Office of the Regional Executive for Biology - Central Region
 |
| About USGS / Science Topics / Maps, Products & Publications / Partnerships / Education / Newsroom / Jobs |
Mapping Breakout Group discussion notes:
PARTICIPANTS
Tom Owens
Carol Giffin
Terry Sexson
Bill Hutchinson
Kay Dudeh
Raymond Kokaly
Terry Cacek
Wayne King
Ed Holroyd
Maury Nyquist
Dave Meyer
Ralph Root
Jean Dupree
Tom McClure
Mike Ielmini
Larry Robinson
Larry Handley
DISCUSS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR MAPPING INVASIVESIdentifies locations on landscape so management action can be taken.
National outcry at federal and national levels – a hunger for the maps, current information, locations.
Need physical depiction of problem, where is it? Show where.
Effectiveness of biocontrol efforts is an issue.
Mapping must be fast enough so horse isn’t down road and gone.
Need to decide on scale and degree of accuracy.
Managing lands requires big picture but also need applicable approach for land managers.
Approach needs to be useable in GIS and with other data to do analysis.
Need to know where it is now and may potentially be, need to assess how much damage has been done.
What impact did management plan have? Fire, forest management?
Need baseline to determine whether progress is being made.
Maps can be politically important. Congress – what is it, how wide spread, what are we going to do about it? Baseline inventory is needed for Refuges.
How does the species interact with the ecology.
Mapping must provide, for management level, a useful tool for those on the ground. USGS can help evaluate tools and get them from NASA level to the local manager.
Resource mangers are looking to solve the problem. Mapping is one of the tools. Not sure managers are looking for tools. They need to have map to get a handle (on invasives).
What does resource manager need? If we know this then tools will follow.
Manager wants to know baseline, trend and what to expect for future. Tools will follow these objectives.
Any tool must address management implications. How does map help them solve the problem?
NASA tools may/not be useful. Important point – must have buy in from local managers.
Manager looking for way to control the invasive. Managers
are out there to address need to manage invasives.
Is there a way information on map needs to be portrayed to
be more useable? Solution must be
rapid. Would an ortho with other base
information be useful? Yes. Photobase,
topo map, lots of different types could be useful.
Need to integrate science with what pest manager needs. An entire suite of tools is needed.
Yellowstone is an example where scale and rate of change are
problems. By the time you can make
something (map) we already know where it is.
So what good is map – need to be tied to predictive capability and to
predict need to know from where and how will spread.
Are there certain things you can do with wind dispersal? Management plans – shows what will be burned this year and next. This shows areas management will attack. Match a map to the management plan that is in place. Or does the manager feed information to the map? Works both ways.
USGS needs to look at the tools needed to help solve the
issue. People doing field
identification are essential.
Mapping the weed is important also need to map those characteristics that make that ecosystem vulnerable.
Refuge needs may be met by something very simple. Match the tool to the need.
Theodore Roosevelt – paper written to address matching tool
to need. (Root)
How much did Theodore Roosevelt Project cost? Millions. But in terms of USGS, PS, etc, the investment is much less. AVIRIS costs $100,000’s. USGS and others costs pertain more to salaries.
If costs millions then forget FWS participation. Must be able to use the product on the ground.
Must use the best methods to solve the problems people
have. This group has experience to know
the problems. Need to make needs
known. The costs of the technology
should not be focus here, won’t be passed on to you (this group).
Everyone seems to want standards.
Refuges are doing things differently. Needs protocols for collection of information into seamless relationship. Example is GPS collection in field and then getting this into a map.
Is there a standard for accuracy used to collect features? Adopt NAWMA standards. These will be shared nationally and internationally.
Focus standards on what you are doing, i.e. what is appropriate for what you are doing.
National Vegetation Classification Standard does seem to be controversial.
Database standards.
Locational standard
There will be continuous development of the standard. Adaptations will have to be ferreted out.
If have new invasive then need to add a class.
Everyone has databases, and maybe 20 to 100 within each agency. Is the metadata standard a guide for databases? Why won’t metadata standard help, does it guide the database? Adopting metadata standard is a first step.
