USGS:Biology Biological Informatics Program Vegetation Characterization Program Program Reviews Responses to Recommendations

The responses below are the USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program staff's general responses to the recommendations. Program staff will prepare a detailed Program plan that will provide detailed implementation to the responses.

Recommendation - The overall vegetation mapping program is strong and should be continued. It is recognized 
	as a pioneering venture within the NPS due to its scientific integrity and comprehensive design.

Response - Agree.

Recommendation - Standards and protocols should be considered for broad implementation and use in 
	other land management programs of other agencies.

Response - Generally agree.  Some standards for the Vegetation Mapping Program (VMP) are already federal 
	standards (e.g., the National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS), the FGDC metadata standard, 
	the Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS)), while others are not federal standards (e.g., the 80% 
	accuracy requirement for each class, 0.5 hectare minimum mapping unit).  It would not be appropriate 
	for every other land management program to adopt our standards and protocols without regards to their 
	particular requirement.  It is important that all federal agencies adopt the federally required 1) NVCS to 
	the appropriate classification level for their vegetation inventories, 2) the FGDC metadata standard, and 
	3) the SDTS. Personnel from the VMP have promoted the Program's standards and protocols to other 
	organizations through the its Web site, through responses to e-mail inquiries, and through presentations 
	at professional meetings.  In addition, we have begun to meet with federal land managers with lands 
	adjacent to current projects in an effort to expand activities.  This has met with mixed success 
	although Waterton National Park in Canada will use the program protocols.  We have also submitted 
	BRD funding proposals to partner with other DOI bureaus as a means to broaden the approach to other 
	federal lands.

Recommendation - The USGS and NPS, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service, should promote 
	acceptance of the standards and protocols developed for the vegetation mapping program through the 
	FGDC.

Response - Agree with respect to NVCS, metadata, and SDTS.  The FGDC could be more proactive towards 
	implementation of the standards.  Perhaps through the FGDC grant process, there could be some 
	provision that federal standards be applied as appropriate.

Recommendation - The program should continue to use a variety of contracting mechanisms and NPS 
	personnel rather than a single central contractor.  This will provide a flexible means of assembling the 
	strongest possible team for all components of the program.

Response - Agree.  We have recently taken steps to allow both universities and other BRD science centers to 
	submit proposals for national parks in the east.  Thus far one center and three universities have 
	responded.

Recommendation - USGS and NPS should increase the training done by The Nature Conservancy and State 
	Heritage program staff for classification system development and field work.

Response - Agree.  Currently the Program provides training to field personnel where necessary for specific 
	projects.  It would be good to be able to provide national training on a regular basis at different sites 
	around the country.  The Center will work with the NPS, TNC, USFWS (with their National Conservation 
	Training Center) and FGDC to address this issue.  Three possible solutions are 1) to be to more 
	inclusive in inviting outside participants to park classes, 2) to seek FGDC funding to offer additional 
	classes on a regional basis, 3) incorporating training into FGDC training classes.

Recommendation - The program should continue to carefully adhere to FGDC and NSDI standards and 
	practices and there should be an effort to transition the NVCS terminology to that used by the FGDC.

Response - Agree.  The 1994 Protocol Document "Standardized National Vegetation Classification System" 
	(1994 VMP Document in table below) is not consistent with the present FGDC standard, nor is the 
	"Present Example", which was copied from a recently completed Park, consistent with the FGDC 
	standard. 

	The two major differences are 1) at the top level where "System" in the 1994 Document and the Present 
	Example are at the top level, while "Division" is the FGDC standard, and 2) the addition of the 
	Physiognomic Subgroup, which distinguished between natural or semi-natural vegetation and cultivated 
	vegetation.  The top level will be made consistent with the FGDC NVCS.  A basic assumption of the 
	VMP classification as it is presently used is that all vegetation communities that are classified are 
	natural or semi-natural and cultivated communities are classified under the Anderson classification; this 
	assumption shall be made explicit.  We will add "physiognomic subgroup" for consistency with the 
	standard. In addition, the program will review and update all basic protocol documents, to ensure 
	compliance with federal standards and changes that have occurred in the protocols since the documents 
	were written in 1994.

Recommendation - The USGS and NPS should review the NVCS version being used for the vegetation 
	mapping program and it should be modified, as needed, to conform to the FGDC vegetation 
	classification standard.

Response - Agree.  

Recommendation - The USGS and NPS should articulate the need for nationally consistent standards and 
	protocols in the vegetation mapping program.  While there is clear evidence of the utility of the standards 
	at the park unit level, the need for national consistency has not been clearly expressed.

Response - Agree. If the products from the VMP are to be integrated regionally and nationally, it is important to 
	have consistent national protocols and standards.  If the VMP products are to be integrated with other 
	national programs' products, such as the Gap Analysis Program, the VMP needs to have consistent 
	national standards and protocols.  The NPS' information needs are driven on a park-by-park basis, so 
	the NPS has not expressed a demand for standard products on the basis of regional or national 
	integration or analysis. However, it is clear that standard products and protocols mean consistent 
	products, so when personnel move from park to park, the natural resource personnel will be familiar with 
	the VMP products and able to use them quickly and efficiently.  As the Program's products are being 
	more widely used, Program personnel will capture examples of the applications to which the products 
	are being used; this should help respond to this recommendation.  We will be moving to implement this 
	approach for all ongoing and new parks.  We will also seek this consistency as we contact other bureaus 
	about applying these standards and protocols.

Recommendation - The accuracy standard should be reevaluated by the technical leadership of the program. 
	While the accuracy assessment standard and protocol is a critical part of the program the specific 
	standards criteria and all elements of the accuracy assessment protocol may not be necessary 
	considering the planned applications of the data set.  Thus, accuracy standards and the assessment 
	protocol should be reevaluated with a goal of reducing cost and accelerating the completion of the 
	program.

Recommendation - Minimum program standards should remain at 0.5 ha minimum mapping units, mapping at 
	the formation level, and 80% accuracy per class.  Park management should identify and justify areas or 
	classes where greater spatial and thematic detail and/or additional attribute information is required to 
	meet management needs.

Recommendation - The formation level of the NVCS is appropriate for national consistency.  Mapping at the 
	alliance level should be justified, based on need on a park by park basis.  

Response to the three recommendations -  The current classification accuracy standard requires 80% 
	accuracy at the 90% confidence level for each class and the spatial accuracy standard is that the 
	products meet the USGS National Map Accuracy Standard at 1:12,000 scale (which means that 90% 
	of all well-defined objects must be within 30 feet of their actual location).   Mapping occurs at the 
	association level if possible; frequently it is not possible to discern associations on the aerial photos, 
	so map classes are created which are groups of associations.   The 1998 NPS Program review 
	considered "options for scaling back the program include a reduction of the level of detail in the mapping 
	and descriptions such as the minimum mapping unit (currently 0.5 ha) and the level of descriptive detail 
	(mapping at the Alliance rather than at the Association). This would reduce the field work, analysis, photo 
	interpretation, automation, and accuracy assessment. It would reduce the cost of the program in each 
	park but would also limit the usefulness of the data. Although this option was not comprehensively 
	discussed, the participants felt that the present level of products is appropriate as long as adequate 
	funding can be made available."   The technical leadership of the Program will evaluate these 
	recommendations, along with the NPS review recommendation and make proposals for changes to the 
	NPS I&M program. 

Recommendation - The scoping meetings held at the beginning of each new start should focus on the anticipated 
	uses of project results so that the appropriate level of spatial and thematic detail is understood and the 
	need for additional attributes identified.  A proper mix of participants, including managers, ecologists, 
	and technicians, and participants from other sectors if practical, is essential for this meeting.  Further, 
	a written declaration of the NPS contribution to the project should be executed prior to initiation of the 
	project.

Response - Agree.  

Recommendation - The USGS and NPS need to better plan and sequence important events, funds, and other 
	inputs associated with this program.

