# Presentation: 785252

## Vegetation Mapping ProjectsWhat works...What doesn’t ?

***More than just a map***

**Notes:**
I am here to talk about the National Park Vegetation Mapping Program

## NPS/USGS Vegetation Mapping Projects

**Background**
**Approach**
**Big Mistakes**
**Recommendations**
**Available data/Web site**

## Background

- Early projects were centrally managed
- Additional funding drew local interest
- More funding drew network and regional interest
- i.e. management is now more localized

**Notes:**
Why am I talking about a Park Service Program at a Forest Service Meeting? 
Because of the items listed here.  Like the Park Service, you have national responsibilities, you manage a wide range of ecosystems, you have specific management responsibilities that require information to implement.  This is a program in its 5th year that has leasons that may be benefical to you.  The lessons learned from this program could assist you in your vegetation classification and mapping efforts.  I will come back to that later.
The Inventory Monitoring Program of the NPS is responsiblefor creating many base layers of information for parks including DOQQ’s, species lists, base cartographic data, and includes vegetation.

Short Term Applications
Resource Mangement - what is out there and what do we need to do with it to meet our goals?
Research - what bird species are associated with what vegetaion types?
               - what is the distribution of a particular vegetation type across a Park?
Planning and Compliance - Are there invasive species, what do we need to do about them?
Interpretation - which is a big issue with the Park Service and may not be so important to you now, but
               may become more important in the future. 
Operations - How do we accomplish our management goals in specific vegetation types?

## Background

- These are not “common” projects
- Contractors/cooperators need to be carefully selected and supervised
- Projects require a lot of supervision and review.

## Big Mistake #1

- Underestimating the amount of involvement required to manage a project
- Examples of doing it right
- Northeast Region (Beth Johnson)
- Northern Colorado Plateau Network (A. Evenden)
- SEKI (Sylvia Haultain)

## Big Mistake #2

- Just give the money to someone else, they will know what to do...
- Yeah.. But will they do what you want?
- Need to provide very specific requirement
- Coordinate with the national office

## Big Mistake #3

- Assume that the cooperators/contractors know what they are doing.
- Plant ecology and NVC
- Mapping
- GPS
- Accuracy assessment

## Yet another mistake

- Spend available funds on imagery without consulting your mapping contractor.
- Imagery may not reflect current conditions
- Assume DOQQs or digital imagery is “best”
- Not necessarily so
- Need to consider season, scale, emulsion, etc

## What should you do?

- Recognize and use the standards
- Use the accepted protocols
- Use detailed specifications
- Review the project at each step
- STAY INVOLVED

## Requirements

- Meet NPS overall management policies, standards and guidelines
- Conform to Federal Geographic Data Committee standards
- metadata, transfer, classification etc.
- Has a nationally consistent, hierarchical, classification scheme
- Meet National Map Accuracy Standards
- Thematic accuracy >80% per class
- Scale of 1:24,000
- Minimum mapping unit of 0.5 hectare

**Notes:**
The program has to meet Park Service requirements and 
FGDC requirements
National Map Accuracy standards
Project specific requirements are:
80% accurate for each class
MMU of 0.5 ha
Meet NPS overall management policies, standards and guidelines
Conform to Federal Geographic Data Committee standards
Metadata, Transfer, Classification etc.
Uniformity in classification methodology
Meet National Map Accuracy Standards
Thematic Accuracy >80% per class
Minimum Mapping Unit of 0.5 hectare

## Major steps for each Park

- Scoping meeting
- Data review
- Data acquisition
- Field sampling
- Classification characterization
- Photo interpretation, mapping and automation
- Accuracy assessment
- Final product review

**Notes:**
These are the basic steps that are required for each park unit
Data review - there are usually a lot of data avalaible for each unit, and it takes time and coordination to bring them together
The field sampling should ideally take place when the photo interpreters are doing their field work, so there can be coordination between what the ecologists classifiy and what the intepreters identify
The accuracy assessment should ideally be done when the mapping is complete so we can design a stratified random sample, but for efficiency’s sake, we often do accuracy assessment at the same time as the original field sampling

## Products from the program

- Aerial photography (hardcopy, some new DOQQs)
- Field data (hardcopy and database)
- Classification report (description and key)
- Photo interp report  (description and key)
- Accuracy report
- Vegetation map data (digital coverage)

## FGDC National Vegetation Classification System

**A.  PHYSIOGNOMY**
**Division/Order** - Tree dominant (dominant life form)
**Class** - Woodland  (spacing & height of dominant form)
**Subclass** - Evergreen woodland (morphological & phenological similarity)
**Group** - Temperate evergreen needle-leaved (climate, latitude, growth form, leaf form)
**Formation **- Evergreen needle-leaved woodland with  rounded crowns (mappable units)
**  ****B. FLORISTICS**
**Alliance (Cover Type) **- Douglas Fir woodland  (dominant species)
**Association (Community) **- Douglas Fir / Snowberry woodland (subdominant or associated species)

**Notes:**
The system is hierarchical which allows it to be used for many different levels  of analysis and study - from National to regional to each Park to each site.

It is also standard - so we do not have to reinvent the wheel for each park, although a lot of development work has to be done for each park.