Everyone agrees standards are important.
Taxonimy and Exchange standards also important. NAWMA addresses some of these.
Accuracy is not overwhelmingly important. Rapidity is very important. Will accept a level of accuracy that will
give us a baseline. What is the level
the land manger is willing to work with?
Manager and biologist perspectives are different. What is minimum level of accuracy for
thematic and location? The application
is to find the plant and kill it.
Errors of comission and omission. If we are even perceived as causing
problem to local land owner we better be “darn accurate”. Long term data is important to tracking
trends.
First thing is Refuge managers have a problem and we have to
address problem. Procedures and methods
have to be approached from this standpoint.
Procedures, methods and protocols are already woven in.
Different plants require different standards and approaches. Don’t call it a standard, call it a protocol.
Standards can be a log jam in getting your job done. Standards are always complicated by what the
manager wants.
Standard must allow data to be rolled up to address broad scale problems. How will you use the information? The data may not address the managers issues (and meet broad scale at the same time).
Need to be flexible with standards and use common sense.
Longer Term Research--
There are longer term research needs to start looking at the ecology.
In Vegetation program there is ancillary data collected at the site which may be useful in the long run.
Once have baseline, how often do you update the base map? Need same scale resolution and accuracy? May need to look at some other technology. Not enough money to do it all at the same level.
Can we solve some of these problems without mapping? Can go back to plots and simply resurvey
using the plots. If no baseline plots,
can the manager solve his problem without a map? Depends on problem. Field level need is to find and kill. Can this be done without map? Yes.
Then do we need to map not where it is but where it is not? For complex issues, need to document it with
a map and where you are going.
There are Refuge managers who will tell you they don’t need
maps. When new person (manager) comes
on board they have nothing to work with.
Aerial photograph may be all they need.
Must know species dynamics, potential spread, where it is
from where you are , where is it in the
ecosystem, what is the risk to the ecosystem if it is on the outside?
Need to communicate needs from managers to those who have a
lot of resources (NASA) and can “make a better hammer”.
National weeds conference has science theme in 2004. Mike Ielmini is on steering committee.
Need to reduce the cost to 50 or 25 cents an acre. Need faster cheaper, which is far more important
than better.
Essential for rates of spread. Map doesn’t meet these need.
Tell us if have area susceptible to spreading.
Model probably tells you if the invasives are already there.
Species dynamic should be drawn into the model. Integrate and understand species dynamics from other areas and not do basic research on species dynamics. Species dynamics is too narrow of a focus. Need to take about landscape dynamics. Every time we release a cow or have prescribed fire we are changing the land but we don’t know how. Vulnerability of land goes hand in hand with invasive species.
What happens to invasive species when we burn, ex. Monte
Vista. We need to know how species is
enhanced or depressed.
Managing as a system is not being effectively done right
now. Organizational structure and
regional turf are issues. CMP’s have to
be developed and need to be integrated into this.
There will be a huge investment in education at various
levels on how maps can be applied, what are the common protocols, what needs to be integrated, what is the
database that its in, etc.
Writing team – Larry Handley, Dave Meyer, Tom Owens. Other agencies need to support this budget
initiative. What is plan to engage
bureau, etc. budget shops? USGS needs
help to make sure it does get up to that level. Chris Dionigi, with National Invasive Species Council staff,
needs to be engaged. The proposal will
be a USGS proposal, will include more than BRD. How do you plan to engage the other pieces of USGS? What about internal (USGS) competition? This will be an integrated proposal that
comes from Tom Casadevall. Proposal
will go to Chip. Need other agencies to
move proposal up through their organizations at the same time so all the
agencies are talking about the same thing at the same time.
*Also FICMNEW needs to discuss and support this initiative
and provide their recommendation to the DOI. Request presentation from Bill
Greg.
U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://biology.usgs.gov/cro/I-workshp/Mapping.htm
Page Contact Information:
tlwilliams@usgs.gov
Page Last Modified:
