Temporal Fidelity in a Dynamic Environment: An Analysis of the 5-Year Moving Average in the USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis Program

Section 1: The FIA Program as the Nation's Ecological Baseline

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program serves as the nation's authoritative and continuous census of its forest resources.1 For nearly a century, this program has provided the foundational data that underpins strategic planning, public policy, scientific research, and private investment related to America's forested landscapes.3 The statistical methods employed by the FIA program to generate its estimates are therefore of paramount importance; they directly influence the nation's understanding of its ecological assets and its ability to respond to environmental change. A central component of the FIA's modern estimation strategy is the use of a 5-year moving average, a technique adopted to solve a specific set of statistical challenges. However, in an era of accelerating ecological disturbances, the inherent characteristics of this estimator have become a subject of significant concern, raising critical questions about the temporal accuracy of the nation's most important forest data. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of these concerns, examining the rationale for the moving average, its documented statistical and ecological limitations, and its cascading implications for forest management, policy, and science.

Mission and Mandate: The "Nation's Forest Census"

The FIA program has operated since its inception under the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act of 1928 with a clear and comprehensive congressional mandate: “to make and keep current a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the present and prospective conditions of and requirements for the renewable resources of the forest and rangelands of the U.S.”.1 This mission establishes FIA as the primary source for answering fundamental questions about the nation's forests: how much forest exists, where it is, who owns it, how it is changing, how fast it is growing, and how much has died or been removed.2 The program's scope is national, sampling all forested lands regardless of ownership or management objectives, including public, private, and tribal lands.1
The data collected by FIA field crews is exceptionally detailed, extending far beyond simple timber measurements. The inventory captures a wide array of attributes at both the stand and individual tree level. Core data includes tree species, diameter, height, quality, damage, and mortality, as well as stand-level characteristics like forest type, age, and recent disturbances.7 Furthermore, a subset of plots, known as Phase 3 or Forest Health Monitoring plots, are measured for an expanded suite of ecosystem health indicators. These include soil condition, down woody material, vegetation diversity and structure, crown conditions, and lichen communities.7 The program has also expanded to include specialized inventories for urban forests through the Urban FIA protocols and to understand landowner objectives through the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS).2
This breadth and consistency make FIA data an indispensable resource for a diverse and burgeoning community of users.9 Federal and state agencies use the data to develop and revise land management plans, assess progress toward desired conditions, and inform environmental policy.5 The private forest products industry relies on FIA data for timber supply analysis and long-term investment decisions regarding mill infrastructure.3 Researchers utilize the spatially and temporally robust database to study the impacts of climate change, wildfire, and insect outbreaks, while conservation organizations use it to evaluate wildlife habitat and ecosystem health.10 The data serves as the backbone for national carbon accounting and greenhouse gas inventories, providing the official estimates of carbon stored in U.S. forests.3

The Paradigm Shift: From Periodic to Annualized Inventory

For most of its history, the FIA program conducted inventories on a periodic basis. Under this model, field crews would measure all inventory plots within a given state over a one- to three-year period, and then would not return to that state for a full remeasurement cycle for another 10 to 20 years.18 By the late 20th century, it became increasingly apparent to policymakers, forest managers, and industry stakeholders that this long interval between surveys was inadequate. The data from periodic inventories was often significantly out of date by the time it was published, failing to capture the dynamic nature of forest ecosystems and the increasing pace of land-use change, such as the conversion of forestland to urban development.5 The timeliness and quality of these estimates came under scrutiny, as the bias and uncertainty of the data grew with each passing year from the measurement date.21
This growing concern culminated in a landmark legislative change. The Agriculture Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, commonly known as the 1998 Farm Bill, mandated a fundamental re-engineering of the FIA program.7 The bill directed the Secretary of Agriculture to implement a strategic plan for an
Annual Inventory System. A key provision of this act required FIA to collect data annually on a portion of plots within each state and, critically, to publish a comprehensive analytical report for each state every 5 years.6 This legislation marked a paradigm shift from a static, periodic snapshot to a continuous, dynamic monitoring system designed to provide more current information on the nation's forest resources.