## Build a team

- For managing and implementing
- Plant ecology and classification review
- GIS product review
- Final product review
- Archiving

## More team

- Assemble teams to work on multiple parks
- Use these projects to develop long-term relationships

## Management

- You need  a consistent project manager
- One person should be in charge
- Contract for deliverables (not just time)
- Develop classification then map
- Understand the differences between Cooperative agreements and Contracts

## More Management

- Keep projects moving
- Don’t stop and re-start
- Ask for help when you need it (or before)
- Coordinate with the national office

## Mapping beyond the NVCS

- Species
- Structure
- Height classes
- Layers (tree, shrub, herbaceous)
- Density classes
- Pattern

## Relationship with FIREPRO

- Fire Fuels Mapping
- Similar but not the same (ht to live crown, dead and down)
- Fire Effects Monitoring
- Similar but not the same (sampling techniques)

## New Models

- Multiple park unit projects
- Initiate and manage locally
- “Regional/Network” field teams
- Field based proposals
- “New/other” technologies

## What else is new?

- More efficient methods
- More appropriate products
- Mapping issues
- Too detailed?
- Hybrid techniques
- Large parks
- Small parks

## More?

- Classification issues
- Too detailed at association?
- Inconsistent at association?

## Slide 23

**Notes:**
NVC to the association level was felt to be too much detail for USGS-NPS VMP needs in the West, but adequate and achievable in the East.

Statistics showed that, while the number of alliances reported by unit area for VMP projects is relatively consistent across the country, the number of associations is significantly greater in the West. This finding tends to refute the hypothesis that western areas have more units reported because of graeter environmental diversity, as greater diversity (at a comparable level for both regions) would tend to affect units in the NVC similarly (under the assumption that NVC units are treated at a comparable level of taxonomic resolution nationally).

## Slide 24

**Notes:**
Numbers of plots (costs) tend to be significantly greater for western units.

## Slide 25

**Notes:**
Investigation showed that two different models for delineating associations within alliances in the two regions.

This graphic of the range of hypothetical associations within a single alliance is a very crude depiction of how alliances generally are parceled into associations in the regions.

## Slide 26

| USGS-NPS VMP EXPERIENCE WITH CONCEPTUAL MODELS OF ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN THE CURRENT NVC |  |
| --- | --- |
| “EASTERN” MODEL | “WESTERN” MODEL |
| Resolution of alliances is somewhat consistent nationally. |  |
| Fewer associations per alliance | More associations per alliance |
| Associations tend to be allopatric and limited in range. 

For NPS units, 
Alliance : association tends to be 1 : 1 | Associations tend to be sympatric and wide ranging.

For NPS units, 
Alliance : association tends to be several or many : 1 |
| Associations are also differentiated at the alliance level and are more distinguishable and more mappable. | Associations within alliances are floristically very similar and are less distinguishable and less mappable. |
| Stands representing widespread associations tend to be large. | Stands representing widespread associations can be small and highly mosaiced. |
| Association concepts often derived from local academic and habitat type studies. | Association concepts more derived from state Natural Heritage data and NVC efforts. |

**Notes:**
Different attributes, effects, and possible originating causes of the differing approaches.

## Slide 27

**Notes:**
FGDC and ESA will soon be adopting guidelines that will require that all floristic units (alliances and associations) be proposed in a peer review process and be supported by plots that are representative of the unit’s range (“type specimens”). This process may bring more consistency to how NVC units are applied nationally. While  this process standard may be adopted within the coming year, it will be much longer before the peer review process and well-populated national database are funded and functional.

In the meantime, while recognizing the work of agencies that have contributed to NVC, it must be kept in mind that it is difficult to apply a globally extensive, but fairly generalized, classification that does not meet the objective review requirements specified by ESA / FGDC, to a spatially limited area with very specific floristic attributes.

## LESSONS LEARNED – working with the NVC within the VMP

- NVC at the floristic levels is a work in progress
- NVC process is iterative (park projects are not).
- The diagnosis of floristic units needs to be understandable at the scale of the park, in order to meet I&M program goals (use of NVC is scale dependent).
- More critical review of NVC units and objective basis for evaluating units are needed (as per FGDC / ESA standards).
- More regional cross-regional communication regarding NVC development is needed.
- NPS and other land management agencies need to be “at the table” in the NVC process (not be just a client).

**Notes:**
Lessons learned.

## WHAT TO DO NEXT?

- Good question!
- Communicate this issue to NPS staff (educated consumers) and our partners.
- Perform classifications in several upcoming western parks to emphasize practical management units (test cases) to resolve in the “small picture” (VMP projects)
- Revise VMP protocols to address the issue.
- Communicate the issue to the NVC global community to attempt to resolve in the “big picture.”

**Notes:**
Lessons learned.

## More Information

- Visit the Veg Mapping Homepage
**http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg**

## Thanks

**Mike Story and Chris Lea**
**NPS I&M**
**(303)969-2746  (303)969-2807**
- _[mike_story@nps.gov](mailto:mike_story@nps.gov)_
- _[chris_lea@nps.gov](mailto:chris_lea@nps.gov)_