help out with measurements in Iron, Ashland, Bayfield, Price,
and Sawyer Counties when I am in area. 

You should also specify a GPS datum for your coordinates or allow the user
to . Most GPS units come set for WGS84, but users on the WTM83/91 system or
marine users with US Coast Guard beacon differential correction would use
NAD83, and most USGS topographic map users would use NAD27. The result is
that GPS coordinates from different users would be hundreds of yards apart
for the same tree!!!

Also, it would be convenient if the Acrobat pdf were a form that could be
filled in. I've done this before and it is easy to create - it just takes a
little time to create the individual fields. If you can't get anyone to do
it, I could when I have time available. It would allow people to email in
forms.

Thanks again,

Paul


----------