The Annualized Panel Design and Its Statistical Imperative

To implement the annual inventory system mandated by the 1998 Farm Bill, the FIA program adopted a panelized sampling design. The complete national sample of over 355,000 permanent ground plots is systematically distributed across the landscape, with an intensity of approximately one plot per 6,000 acres (2,400 ha).2 Within each state, this full set of plots is divided into a series of interpenetrating, spatially balanced subsamples called "panels".26 In the eastern United States, states are typically on a 5-year cycle with 5 panels, while most western states are on a 10-year cycle with 10 panels.26
Under this design, one panel of plots is measured each year. For a state on a 5-year cycle, this means that 20% of all plots are visited annually, and a complete measurement of all plots is achieved over a 5-year period.1 This approach ensures a continuous flow of new data and guarantees that each year's sample is geographically representative of the entire state, avoiding the spatial bias that could occur if, for example, the northern half of a state were measured one year and the southern half the next.18
While this panelized system successfully met the mandate for annual data collection, it introduced a significant statistical challenge. The full sample of plots measured over a complete 5- or 10-year cycle is designed to be robust and provide estimates with a high degree of statistical precision. However, the sample size of any single annual panel is, by definition, only a fraction (e.g., 10% or 20%) of the full sample. Consequently, population estimates (e.g., total timber volume in a state) derived from a single year's panel of data are subject to large sampling errors and high inferential uncertainty.18 These annual estimates can exhibit unexpectedly volatile fluctuations from one year to the next, with much of this variation being statistical "noise" resulting from the small sample size rather than a reflection of true ecological change.18 This high degree of uncertainty renders single-panel estimates too imprecise for many of the official reporting and high-stakes decision-making purposes that FIA data serves.
This situation created a fundamental tension within the program's mandate. The very reason for shifting to an annual inventory was the recognition that 10- to 20-year periodic surveys were too slow to capture dynamic forest changes.5 The goal was to increase the temporal resolution and timeliness of the data. Yet, the legislative requirement for highly precise, comprehensive state reports every five years could not be met by the low-precision annual data alone. The FIA program needed a statistical method to increase the effective sample size to meet its mandated precision standards. The most direct solution was to combine or pool the data from multiple annual panels. This decision led directly to the adoption of the moving average, or "temporally indifferent," estimator. This statistical solution, however, inherently compromises the very timeliness that the annual system was created to achieve. The method chosen to satisfy the need for precision directly degrades the temporal specificity of the resulting estimates, creating a "temporal paradox" where the solution to one part of the mandate undermines the primary objective of the other. This internal contradiction is the foundational source of the concerns that now surround the FIA's primary estimation procedure.

Section 2: The Rationale for Temporal Averaging: Precision at the Cost of Immediacy

The adoption of a moving average estimator by the FIA program was a pragmatic and statistically sound response to the dilemma created by the 1998 Farm Bill. Faced with the mandate to produce high-precision reports from a system of low-precision annual samples, the program required a method to increase the effective sample size. Temporal averaging provided a straightforward solution, allowing the program to meet its legislative requirements for statistical confidence, but at the direct cost of temporal immediacy. This section details the statistical underpinnings of this approach and the rationale for its implementation as the program's standard.

Defining the Estimator: Moving Average and "Temporally Indifferent"

To overcome the high sampling error inherent in estimates derived from a single annual panel, the FIA program's standard procedure is to combine data from multiple recent panels.18 The most common implementation of this approach is known as the
"Temporally Indifferent" (TI) estimator.23 This method pools the data from all panels measured over a complete inventory cycle (e.g., five years' worth of plots) and treats this aggregated dataset as if it were a single, large periodic inventory measured at one point in time.23 In essence, the TI estimator is a simple moving average where each annual panel is given equal weight in the final calculation.33
The statistical logic behind this approach is fundamental to survey sampling theory. The precision of an estimate is inversely related to the size of the sample from which it is derived. By increasing the sample size, n, the variance of the estimate is reduced, which in turn narrows the confidence intervals and increases the statistical certainty of the result.18 The TI method allows FIA to leverage the full sample size collected over a five-year period to produce an estimate that meets the program's rigorous national precision standards, such as a sampling error of no more than 3 percent per one million acres of timberland.35 While the TI estimator is the default and most widely used method, other forms of temporal averaging are possible. For example, publicly available analysis tools like the
rFIA package in the R programming language allow users to implement weighted moving averages, such as a linear moving average (LMA) or an exponential moving average (EMA), which give progressively more weight to the most recent years' data, thereby reducing the influence of older panels.23

A Necessary Compromise for Mandated Reporting

The use of the TI estimator was not merely a choice of convenience but a direct response to the program's primary legislative charge. The 1998 Farm Bill explicitly requires the FIA to report on the state of forest resources every five years, with a degree of confidence that is comparable to that of the previous, large-scale periodic surveys.23 The TI estimator achieves this by effectively recreating a periodic survey from the annualized panel data. This approach also offered a degree of methodological continuity, as the statistical procedures used to calculate population totals and variances from the pooled dataset closely resemble the estimators that had been used by FIA for decades with its periodic inventories.26
It is crucial to understand what the resulting estimate represents. Because the TI estimator combines data collected over a multi-year window, the final value is not an estimate of forest conditions for any single, specific year. Instead, it represents the temporal average of the population over the entire five-year period.29 The estimate is statistically unbiased for this multi-year average condition, and it is this robust, high-precision average that forms the basis of the official five-year state reports mandated by Congress. This approach was seen as a necessary compromise, sacrificing annual specificity to gain the statistical power required for authoritative, long-term reporting.
This institutional preference for statistical precision over temporal accuracy, however, creates a data product that, while statistically robust, can be ecologically misleading. The FIA program is part of the U.S. Federal statistical system and is held to high standards of precision.9 Meeting these standards with a small annual sample is often impossible. The TI estimator is a valid way to meet these standards by aggregating data, but the result is a smoothed, averaged view of the forest that may not reflect its current state. Users of the data—who are often policymakers, managers, or scientists trying to understand and respond to a current event—may easily misinterpret this smoothed average as a representation of present-day reality. This creates a significant gap between what the data
is (a multi-year average) and what it might be perceived as (a current snapshot). In a stable ecosystem, this distinction may be minor. However, in a dynamic system subject to rapid change, this gap can become a chasm, where the data projects an "illusion of stability" by masking the onset of a major disturbance, potentially leading to flawed and delayed decision-making.