Response - Agree.  In addition to the response above, BRD will attempt to develop funding initiatives in 
	cooperation with the National Park Service.  The Program will also explore innovative ways of 
	completing its work such as performing the classification work on a regional basis, independent of the 
	mapping work or centralizing the cartographic production work to increase efficiencies.

Recommendation - The NPS should share the criteria for park unit priority rankings with all parks.

Response - Recommendation referred to the NPS.

Recommendation - The USGS should take the lead in bringing major vegetation mapping programs, land 
	management agencies, and other relevant organizations together to share information, coordinate 
	activities, and identify priorities for mapping by geographic areas.

Response - Agree.  The CBI Geospatial Technology Programs Team Leader will take the lead on this 
	recommendation, with the assistance of VMP personnel.  As coordination increases, efficiencies will 
	increase.

Recommendation - The NPS should strongly consider grouping parks on a regional or state basis so that the 
	USGS can implement a group of similar projects and benefit from consolidated mapping and vegetation 
	characterization.

Response - Agree.  The program has worked in widely scattered parts of the country to date to test the protocols 
	and standards.  The NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program is proposing 32 sets of parks that are 
	grouped on an ecological basis.  All I&M programs would be coordinated on this basis.  The VMP can 
	use these groupings to "regionalize' the approach to gain efficiencies in field work, classification, and 
	aerial photography.

Recommendation - A team approach to each mapping project, involving NPS and USGS, as well as other 
	federal and state participants, and mapping and field contractors is essential and should be continued.

Response - Agree.   The Program will continue to look for partnerships wherever it is appropriate and 
	advantageous.  Prior to scoping meetings USGS will discuss the approach with neighboring land 
	managers in an effort to gain their participation. 

Recommendation - The USGS should track and summarize all project costs by and functional task so that a 
	complete picture of project costs can be documented.  Cost estimates and final costs should be 
	provided to NPS park managers and others associated with the project.

Response - Agree. A detailed cost accounting system will be established and information will be made available 
	to appropriate personnel.

Recommendation - The USGS and NPS should revisit the protocol documentation and update elements that 
	have changed as the program has evolved.  Protocols should be periodically revisited thereafter.  
	Continuation of strict adherence to the BRD metadata standards is highly encouraged.

Response - Agree.  The protocol documents will be updated in light of NVCS changes, Program experiences, 
	and any advances in the field since they were written.  Procedures will be put into place to provide 
	continuous updates.

Recommendation - The USGS and NPS should review emerging technologies and data sources, including 
	National Technical Means, for use in the program.

Response - Agree.  The USGS is not committed to a particular technology, but is committed to producing the 
	necessary products to the standards with the best efficiency.  The Program has personnel who have 
	access to emerging technologies, such as hyperspectral sensors, and National Technical Means, are 
	competent in their analysis, and will continue to evaluate their usefulness for the Program.  In addition, 
	we are looking at other measures to bring in experts to review and advise the Program. 

Recommendation - The USGS and NPS should illustrate how the data sets being developed are or will 
	contribute to national needs and mandates (i.e., classification system development, exotics 
	management, threatened and endangered species, biodiversity, NSDI and NBII, climate change, etc.).  
	This information is important when advocating for national standards and consistency.

Response - Agree.  As stated in an earlier response the USGS will make a concerted effort to gather information 
	about applications and make that information available via the Internet, professional meetings, scientific 
	conferences, publications, and other outlets where scientists and natural resource managers seek 
	information.

Recommendation - The NPS with the support of the USGS should develop a capability to use vegetation 
	mapping project results in a wide range of park applications. Specific functions that need to be 
	completed will vary by park unit.  However, access to appropriately configured computers and training in 
	the use of the data sets are minimum requirements. 

Response - Agree.  The USGS will provide support to assist the NPS in this effort as appropriate.

Recommendation - USGS and NPS leadership should recognize and publicize the value of the data in national 
	initiatives (i.e. NSDI vegetation standards).

