Assessing Biological Diversity in the United

States: Data Considerations

March 1986

NTIS order #PB86-181989
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Assessing Biological Diversity in

the United States: Data Considerations—Background Paper #2, OTA-BP-F-39 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1986).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 86-600513

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
Preface

Biological diversity is crucial to human welfare. To maintain biological diversity requires an understanding of the components of biological systems and how

they interact. Such an understanding is possible only if data are available to document the species, communities, and ecosystems that make up the biological systems. In recent years increasing efforts are being made to collect biological data

in the United States. While enormous quantities of biological data now exist, several factors limit the data’s usefulness in the task of maintaining biological diversity. Various laws require or authorize Federal agencies to collect biological data

or to maintain biological databases, but few of these mandates apply directly to

biological diversity. Consequently, maintaining diversity is seldom a goal of data

collectors. Furthermore, there is no overall institutional coordination of biological data-collection efforts, which means that data are scattered, maintained in various forms, and stored in different—often incompatible—systems, even within one

agency. There are gaps and overlaps in coverage, and it is difficult to ascertain

what data are available.

This background paper outlines how data can be used in maintaining biological diversity; describes primarily the Federal institutions that collect biological data;

provides an overview of existing Federal biological databases; discusses technical

aspects of collecting, storing, and retrieving biological data; and suggests ways to

improve biological databases so that they can be better used to help maintain diversity of this Nation’s plant and animal life.

This paper is part of the Office of Technology Assessment’s forthcoming assessment of Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity, A concurrent background

paper, Grassroots Conservation of Biological Diversity in the United States, illustrates the contributions of a growing number of individuals and citizen-based groups

to the maintenance of biological diversity. This assessment was prepared by OTA

in response to requests from the House Committee on Science and Technology,

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and supported by the House Committee on Foreign

Affairs, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and House Committee on Agriculture.

OTA wishes to thank those individuals in the Federal agencies who helped the

OTA staff identify existing biological databases, and the advisory panel and numerous other individuals who provided helpful reviews of the document. In particular, OTA wishes to acknowledge the contribution of the Congressional Research

Service in providing a synthesis of Federal legislation to conduct biological inventories. As with all OTA reports, however, the content is the sole responsibility of

OTA.
Technologies

Stephen Brush

To Maintain Biological Diversity Advisory Panel

Kenneth Dahlberg, Chair

Department of Political Science

Western Michigan University

Grenville Lucas

International Agricultural Development Keeper, the Herbarium

University of California-Davis -

Rita Colwell

Office of the Vice President for

Academic Affairs

University of Maryland

Peter Carlson

Director

Crops Genetics International

Raymond Dasmann

Department of Environmental Studies

University of California-Santa Cruz

Clarence Dias

president

International Center for Law in

Development

Donald Duvick

Vice President of Research

Pioneer Hi-Bred International

David Ehrenfeld

Cooks College

Rutgers University

Kew Royal Botanic Gardens

Richard Norgaard

Department of Agricultural and Resource

Economics

University of California-Berkeley

Robert Prescott-Allen

PADATA, Inc.

Paul Risser

Chief

Illinois Natural History Survey

Oliver Ryder

Research Department

San Diego Zoo

Michael Soule

Center for Wildland Management

University of Michigan

John Sullivan

Vice President of Production

American Breeders Service

Major Goodman

Department of Crop Science

North Carolina State University

iv
OTA BioIogicai Diversity Project Staff

Roger Herdman, Assistant Director, 0TA

Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources Program Manager

AnalyticaI Staff

Susan Shen, Project Director

Catherine Carlson, Research Assistant

Edward F. MacDonald, Analyst

Michael Strauss, Analyst

Anne Meadows, Freelance Editorl

Administrative Staff

Beckie Erickson, Administrative Assistant

Nellie Hammond, Secretary

Carolyn Swarm, Secretary

‘For this background paper only
Contents

CHAPTER 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Uses of Biological Data in Maintaining Biological Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For Determining Status and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For Planning and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 2: Institutional Aspects of Biological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , . . . . . . . . . . .

State and Private Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 2 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 3: Existing Biological Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Existing Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geographic Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Taxonomic Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .

Data Overlap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Database Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Existing Institutional Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Suggestions for a National Biological Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 3 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER4: Technical Aspects of Biological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data-Entry Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Remote Sensing Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... ... ....., . . . . . . . . . . .

Hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ~ . . . . . .

Data Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Opportunities and Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 4 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 5: Summary Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX A: Examples of Federal Agency Databases Containing Biological Information . . .

APPENDIX B: Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX C: Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Tables

3

3

4

4

4

5

6

9

9

13

15

19

19

20

20

23

24

24

25

26

28

31

31

31

31

33

33

35

36

37

37

47

47

70

71

Table No. Page

I. Federal Laws Authorizing Biological Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. Federal Agencies With Resource Information and Data-Gathering Programs by Resource Type . 12

3. Taxonomic Coverage of Federal Agency Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

1, Paths of Data Transfer for Conventional and Automated Data Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2. Remote Sensing Devices Increase the Coverage of Area From Which Data Is Collected. . . . 33

3. Representation of a Main Geographic Information System Function of

Overlaying Several Types of Environmental Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

vii
Chapter 1
Chapter I

Introduction

BACKGROUND

Human welfare is inextricably linked to, and

dependent on, biological diversity.’ Not only

does the human species rely on other organisms to provide essential sustenance and products that enhance the quality of life (e.g., food

and fiber), but the interactions among species

affect essential processes (e.g., nutrient cycling)

without which the human species could not

survive. Concern about biological diversity also

has an ethical aspect, deriving from the notion

that the human species should avoid causing

the extinction of other species that share the

planet.

Understanding the components of biological

systems and how these components interact is

crucial for developing an effective strategy to

maintain biological diversity on-site, that is,

within the environment where it occurs naturally. A first step in developing such understanding is to document the various components—species, communities, and ecosystems.

Once acquired, data about the components can

be manipulated to provide information on how

best to address concerns about maintaining

biological diversity. To be effective in meeting

these objectives, however, the acquisition, dissemination, and use of data must be defined

within the context of clearly defined goals. Accumulation of biological data should not be

considered an end in itself but should be considered a means for achieving various ends,

such as maintaining biological diversity.

Over the past two decades, increased interest in natural resources and concerns about

environmental quality have produced a deluge

of information on the biota of the United States.

Proliferation of such data at Federal agencies

reflects the growth in stewardship responsibilities the agencies have been given for main1 Biological diversity refers to the variety and variability within

and among living organisms and the ecological complexes in

which they occur.

taining the Nation’s biological resources, particularly on federally owned lands. State and

private institutions also have been generating

increasing amounts of information on U.S.

flora and fauna.

Data acquisition, for the most part, has been

prompted by narrow sets of objectives defined

within the contexts of the operational responsibilities of the various agencies and institutions acquiring the data, Not surprisingly, these

data are widely scattered and generally incompatible with each other. Information about the

existence of data seldom seems to be communicated to potential users of the data. Moreover, maintaining biological diversity has been,

at best, only a tangential consideration in most

data collection efforts. Consequently, it is difficult, if not impossible, to develop a comprehensive assessment of biological diversity

based on the vast amount of data that currently

exists,

In response to congressional needs, the Office of Technology Assessment has produced

this background paper in support of a broader

study, which will identify available and emerging technologies to maintain biological diversity, This paper briefly assesses the state of existing biological data and proposes ways to

improve the use of such data for the purpose

of maintaining biological diversity. Because of

the large amount of data available and the number of institutions involved, the scope of this

paper is limited primarily to Federal agencies

and to data generated from field studies by Federal agency personnel.

This document does not address many collections of biological resources that exist in the

Smithsonian Institution and other museums,

in U.S. Department of Agriculture facilities,

and in universities, private research centers,

and other institutions. Although bibliographic

3
4

information systems serve an important func- monitoring, and baseline biological data, this

tion by providing centralized locations for ob- document does not cover bibliographic datataining information on sources of inventory, bases.