Section 3: Statistical and Ecological Concerns with the Moving Average Estimator

While the moving average, or temporally indifferent (TI), estimator provides a pragmatic solution for achieving statistical precision, its application in an era of accelerating environmental change has revealed profound limitations. The core assumption underpinning the method—that forest conditions are relatively stable across the averaging window—is increasingly violated by the very phenomena the FIA program is now called upon to monitor. The estimator's inherent statistical properties lead to significant biases and distortions when applied to dynamic systems, raising serious concerns about its ability to provide timely and accurate information when it is needed most. A powerful case study of a major insect outbreak provides a stark, real-world demonstration of these theoretical flaws.

Lag Bias: Reporting on the Past

The most fundamental and unavoidable consequence of any moving average is a time lag. By definition, an estimate that averages data from the past one to five years cannot represent the current state of the resource. The inclusion of older panels in the calculation creates a lag bias when attempting to assess current conditions.23 This means that any emerging trend—such as a sudden increase in tree mortality or a rapid decline in a particular species—will be detected with a significant delay. The official data is, in effect, always looking in the rearview mirror.
This lag is not merely a minor inconvenience; it can fundamentally misrepresent the current situation. For example, if a catastrophic wildfire burns through a state in year five of an inventory cycle, the 5-year moving average estimate for that year will still be heavily influenced by the pre-fire data from years one through four. The full impact of the fire will not be reflected in the data until several more years of post-fire measurements have been incorporated into the moving average. By the time a new trend is statistically significant in the 5-year average, the on-the-ground reality may have progressed even further, leaving managers and policymakers responding to a crisis with data that describes a past reality.

Dampening and Distortion of Trends

Beyond the time lag, the moving average estimator also distorts the magnitude and velocity of change. The process of averaging inherently "dampens trends by obscuring annual fluctuations".18 This statistical smoothing effect means that the estimator will consistently make changes appear
smaller and slower than they are in reality.26 A sharp, sudden spike in tree mortality that occurs in a single year will be significantly muted when averaged with four previous years of baseline mortality rates.
This dampening effect is a critical flaw when the primary objective is to assess the severity of acute ecological threats. For forest managers trying to gauge the scale of a new insect outbreak or for policymakers assessing the carbon emissions from a major wildfire season, an estimate that systematically under-reports the magnitude of the event is not just unhelpful; it can be dangerously misleading. It can lead to an underestimation of the resources needed for response and recovery and a false sense of security about the overall stability of the forest ecosystem. The estimator effectively trades accuracy in the depiction of change for precision in the depiction of an average state.

Case Study: Failure to Capture the Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic in Colorado

The theoretical concerns of lag bias and trend dampening were demonstrated with alarming clarity in a 2012 study that analyzed FIA data from Colorado during the peak of a massive mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) epidemic.18 This event was not a slow, gradual change but a rapid, landscape-transforming disturbance—precisely the type of event that modern forest monitoring is expected to capture. The performance of the conventional FIA estimators in this context revealed their profound inadequacy.
●	Masking the Decline: The study's most striking finding was that the 5-year moving average (TI) estimate showed no statistically significant change in the number of uninfected, live lodgepole pine trees in Colorado between 2002 and 2008. This result, which stood in stark contradiction to the widespread and well-documented devastation occurring on the ground, was described by the researchers as "almost certainly an artifact of lag bias".18 The estimator, by averaging pre-epidemic data with data from the midst of the outbreak, completely masked the catastrophic loss of live trees that was the defining ecological event of the decade in the region.
●	Biologically Implausible Volatility: In contrast to the overly smoothed moving average, the researchers also examined the estimates from each raw annual panel. While these estimates were too imprecise for official reporting, they highlighted a different problem: they depicted wildly volatile fluctuations that were biologically implausible. For instance, the estimated numbers of uninfected live trees and the total area of lodgepole pine forest showed increases or decreases of 30 percent or more from one year to the next. The estimated annual rate of change in the number of newly infected trees varied from a 50 percent decrease one year to a three-fold increase the next.18 This volatility was not a reflection of actual ecosystem dynamics but rather the statistical noise produced by a small sample size, rendering the annual data, on its own, uninterpretable for tracking trends.
●	Lack of Logical Consistency: The conventional estimates, whether from single panels or the moving average, failed to show logical, biological consistency between related variables. An analyst's conceptual model of an epidemic would expect a marked increase in infected trees in one year to be followed by a corresponding increase in mortality trees in the subsequent year. However, the study found that a sharp decrease in the estimate of infected live trees in 2005 was not followed by a similar response in the estimate of mortality trees in 2006.18 The random sampling error in the annual panels obscured these causal relationships, while the moving average smoothed over them entirely.
This case study serves as a powerful indictment of the moving average estimator's suitability for monitoring acute disturbances. In the face of a rapid, large-scale event, the TI estimator was not just slow to respond—it produced a result that was fundamentally incorrect, reporting stability in the midst of collapse. It demonstrated a complete failure of the method to accurately describe the state of the system when timely and accurate information was most desperately needed. This reveals a fundamental mismatch between the statistical tool and the modern task of forest monitoring. The TI estimator is designed for a system at or near equilibrium, where averaging serves to reduce noise without significantly biasing the central tendency.30 However, the key drivers of forest change in the 21st century—megafires, continental-scale insect outbreaks, and prolonged, intense droughts—are not slow, linear processes. They are acute, episodic events that violently disrupt equilibrium.1 The FIA program is increasingly being called upon to provide critical data on the impacts of these disturbances, yet its primary, officially endorsed estimation method is structurally incapable of doing so with the required temporal accuracy.