Response - Agree.  USGS Program personnel will continue to communicate with bureau leadership on  Program 
	protocols, standards, and data to encourage their support.

Recommendation - USGS and NPS should develop a fact sheet or brochure that summarizes the goals, 
	objectives, and key elements of the vegetation mapping program for distribution outside of the two 
	bureaus.

Response- Agree.  A fact sheet has been drafted and will be published this year.

Recommendation - USGS and NPS should develop guidelines outlining the steps that can quickly be initiated to 
	prepare park staff to use the vegetation classification prepared for their park and organize for the 
	implementation of a project.  

Response - Agree.  The USGS will 1) prepare a guideline for parks that are initiating mapping and classification 
	projects, and 2) develop examples of product applications by parks who have had the classification and 
	mapping completed.

Recommendation - The USGS should initiate the production and circulation of a newsletter that shares ideas, 
	successes, innovations, lessons, and schedules associated with the vegetation mapping program.

Response - Conditionally agree.  USGS will enter into discussions with partners, including the NPS, TNC, and 
	FGDC to determine interest and elicit support.  

Recommendation - The USGS and NPS should publish standards, protocols, results, and innovative 
	applications in the open literature so that the larger resource management and scientific community may 
	benefit from the results of this program.

Response - Agree.  Articles concerning the Program will be submitted to journals such as  Photogrammetric 
	Engineering and Remote Sensing, Journal of Forestry, and other publications that reach scientists and 
	natural resource managers. 

Recommendation - The FGDC should be asked to facilitate outreach and education to the broader community 
	on the forms of the protocols and strategies for implementing classification standards.  

Response- Agree.  USGS will work with FGDC to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation - The USGS Gap Analysis Program and the Vegetation Mapping Program staff should 
	continue to explore areas of synergy between the two programs, such as classification system 
	development, exchange of data sets, and collaboration on accuracy assessment strategies.

Response - Agree.  The VMP has provided data for various GAP projects to act as reference data.   The USGS 
	is investigating projects to compare data from both projects in a geographical area to assist land 
	managers in regional issues.  

Recommendation - A new 2001 budget initiative for an estimated $4?5 million per year, supported jointly by 
	USGS, NPS and the FGDC, is highly recommended to allow program objectives to be met in a more 
	reasonable time frame.  The USGS and NPS should take the action to urge FGDC to propose and 
	support a vegetation data collection initiative for FY2001 building on principles of Community/Federal 
	Information Partnership.

Response - Agree.  In addition, the USGS wrote a proposal seeking FY 2000 CFIP (Community Federal 
	Information Partnership) funds for the Program but was unsuccessful. Another proposal will be written seeking 
	support for FY 2001.  

Recommendation - There should be a minimum in?kind park contribution requirement established before a new 
	mapping project is initiated.  This may be financial, the provision of staff resources, vehicles, housing, or 
	other contributions that reduces the overall cost to the national program. Of particular value would be the 
	provision of staff to conduct field data collection and accuracy assessment tasks.

Response - Agree.  The USGS makes every effort to get park "buy-in" at the onset of a project and has received 
	excellent support from park staff for resources, housing, and logistical support.  This would have to be 
	undertaken in a partnership with and the approval of the NPS I&M Program.

Recommendation- A more aggressive effort should be undertaken to identify new funding sources. For example, 
	fire, global change, and other programs may be appropriate sources of funding augmentation. It may 
	also help assure the involvement, assessment and identification of other projects that collect vegetation 
	data and help establish collaboration that contributes to the national program.  Identification of other 
	federal agencies, States and local governments with a common need for information of this type may 
	result in additional funding options.  The feasibility of reducing funds through a regional implementation 
	strategy should be assessed.

Response - Agree.  The USGS will undertake an organized effort to identify and secure additional funding 
	sources.

Recommendation - The NPS should establish a policy requiring park units that secure vegetation mapping from 
	sources other than the USGS program, follow the standards established for program.

Response - Recommendation has been referred to NPS.