USGS:Biology Biological Informatics Program Vegetation Characterization Program Program Reviews 1996 Progam Review

1996 Progam Review

Yosemite National Park Hosts 3rd Annual
NPS I&M Vegetation Mapping Program Peer Review:
Meeting Minutes and Recommendations

Size=65K

---

Introduction

Since the creation of the National Biological Service in the fall of 1993 and its subsequent reorganization as the Biological Resources Division (BRD) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a continuing partnership has been maintained with the National Park Service (NPS) to develop and implement a program to map existing vegetation cover in 235 Parks and other units of the National Park System. This partnership developed in response to NPS-75, the National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) policy. The major focus of this effort is to obtain uniform, consistent baseline data on the composition and distribution of vegetation cover types. Data collected will be used at the Park, regional, and national level; therefore, data for each Park must be consistent in detail, classification, and accuracy, and must be available in a format that allows ready transfer to geographic information systems (GIS) within the Park Service and elsewhere. For more detailed information, including downloadable protocols and standards used in the Vegetation Mapping Program (and soon GIS vegetation data, databases and associated metadata), visit the Program's Web site at http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/.

On September 24 25, 1996, 21 invited scientists representing the National Park Service, National Biological Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Participants List attached) met in Yosemite National Park to peer-review the cooperative NPS NBS (now NPS USGS BRD) Vegetation Mapping Program. The goals of the meeting were to provide a Program status report, perform a technical review of the Program and its products, obtain feedback on various aspects of the Program, and provide guidance for and insights into the future of the Program.

Minutes and Recommendations

The first day's agenda included informational briefings and open discussions on Program history, prototype testing activities with the classification system, field methods, and accuracy assessment procedures; an update on activities in prototype and other Parks (Assateague Island National Seashore, Scotts Bluff National Monument, Tuzigoot National Monument, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Congaree Swamp National Monument, Joshua Tree National Monument, Isle Royale National Park, Voyageurs National Park, Agate Fossil Beds National Monument, Fort Laramie National Historic Site, Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Jewel Cave National Monument, and Devils Tower National Monument); current and potential future products (metadata, DBMS, and training programs on field methods); mapping procedures tested; Global Positioning System technology; Program funding issues; benchmarking activities; and plans for the upcoming year. The next day, Park and regional representatives related their experiences with the Program in general, the procedures used, and the resulting data and products.

The general consensus by participants was that the Program is on track and is making reasonable progress, particularly given the low level of funding and major organizational changes in the partner agencies (NPS and NBS/USGS BRD) during the last three years. Specific issues were identified and discussed, as follows.

Communication/Coordination

General

A general call was made for better communication and coordination within the NPS, especially at the Park level. Although it was agreed that communication and coordination between the USGS BRD and the NPS is adequate, some improvement is in order. Mike Story was the USGS BRD coordinator at the time of the meeting and has since become the NPS coordinator. Because he is co-located with the USGS BRD office in charge of the Program, it is anticipated that communication and coordination, in general, will consequently improve. However, the group noted that to be truly effective, communication must be made to work in all directions. E-mail was recommended as the principal forum for communication. Although communication through the Vegetation Mapping Program Home Page is useful, participants agreed that significant exchanges should be sent over E-mail, with liberal use of the "cc" option to ensure that key participants receive all pertinent information.

The recommendation was also made that the entire chain of I&M planning and coordination be reviewed. Coordination must be formalized at field area offices, support offices, and in the Parks.

To maintain the investment already made in the vegetation mapping effort, it was recommended that NPS I&M enhance and expand communications, including the peer-review process. The current level of commitment of the NPS to this effort was discussed. It was noted that outreach and marketing are critical elements in educating NPS management on the value of the peer-review process in ecosystem management.

Prioritizing

The recommendation was made that the mapping schedule be tied into NPS planning efforts, especially in their General Management and Resources Management Plans. Although active participation in the mapping process by Park staff is not a requirement for getting a Park mapped, it is desirable and could affect the prioritization process. Support or involvement in the mapping process may come from different levels within the Park Service, such as field area offices, support offices, or cluster sites.

To meet the expressed needs of Park Superintendents to have an impact on this process, the criteria must be formalized. The NPS field sees the current process as being top down rather than a more "democratic" process. NPS management expressed a strong interest in reprioritizing the vegetation mapping projects and perhaps other themes as well. (There was some discussion as to whether their input was given several years ago in prioritizing the themes of data they wanted mapped.)

USGS Program Management and Coordination

Communication with USGS management should continue to expand, including coordination with USGS State representatives. It was proposed that the USGS BRD work with the USGS National Mapping Division to develop a program for regular acquisition of Parkland aerial photography. These photos would allow monitoring of the vegetation of each Park after it has been mapped. This system would help ensure continued I&M activities into the future, further enhancing the value of the Program.

Photointerpretation/Field Process

It was generally agreed that detailed vegetation field plots are very valuable providing vouchers of the vegetation types described and mapped. Use of newer GPS technology to make the vegetation characterization field plots into permanent plots for monitoring purposes was encouraged by the peer-review group. To reduce costs, the recommendation was made that this activity be accomplished by technician-level Government employees.

Accuracy Assessment

Accuracy assessment is a vital aspect of the Program. Four specific reasons for its importance were identified: (1) to confirm that the contractor has met contract specifications; (2) to allow informed use of a map; (3) to provide sufficient data to characterize the classes being mapped; and (4) to provide statistical confidence limits on maps and their classes, resulting in more complete documentation. A high level of concern was expressed over the costs involved. To make the process more cost effective, front-loading the effort (i.e., using existing plot data or gathering accuracy assessment points while gathering descriptive field plots) was agreeable to nearly everyone, with the understanding that supplemental accuracy assessment data would be collected later, as needed. There was some concern about collecting accuracy assessment points while doing original field work, because these samples would not be truly random. However, most members felt that striving for absolute randomness could not be justified for ecological and economic reasons. The technical review group would like to be kept informed of the budget percentage going into accuracy assessment and of progress made on measures to make the process more cost effective.

Training

Offering workshops on field method protocols and developing an accompanying manual will greatly facilitate field data gathering efforts by providing a broader group of practitioners, thereby helping to eliminate a major production bottleneck in the Program.

Product Review

Both the BRD and the NPS expressed concern that qualified people associated with the Parks participate in the product review process. The suggestion was made to establish a NPS review committee to provide oversight throughout the process, with comments submitted to BRD and potentially the contracting officer. GIS specialists at the Parks, support offices, or local supporting institutions were also recommended as potential reviewers of the GIS data. It was generally agreed that there is a need for a better process than is currently in place. It was suggested that specific individuals be designated as reviewers during the scoping process at each Park.

Example Applications from the Data: Strategic and Tactical

Participants generally agreed that there is a need for documented applications of Vegetation Mapping Program products to help Parks understand how to better use the data. It was also suggested that this list of demonstrable applications be specific to the various levels in the classification system and mapping resolutions (MMUs) so that these relationships can be understood by all concerned at the beginning of projects.

GRADSECT

Education in the GRADSECT concept (bio-physical stratification for sampling and modeling) and its actual application is generally desired. Although the GRADSECT process is somewhat intuitive, general procedural documentation and refinements are needed to demystify the process.

Conclusions

The entire BRD Vegetation Mapping Program team again found the peer-review process very helpful in identifying ways to make the Program more effective and efficient. The team looks forward to the next peer-review meeting and hopes significant progress can be reported on the aforementioned issues and other aspects of the Program at that time.

If you have comments or issues that could be useful for Program development and implementation, please pass them along via E-mail to maury_nyquist@usgs.gov.