Section 4: Implications for Forest Management, Policy, and Science

The statistical limitations of the 5-year moving average are not confined to academic journals or technical manuals. The temporal errors introduced by lag bias and trend dampening propagate through the entire ecosystem of decision-making that relies on FIA data. This creates a cascade of error where a single statistical choice at the foundational level can lead to misaligned management priorities, flawed policy, risky economic investments, and an inaccurate understanding of the nation's carbon budget. The consequences are tangible and far-reaching, affecting how forests are managed on the ground, how they are valued in economic models, and how they are represented in global climate agreements.

Impeding Timely Management and Policy Response

Effective natural resource management, particularly in response to large-scale disturbances, is critically dependent on timely and accurate information. Forest managers need to know the extent and severity of damage from a wildfire, insect outbreak, or drought event as quickly as possible to plan and implement effective response strategies, such as salvage operations, reforestation efforts, or pest suppression treatments.1 When the official data from the nation's forest census lags reality by several years, the entire management response cycle is delayed. Decisions are made based on an outdated picture of the forest, which can allow ecological problems to worsen and can lead to a misallocation of limited resources.
Recognizing this need for greater timeliness, some states have made significant investments to accelerate their FIA inventory cycle. California, for example, has moved to intensify its measurement schedule from a 10-year to a 5-year cycle, explicitly to provide more frequent estimates of forest conditions to help managers assess and respond more rapidly to the impacts of climate change, such as severe drought, insect outbreaks, and catastrophic wildfire.1 However, the benefit of this costly temporal intensification is partially negated if the data is then processed using a 5-year moving average. While the data becomes more current on average, the estimator still introduces a significant lag, continuing to smooth over the very acute events that the accelerated cycle was intended to capture.

Compromising Strategic Planning and Investment

Beyond immediate disturbance response, FIA data forms the bedrock of long-term strategic planning for both public and private entities. It is the basis for national forest land management plans, timber supply forecasts that guide the forest products industry, and multi-million-dollar private investment decisions in sawmills, pulp mills, and other infrastructure.3 The reliability of these long-term plans and investments is directly tied to the accuracy of the underlying inventory data.
When the moving average estimator masks the full impact of a major disturbance, it can lead to a significant overestimation of available timber resources. A timber supply analysis based on data that does not fully account for millions of acres of recent mortality from insects or fire will produce dangerously optimistic forecasts. This can lead to poor investment decisions, potentially resulting in the construction of mills in areas with an insufficient wood supply or creating instability in regional timber markets.37 This concern is a primary driver behind recent legislative efforts, such as the bipartisan Forest Data Modernization Act of 2023, which was introduced in part because industry stakeholders and forest landowners recognize the urgent need for more accurate, frequent, and reliable data to support sustainable forest management and inform sound business decisions in a changing environment.39

Introducing Uncertainty in Carbon Accounting

FIA data provides the core empirical basis for the U.S. national greenhouse gas inventory, specifically for estimating the vast stocks of carbon stored in the nation's forests and the annual flux of carbon into or out of this pool.15 These estimates are critical for tracking progress toward national climate goals and for fulfilling international reporting requirements. The accuracy of this carbon accounting is directly compromised by the temporal flaws of the moving average estimator.
Large disturbances, such as the mountain pine beetle outbreak in Canada or the 2023 wildfires, can be so extensive that they can temporarily flip an entire region's forests from being a net carbon sink to a net carbon source.41 The lag bias and trend dampening inherent in the TI estimator mean that such a reversal might not be fully reflected in the official national accounts for several years. This can lead to a significant under-reporting of emissions from forest disturbances and a corresponding over-reporting of the national forest carbon sink.17 As voluntary and compliance carbon markets grow, and as policies are developed to leverage forests as a climate mitigation tool, the demand for accurate, verifiable, and timely data on forest carbon dynamics will only increase.39 An estimation method that systematically lags and underestimates the impact of major carbon-releasing events introduces a fundamental uncertainty into the nation's climate accounting framework.