THE USES OF BIOLOGICAL DATA IN

MAINTAINING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Maintaining the continuing diversity of plants

and animals is a large and complex task, which

requires the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and

manipulation of enormous quantities of biological data. Biological data consist of information

that can indicate the abundance, condition, and

distribution of species, communities, and ecosystems. These data can reveal the status of the

biological diversity and disclose any changes

that may be taking place, and the data can be

used to develop effective plans for managing

resources. To ensure the continued health of

the natural biota the data can be used to provide a baseline from which to monitor the effectiveness of a plan once it is implemented.

For Dermining Status and Trends

The status or number and kinds of organisms

within a given area can be obtained through field

inventories. This information serves as a starting point, or baseline, from which to measure

changes that occur and from which to determine the effects of various activities, such as

timber harvesting, on the biological diversity

of an area. Similarly, data collected in one geographic area can be compared with data collected (using similar methods) from other areas

to evaluate spatial differences in biological

diversity.

Data also allow the assessment of trends,

which are changes in distribution and abundance or in rates of change that occur overtime,

For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) reports that approximately 400,000 acres

of wetland habitat are altered or lost each year

(11), The rate of alteration has been established

by comparing aerial photos of a statistical sample of wetland areas taken during the 1950s with

photos of the same areas taken during the 1970s,

Data on the status and trends of biological data

can help decisionmakers to identify species,

populations, or habitats that may need protection. FWS, for example, evaluates the current

status of species and subspecies and how their

populations have changed over time in order

to identify candidates for listing as threatened

or endangered species or for recovery efforts

under the Federal Endangered Species Act (Public Law 93-205, as amended). State agencies responsible for State laws that protect endangered

species carry out similar evaluations.

For Planning and Management

Planning and management efforts to maintain biological diversity can take many forms,

but all of them require reliable information on

biological resources. Data on the abundance and

variety of species or ecosystems can be used to

establish priorities for land acquisition or designation. Congressional acquisition of National

Park Service (NPS) land, for example, is based

on available information about nationally significant esthetic, biological, or cultural resources and about the potential threats to those

resources. The Bureau of Land Management’s

(BLM) designations of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern are supported by evidence

of the areas’ unique biological or cultural resources.

In determining the size and shape of an area

required to protect a particular species or habitat, it is necessary to gather various kinds of information including habitat requirements, the

existing population size, the available food and

cover, and the population’s migration habits.

Such data are used to determine the minimum

size of the area and the minimum number of

individuals required to sustain healthy popula-
5

tions or species. The U.S. Forest Service (FS)

and other agencies, for example, undertook extensive studies of the northern spotted owls on

national forest lands in the Pacific Northwest

to establish the minimum area needed for a

breeding pair of owls. By tracking the owls’ use

of their habitat and by noting the seasonal

changes in that use, the agencies were able to

determine how much land was used for feeding and nesting by a breeding pair. The data generated in this project are helping resource

managers to identify the minimum population

size and protected habitat needed to conserve

viable breeding populations of spotted owls in

national forests (8).

Baseline biological data also feed into the development of plans for habitat or ecosystem

management. In general, an area is surveyed

to identify its resources, and a plan is devised

to create the best possible habitat conditions for

the chosen plant or animal species or type of

ecosystem. To prepare the Burro Creek Riparian Management Plan in west central Arizona,

for example, the BLM conducted intensive inventories of the area’s flora and fauna between

1977 and 1982, The biota inventoried included

the following: birds (3,6); amphibians and reptiles (4); mammals (7,10 fish (5); and vegetation (2,9). Data from these inventories were used

to identify the status of the resources and to identify management options for maintaining the

habitats in the area as well as for restoring

degraded habitats.

In developing management plans for a wide

geographic area that contains different habitats,

such as a national forest, data are needed on

each kind of habitat in the area. The capability

of the land or water to support economic activities (e. g., timber harvesting) and recreational

opportunities as well as to maintain biological

resources must be considered, Decisionmakers

determine the best uses of each area and devise

appropriate management options. Without

some baseline measure of the available resources, and without data on what the land and

water can support, the consequences of particular courses of action are likely to be projected

inaccurately.

Finally, species recovery efforts, such as those

conducted by the Federal Office of Endangered

Species of the FWS, require extensive information about the endangered or threatened species or subspecies. Data on habitat affinities,

interspecies interactions, dietary habits, and reproductive needs, all must be analyzed if the

efforts are to be effective (12).