Section 5: The Frontier of Forest Inventory Estimation: Alternatives to Temporal Averaging

The documented shortcomings of the moving average estimator have catalyzed a significant research and development effort within the FIA program and the broader forest biometrics community. Recognizing the growing user demand for estimates with greater temporal and spatial resolution, scientists are developing and refining a new generation of statistical techniques designed to overcome the limitations of temporal averaging.23 These "emerging alternative estimators" represent a shift away from simple data pooling and toward a more sophisticated synthesis of ground plot data, remote sensing information, and ecological models. This evolution promises to unlock the full potential of the FIA's annual panel design, providing estimates that better reflect the current state and dynamic trajectory of the nation's forests.

Acknowledging the Need: FIA's Pursuit of "Emerging Alternative Estimators"

The FIA program officially acknowledges the limitations of the TI method and the pressing need for new estimation strategies. The 2014 Farm Bill provided a significant impetus for this work, specifically directing the program to improve statistical precision for sub-state areas and to enhance reporting on trends in biomass, carbon, and land use.23 This legislative mandate has spurred a concerted effort to explore alternatives that can produce statistically defensible estimates for smaller domains—both spatial and temporal—without the prohibitive expense of collecting more field data.43 This pursuit is not merely an internal research exercise but a direct response to the needs of a diverse user base that requires more timely and granular information to address complex ecological challenges like climate change and wildfire.36

Model-Assisted Estimation: Borrowing Strength from Pixels

Model-assisted estimation represents a powerful enhancement of the current design-based framework. While the standard post-stratified estimator is technically a form of model-assisted estimation, it uses auxiliary data in a very simple way—typically, classifying the landscape into broad strata like "forest" and "non-forest".23 Modern model-assisted approaches leverage a much richer suite of wall-to-wall auxiliary data derived from remote sensing platforms like Landsat satellites.23 This can include spectral data, vegetation indices, and topographic information like elevation, slope, and aspect.45
Instead of simply stratifying, these methods use statistical models, such as generalized regression estimators (GREG) or more advanced machine learning techniques like LASSO and ridge regression, to build explicit relationships between the attributes measured on the FIA ground plots and the corresponding spectral and topographic values for those plot locations.45 This model is then applied across the entire landscape, using the wall-to-wall remote sensing data to improve the estimate for the entire population. This approach can dramatically increase the precision of estimates derived from a
single annual panel, reducing the need to pool data across multiple years and thus avoiding the associated lag bias.45 A key strength of this framework is that the statistical inference remains design-based. This means the estimators are robust to model misspecification; they remain statistically unbiased even if the working model is not a perfect representation of reality, though their precision gains depend on the model's predictive power.23

Model-Based Estimation: Explicitly Modeling Change Over Time

Model-based estimation represents a more fundamental departure from the traditional design-based approach. Here, the statistical model itself, rather than the randomized sample design, is the basis for inference.46 These methods are particularly well-suited for analyzing time-series data and capturing dynamic processes. The
Kalman filter, which was used to great effect in the analysis of the Colorado mountain pine beetle outbreak, is a prime example of a model-based approach.18
This technique involves two key components: a state-transition model and a measurement update. The state-transition model explicitly incorporates biological or ecological processes; for example, it can be structured to reflect that a certain proportion of trees classified as 'infected' in one year are expected to transition to the 'dead' category in the following year.18 This model is used to predict the state of the forest for the current year based on the estimated state from the previous year. The data from the current year's FIA panel is then used as an independent measurement to update and correct the model's prediction.18 The result is a time series of estimates that is both smoothed to reduce the random noise from sampling error
and is internally consistent with the underlying ecological processes. This produces a much more realistic and interpretable depiction of a dynamic event than either the volatile raw annual estimates or the overly smoothed moving average.18 Other model-based approaches involve using forest growth models, such as the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS), to "grow" all plots in the inventory forward to a common date, using satellite-derived disturbance maps to account for events like fires or harvests that occurred in the interim.28

Small Area Estimation (SAE): Precision for Finer Scales

A persistent challenge for the FIA program is the demand for reliable estimates for "small areas"—domains for which the standard sample size is insufficient. A "small area" can be a small geographic unit, like a single county or the perimeter of a wildfire, or a specific sub-population, such as a rare forest type.43 Direct estimators, which use only the plots falling within the domain, are typically too imprecise to be useful for these areas.32
Small Area Estimation (SAE) techniques are a class of methods specifically designed to address this problem. The core principle of SAE is to "borrow strength" from sample units located outside the domain of interest.23 This is accomplished by using a linking model that relates the variable of interest (e.g., biomass) to auxiliary data (e.g., satellite imagery) that is available for both the sampled and unsampled locations within the small area. By leveraging these relationships, SAE methods can produce estimates for small domains with much greater precision than direct estimators. This is a rapidly advancing field of research within the FIA community, with major collaborative initiatives like the Small Area Estimation Partnership (PSAE) working to develop and operationalize these techniques to meet the growing user demand for data at scales relevant to tactical management and local planning.36
The development of these alternative estimators signals a crucial evolution in forest inventory philosophy. It marks a shift from the goal of producing a single, highly precise but temporally vague estimate of the average past state to the goal of producing a coherent time-series of annual estimates that better reflects the current state and trajectory of the forest. The TI estimator answers the question: "What was the average condition of the forest over the last five years?" It is a static, retrospective view. The new generation of estimators aims to answer the question: "What is our best estimate for the condition of the forest at the end of this year, given this year's sample and all other available information from past samples, satellite data, and ecological models?" This is a move from simple data pooling to a sophisticated synthesis of information, a computationally intensive but necessary step to make the FIA's annual data collection truly useful for annual-scale decision-making in a world of accelerating change.
Table 1: Comparison of FIA Estimation Strategies
Estimator Type	Temporal Specificity	Precision (Low Variance)	Potential for Bias	Data Requirements	Operational Status	
Annual Panel Direct Estimator	High (Single Year)	Low (High Variance)	Design-unbiased but high sampling error can be misleading.	Single panel of plot data.	Not for official reporting due to low precision.	
Temporally Indifferent (TI) / 5-Year Moving Average	None (5-Year Average)	High	Low for stable populations; high lag bias and trend dampening for dynamic populations.	Multiple panels of plot data (e.g., 5 years).	Current FIA standard for official reporting.	
Weighted Moving Average (e.g., LMA, EMA)	Moderate	High	Reduced lag bias compared to TI, but still smooths trends.	Multiple panels of plot data.	Available in user tools (e.g., rFIA); not an official FIA product.	
Model-Assisted GREG	High (Single Year)	Medium-High	Low; robust to model misspecification (design-based).	Single panel of plot data + wall-to-wall auxiliary remote sensing data.	Experimental / In development for operational use.	
Model-Based (e.g., Kalman Filter)	High (Time-Series)	Medium-High	Low if the underlying model is correctly specified (model-based).	Time-series of panels + state-transition model.	Research / Experimental.	
Small Area Estimator (SAE)	High (for specified domain and time)	High (for specified domain)	Low if linking model is correctly specified.	Plot data + auxiliary data + linking model.	Experimental / In development for operational use.	

Section 6: Conclusions and Strategic Recommendations

The USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis program is a national asset of immense value, providing the essential data that underpins the sustainable management of the nation's forests. The transition to an annualized inventory system, mandated by the 1998 Farm Bill, was a necessary and forward-looking step to improve the timeliness of this critical information. However, the primary statistical tool adopted to implement this system—the 5-year moving average, or temporally indifferent estimator—has created a fundamental conflict between the need for statistical precision and the demand for temporal accuracy.

Synthesizing the Temporal Trade-off

This analysis has demonstrated that the 5-year moving average achieves its goal of producing high-precision, statistically robust estimates for mandated 5-year reports by sacrificing the temporal resolution required to effectively monitor and respond to the accelerating pace of ecological change. The estimator's inherent properties of lag bias and trend dampening mean that it systematically produces a delayed and muted picture of forest dynamics. While this may be acceptable for assessing long-term trends in relatively stable ecosystems, it is a critical flaw when applied to the acute, episodic disturbances—such as megafires and large-scale insect outbreaks—that increasingly characterize the modern era. The Colorado mountain pine beetle case study provides unequivocal evidence that in a rapidly changing environment, the moving average estimator can fail to detect catastrophic change, reporting a false narrative of stability. This statistical method is a product of a more stable era, and it is now being pushed beyond its limits by new environmental realities and user demands.

Recommendations for Data Users and Stakeholders

The users of FIA data, from federal policymakers to private landowners, must be acutely aware of the nature and limitations of the standard data products. To that end, the following actions are recommended:
●	Acknowledge the Lag: All users must explicitly recognize that standard FIA estimates are multi-year averages, not current snapshots. Any analysis that relies on these estimates, particularly for assessing the impacts of recent, acute events, must be heavily caveated to reflect the inherent time lag. Decision-makers should be briefed on this limitation to prevent the misinterpretation of smoothed data as a reflection of current, on-the-ground conditions.
●	Utilize Available Tools: Sophisticated data users, including researchers and agency analysts, should be encouraged to move beyond the standard TI estimates when temporal accuracy is important. Publicly available tools, such as the rFIA package, provide the capability to generate and compare estimates from individual annual panels or to apply weighted moving averages that give more emphasis to recent data.23 While these estimates may have lower precision, they can provide a more timely, if less certain, indication of emerging trends.
●	Advocate for Modernization: Stakeholders across the forestry sector should actively support initiatives aimed at modernizing the FIA's estimation and reporting capabilities. This includes supporting legislative efforts like the Forest Data Modernization Act of 2023, which calls for an updated strategic plan and the integration of advanced technologies.39 Furthermore, stakeholders should advocate for continued and expanded funding for research and development into the alternative estimators—model-assisted, model-based, and small area estimation—that promise to deliver the more timely and spatially specific data needed for 21st-century resource management.