For Monitoring

Once a management strategy is implemented,

data are needed to monitor its effectiveness. Successful monitoring of resources depends on obtaining sound information about the status of

a species, habitat, or ecosystem prior to application of the plan. Data showing how the status of the resources has changed over time help

decisionmakers evaluate their past decisions.

previously unidentified changes in an area’s biological diversity can lead to alteration of management strategies or reconsideration of the

need to acquire or designate land for protection. For example, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Alaska and Northwest

Fisheries Center maintains a database on more

than 2,400 species or species assemblages

within its jurisdiction (RACE Ground Fish Data

Base). The data, collected over time, indicate

trends in abundance and distribution of these

organisms so NMFS can monitor changes. The

monitoring data can then be used to determine

how commercial harvesting affects species’

populations. This, in turn, may lead to alterations in fishing guidelines (l).

The following discussion begins with an

assessment of the institutional mechanisms that

promote biological data collection. Existing Federal biological databases and gaps in the available information regarding biological diversity

are examined. And the technological opportunities to facilitate biological data collection, storage, and retrieval are briefly described. The paper provides an assessment of factors that

constrain or enhance opportunities for collecting biological data and concludes with a discussion of several avenues to improve the data

collection efforts for maintaining biological

diversity.
6

CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES

1. Alton, Miles, U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, personal

communication, Seattle, WA, Nov. 6, 1985.

2. Butterwick, M. L., “Status Report on CowazIia

subintegra, ” U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District

Office, unpublished report, 1980.

3, Hall, R, S., “Avifauna of the Hualapai and

Aquarius Planning Units, Mohave and Yavapai

Counties, Arizona,” U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix

District Office, unpublished report, 1980.

4. Jones, K. B., “Distribution, Ecology, and Habitat Management of the Reptiles and Amphibians of the Hualapai-Aquarius Planning Area,

Mohave and Yavapai Counties, Arizona,” U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Technical Note 353 (BLM-YA-PT81-032-6660), 1981.

5. Kepner, W. G., “Fishes of the Upper Bill Williams Drainage, Mohave and Yavapai Counties,

Arizona, ” U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office, unpublished report, 1980.

6, Millsap, B. A., “Distributional Status of Falconiformes in West-central Arizona with Notes

on Ecology, Reproductive Success and Managemerit, ” U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management, Technical Note 355

(BLM-YA-PT-81-039-6611), 1981.

7. Peck, R. L., “Small Mammal Inventory of the

Aquarius and Hualapai Planning Units, Mohave and Yavapai Counties, Arizona,” U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office, unpublished

report, 1979.

8. Salwasser, H., Mealey, S. P., and Johnson, K.,

“Wildlife Population Viability: A Question of

Risk,” Transactions of the North American

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference

49:421-439 (Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute, 1984).

9. Sanchez, C., Jr., “An Evaluation of the Condition of Riparian Communities in the Burro

Creek Drainage, Arizona,” U.S. Department of

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Alberquerque Regional Office, unpublished report,

1982.

10. Short, H. L., “Wildlife Guilds in Arizona Desert

Habitats, Draft Final Report, ” unpublished report compiled under Interagency Agreement–

AA-851 -IAI-27, Western Energy and Land Use

Team, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service, Ft. Collins, CO, 1982.

11. Tiner, R. W., Jr., Wetlands of the United States.’

Current Status and Recent Trends (Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1984).

12. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Selkirk Mountain Caribou/Recovery Plan (Portland, OR, 1983).
Chapter 2

Institutional Aspects of

Biological Data
Chapter 2

Institutional Aspects of Biological Data

HIGHLIGHTS

. Numerous Federal laws and policies require or permit Federal agencies to conduct inventories of natural resources, although few of the inventories directly

address on-site maintenance of biological diversity.

● Federal agency objectives, differing interpretations of mandates, and lack of

specificity in Federal mandates calling for biological data lead to problems

of data incompatibility and data inconsistency within and among Federal

agencies.

● In contrast to Federal agencies, some State and private

biological diversity as one objective in their biological

FEDERAL AUTHORITIES

institutions consider

field inventories.