Recommendations for the FIA Program

As the steward of the nation's forest census, the FIA program has a responsibility to ensure its data products are not only precise but also as accurate and timely as possible. The program has already demonstrated a commitment to this goal through its ongoing research. The following strategic recommendations are intended to accelerate this evolution:
●	Accelerate Operationalization of Alternatives: The FIA program should prioritize and accelerate the transition of the most promising model-assisted and model-based estimators from "experimental" to "operational" status. This requires a concerted effort, such as that envisioned by the Small Area Estimation Partnership, to standardize methods, validate performance across diverse forest types, and develop user-friendly tools for implementation.51 The goal should be to make these advanced estimators a routine part of the FIA's analytical toolkit.
●	Develop Tiered Data Products: The program should consider moving away from a single, one-size-fits-all official estimate. Instead, it could offer a suite of tiered data products tailored to different user needs. This could include: (1) the traditional, high-precision 5-year TI estimate, clearly labeled as a multi-year average for long-term strategic assessment; and (2) a new, officially endorsed annual model-assisted estimate, designed for monitoring current trends and providing a more timely, though less precise, view of forest conditions. This new product would come with well-documented uncertainty estimates to ensure its proper use.
●	Enhance Transparency and Guidance: The FIA program must redouble its efforts to enhance user understanding of its data products. All publications, data portals, and estimation tools should include clear, prominent documentation explaining the nature and limitations of the TI estimator. This guidance should explicitly state that the estimate is a multi-year average and should caution against its use as a proxy for current conditions in dynamic environments. By providing clear guidance on when the TI estimator is appropriate and when alternative analyses should be considered, the program can help prevent the misinterpretations that lead to the "cascade of error" and ensure that the nation's forest census remains a trusted and effective tool for navigating the challenges ahead.
Works cited
1.	Forest Inventory and Analysis | CAL FIRE - CA.gov, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/fire-resource-assessment-program/forest-inventory-and-analysis
2.	FIA FAQ | Colorado State Forest Service, accessed July 18, 2025, https://csfs.colostate.edu/science/forest-inventory-analysis/fia-faq/
3.	Unlocking the Power of FIA Data with ResourceWise's Timber Supply Analysis 360 and Carbon 360, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.resourcewise.com/blog/unlocking-the-power-of-fia-data-with-resourcewises-timber-supply-analysis-360-and-carbon-360
4.	(PDF) … of Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data to estimate the amount of old growth forest and snag density in the Northern Region of the National Forest System - ResearchGate, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228852880_of_Forest_Inventory_and_Analysis_FIA_data_to_estimate_the_amount_of_old_growth_forest_and_snag_density_in_the_Northern_Region_of_the_National_Forest_System
5.	Forestry Inventory & Analysis (FIA), accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.forestry.alabama.gov/Pages/Informational/FIA.aspx
6.	Database description and users manual version 4.0 for Phase 2 - Forest Service, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr245.pdf
7.	FIA: In Context - ArcGIS StoryMaps, accessed July 18, 2025, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0de442e68a3d4a07970b6bd299d83121
8.	Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) | Colorado State University, accessed July 18, 2025, https://csfs.colostate.edu/forest-management/forest-inventory-analysis/
9.	Using Forest Inventory and Analysis Data to Support National Forest Management - Oxford Academic, accessed July 18, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/jof/article-pdf/118/3/313/33445558/fvz073.pdf
10.	Forest Inventory and Analysis - Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, accessed July 18, 2025, https://eec.ky.gov/Natural-Resources/Forestry/Pages/Forest-Inventory-and-Analysis.aspx
11.	Forest Inventory and Analysis Database | Ecological Data Wiki, accessed July 18, 2025, https://ecologicaldata.org/wiki/forest-inventory-and-analysis-database
12.	Urban FIA | Colorado State Forest Service, accessed July 18, 2025, https://csfs.colostate.edu/forest-management/forest-inventory-analysis/urban-fia/
13.	Forest Inventory and Analysis Program - Society of American Foresters, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.eforester.org/Main/Issues_and_Advocacy/Statements/Forest_Inventory_and_Analysis_Program.aspx
14.	Forest Inventory & Analysis - Texas A&M Forest Service, accessed July 18, 2025, https://tfsweb.tamu.edu/forest-land/texas-forests/forest-inventory-and-analysis/
15.	Methods and equations for estimating aboveground volume, biomass, and carbon for trees in the U.S. forest inventory, 2010 - California Air Resources Board, accessed July 18, 2025, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/cap-and-trade/offsets/copupdatereferences/woodall_2011.pdf
16.	Using Forest Inventory and Analysis Data to Support National Forest Management: Regional Case Studies | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339235740_Using_Forest_Inventory_and_Analysis_Data_to_Support_National_Forest_Management_Regional_Case_Studies
17.	Insect and Disease Disturbances Correlate With Reduced Carbon Sequestration in Forests of the Contiguous United States - Frontiers, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/forests-and-global-change/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2021.716582/full
18.	Model-based time-series analysis of FIA panel data ... - Forest Service, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs/rmrs_rp102.pdf
19.	Using Forest Inventory & Analysis (FIA) Data for Silvicultural Interpretation - files, accessed July 18, 2025, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/ecssilviculture/communityTables_Figures/methods/FIAData_Methods.pdf
20.	DRAFT Revision 2 - Climate Action Reserve, accessed July 18, 2025, https://climateactionreserve.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/FIADB_user_manual_v4-0_p2_12_22_2009.pdf
21.	The Enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis Program of the USDA Forest Service: Historical Perspective and Announcement of Statistical Documentation - ResearchGate, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43291750_The_enhanced_Forest_Inventory_and_Analysis_program_of_the_USDA_Forest_Service_Historical_perspective_and_announcement_of_statistical_documentation
22.	Forest Inventory and Analysis Database - Dataset - Catalog, accessed July 18, 2025, https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/forest-inventory-and-analysis-database-a9cd7
23.	Sampling and Estimation Documentation for the ... - Forest Service, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs207.pdf
24.	www.eforester.org, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.eforester.org/Main/Issues_and_Advocacy/Statements/Forest_Inventory_and_Analysis_Program.aspx#:~:text=The%20FIA%20Program%20oversees%20the,forests%20of%20the%20United%20States.
25.	Measurement uncertainty in a national forest inventory: results from the northern region of the USA - SUNY ESF, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.esf.edu/srm/yanai/documents/Yanai_et_al_CJFR_2023.pdf
26.	Opportunities to Improve Monitoring of Temporal Trends with FIA Panel Data - Forest Service, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs/rmrs_p056/rmrs_p056_33_czaplewski.pdf
27.	Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Annual Inventory Answers the Question: What Is Happening to Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands? - ResearchGate, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43291639_Forest_Inventory_and_Analysis_FIA_Annual_Inventory_Answers_the_Question_What_Is_Happening_to_Pinyon-Juniper_Woodlands
28.	Improving FIA trend analysis through model-based estimation using landsat disturbance maps and the forest vegetation simulator - Northern Research Station, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.nrs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr-nrs-p-105papers/71healey-p-105.pdf
29.	5 Combining Panels for Forest Inventory and Analysis Estimation - Southern Research Station, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs080/gtr_srs080-patterson001.pdf
30.	Estimator performance on the moderately common species domains, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Estimator-performance-on-the-moderately-common-species-domains-in-the-third-simulation_fig4_233522932
31.	State Forest Carbon Report - Oregon.gov, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.oregon.gov/odf/board/bof/20220907-bof-item-07.pdf
32.	Estimating Postfire Tree Density - Frontiers, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/forests-and-global-change/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2021.761509/epub
33.	Estimate forest land area from FIADB, accessed July 18, 2025, https://doserlab.com/files/rfia/reference/area
34.	www.nrs.fs.usda.gov, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.nrs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc230/gtr_nc230_021.pdf
35.	2 The Forest Inventory and Analysis Sampling Frame - Southern Research Station, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs080/gtr_srs080-reams001.pdf
36.	United States Forest Service Use of Forest Inventory Data: Examples and Needs for Small Area Estimation - Frontiers, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/forests-and-global-change/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2021.763487/full
37.	Assessing the importance of detailed forest inventory information using stochastic programming - Canadian Science Publishing, accessed July 18, 2025, https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjfr-2023-0218
38.	Economic impact of enhanced forest inventory information and merchandizing yards in the forest product industry supply Chain | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263665918_Economic_impact_of_enhanced_forest_inventory_information_and_merchandizing_yards_in_the_forest_product_industry_supply_Chain
39.	Sens. Ossoff, Cassidy Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Strengthen Forest Management, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.ossoff.senate.gov/press-releases/sens-ossoff-cassidy-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-strengthen-forest-management/
40.	(a) Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) sites are projected onto the... - ResearchGate, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Forest-Inventory-and-Analysis-FIA-sites-are-projected-onto-the-first-two-principal_fig2_368388317
41.	The Latest Data Confirms: Forest Fires Are Getting Worse - World Resources Institute, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.wri.org/insights/global-trends-forest-fires
42.	Future climate risks from stress, insects and fire across US forests - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed July 18, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9321543/
43.	Small Area Estimation in Forest Inventories: New Needs, Methods, and Tools - Frontiers, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/16045/small-area-estimation-in-forest-inventories-new-needs-methods-and-tools/magazine
44.	Needs for Small Area Estimation: Perspectives From the US Private Forest Sector - Frontiers, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/forests-and-global-change/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2021.746439/full
45.	A tutorial in model-assisted estimation with ... - Forest Service, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_journals/2020/rmrs_2020_mcconville_k001.pdf
46.	Model-Based Sampling, Inference and Imputation - EIA, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/methodology/eiawebme.pdf
47.	Design-based and model-based inference in survey sampling: Appreciating the difference, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224839865_Design-based_and_model-based_inference_in_survey_sampling_Appreciating_the_difference
48.	Small Area Estimation Techniques | NCASI, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.ncasi.org/technical-studies/forestry/sustainability-and-fiber-supply/small-area-estimation-techniques/
49.	Enhancing the precision of broad-scale forestland removals estimates with small area estimation techniques | Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research | Oxford Academic, accessed July 18, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/94/3/427/6056296
50.	Small-Area Estimation of County-Level Forest Attributes Using Ground Data and Remote Sensed Auxiliary Information, accessed July 18, 2025, https://archive-fmbl.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/fmbl/files/publications/2013/Goerndt_etal_For_Science2013.pdf
51.	Small Area Estimation Partnership (PSAE): A Unified Approach to ..., accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.ncasifoundation.org/projects/small-area-estimation-partnership/