Federal laws and policies regarding conservation abound, causing numerous Federal

agencies in different locations to generate massive amounts of data, much of which may be

applicable to efforts to maintain biological

diversity on-site. Table 1 describes the Federal

laws that mention biological inventories. More

than 14 Federal agencies in at least 4 different

departmental are identified in mandates to conduct inventories of natural resources. Some

mandates call for inventories of resources

within a specific geographic area, a regional

area, or the Nation as a whole. Other laws authorize inventories of specific species or broad

ranges of organisms or ecosystems.2

The table distinguishes between laws that

permit inventories and those that require biological inventories. (See the column labeled

“Level of requirement.”) Laws permitting inventories generally provide the legislative authority for agencies to conduct research on bioI Within the executive branch of the Federal Government, departments have broad areas of Federal responsibility. Agencies

may be created within a particular department to address relatively specific responsibilities within the department’s jurisdiction.

‘Federal laws reflected in table 1 do not include legislation

that requires inventories in one specific regional area (e.g., the

Columbia River watershed) or one State (e.g., Tennessee).

logical resources. An example of such a law

is the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (3).

The laws that require inventories may direct

agencies to conduct inventories, or may indirectly require agencies to conduct inventories because of the need for biological information to carry out the intent of the laws (3).

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is an example

of the indirect type of requirement.

Policies and agency directives may stimulate

as much data collection as Federal mandates,

An agency or department may state the need

for biological data in regulations or departmental programs that address broader environmental goals. Such regulations and programs

may clarify Federal legislation or may occur

independently.3 For example, the National Park

Service (NPS) completed an extensive inventory of ecosystems in the United States as one

result of a 1965 directive from the Secretary

t!vlany agency and departmental policies and regulations

calling for biological inventories are linked to the mandate for

environmental assessments in the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA; Public Law 91-190), Although NEPA does not require

inventories to be conducted specifically, the agency regulations

promulgated as a result of NEPA may do so. Environmental

impact assessments conducted as a result of N EPA ha~’e stimulated the collection and analysis of biological data for thousands

of Federal projects,

9
10

Table 1 .—Federal Laws Authorizing Biological Inventories

Lead

Resource/taxon agency

Department of the Interior:

Irrigated Indian lands. BIA

Indian forest lands BIA

Wild horses and burros BLM

Resources of public lands BLM

Rangelands BLM/FS

Animals FWS

Animals FWS

Animals FWS

Animals FWS

Migratory birds FWS

Fisheries FWS

Estuarlne areas FWS

Commercial fisheries FWS/NMFS

Endangered species FWS/NMFS

Endangered species FWS/NMFS

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) MMS

Rivers NPS/FWS/

BLM/FS

Conservation program

Research on Irrigation of Indian

lands

Research to manage reservation

timber for sustained yield

Survey of horses and burros on

public lands

Inventory of public lands BLM

and their resources

Inventory of rangeland conditions

and trends

Inventory by States of nongame

fish and wildlife

Surveys of animals on land and

water in public domain

Cooperate grants to States for

restoration of fish and wildlife

Reports on avadabillty and requirements of fish and wildlife

Requires regulation of hunting

according to bird surveys

National Fisheries Center and

Aquarium/fisheries research

Inventory of marshes, lagoons,

estuaries, including Great Lakes

Reports on fish populations and

their diseases

Federal studies to determine species at risk

Federal/State cooperative studies

Collection of baseline data m

areas proposed for OCS oil and

gas Ieasing

Inventory of rivers with potential

for designation as wild or scenic

Popular Date Level of

name of law Public Lawa

US Codeaenacted requirement

Wild Free-Roaming

Horses and Burros

Act

Federal Land Policy

and Management Act

Public Rangelands

Improvement Act

Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Act

Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act

Pitman-Roberfson

Wildlife Restoration

Act

Fish and Wildlife

Act of 1956

Migratory Bird

Treaty Act

Endangered Species

Act

Endangered Species

Act

Outer Continental

Shelf Lands Act

Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act

Ch. 119

Ch. 431

95-514

94-579

95-514

96-366

Ch. 55

Ch. 899

Ch 1036

Ch. 128

87-758

90-454

Ch. 362

93-205

93-205

92-372

90-542

Department of Commerce:

Pacific coral reefs NOAA/Sl

Marine sanctuaries NOAA

Marine mammals NMFS/FWS

Anadromous and NMFS

Great Lakes Fisheries NMFS

Pacific Ocean fisheries NMFS

Northern Pacific fur seals NMFS

Northern Pacific fur seals NMFS

Whales NMFS

Fisheries NMFS

Studies on reefs and Acanthaster

planci starfish

Research on marine sanctuaries

Research grants on protection of

marine mammals

Investigation and biological surveys of anadromous and Great

Lakes fish

Study fish populations of Pacific

to ensure resource development

Research on Northern Pacific fur

seals

Studies of fur seal populations

and trends

Studies of biology of whales in

U S waters

Research on abundance and

availability of fish

91-427

96-332

Marine Mammal Pro- 92-522

tection Act

Anadromous Fish 89-309

Conservation Act

Ch 451

Fur Seal Act 89-702

Marine Mammal Pro- 92-522

tection Act

Whale Conservation 94-532

and Protection Study

Act

Magnuson Fishery 94-265

Conservation and

Management Act

25 U.S C 381-390

25 U,S. C. 406-407, 466

16 U.S. C 1333(b)

43 U.s, c 1711

43 u S.c 1903

16 U S.C. 2903

16 U S.C. 661 et seq

16 U S C 669 et seq.

16 U S C. 742d

16 U S C 704

16 U S C. 1051 et seq

16 U S C 1221-1226

16 U S C, 744

16 U S.C. 1533

16 U SC 1535

43 U S C 1346

16 U S C 1275

—

16 U S C 1211-1213

16 U S C 1432(f)

16 U S C. 1380

16 U S C 757b

16 U S C 758a

16 U S.C 1153

16 USC 1378

16 U.S. C 917a

16 U S C. 1854(e)

1887

1910

1978

1976

1978

1980

1934

1937

1956

1918

1962

1968

1887

1973

1973

1978

1986

P

P

R

R

R

P

R

P

R

R

P

R

R

R

R

R

P

1970 P

1980 P

1972 P

1965 P

1960 R

1966 P

1972 R

1976 R

1976 P
11

Table 1.— Federal Laws Authorizing Biological Inventories—Continued

Lead Popular Date Level of

Resource/taxon agency Conservation program name of law Public Lawa

U S Codeaenacted requirementb

Department of Defense:

Animals and plants DOD/FWS Planning for wildlife fish, and Sikes Act 86-797 16 U S C 670a 1960 P

plants on military reservations

Environmental Protection Agency:

— — .

Water qualify EPA Studies of effects of water qual- Clean Water Act 92-500 33 U S C 1254 1972 R

ity on biota

Air qualify EPA Studies of effects of air quality Clean Air Act 88-206 42 U S C 7403 1963 R

on biota

Pesticide exposure EPA Monitoring of soil, water, plants, Federal Insecticide, 92-516 7 U S C 136r 1972 R

and animals for pesticide ex- Fungicide, and

posure Rodenticide Act —

Department of Agriculture:

Forests FS Cooperate forestry research by M-Stennis Ac t 87-788 16 U S C 582a 1962 P

State land grant colleges

Renewable resources FS Inventory of lands and renewable Forest and Rangeland 93-378 16 U S C 1603 1974 R

resources of National Forests Renewable Resources

Planning Act

Renewable resources FS Comprehensive research on Forest and Rangeland 95-307 16 U S C 1642 1978 R

renewable resources of forests Renewable Resources

and ranqeland Research Act

Plants NA Research on tree and plant life Ch 505 20 u s c 191-195 1927 R

Soil SCS Inventory of SoiI quality and Soil and Water 95-192 16 U S C 2004 1977 R

related resources Resources Conservation Act

Smithsonian Institution:

Biota SI Increase diffusion of knowledge Ch 69 20 u s c 41 1877 P

Biota of former Canal Zone STRI Scientific Investigation of natural Ch 516 20 U S C 79a 1940 R

features of former Canal Zone — —

acode Cltat[ons The Uta(lons 10 the u s Cwe reflect the smallest relevant portion of the code that direcled such studies— Single Sectons where posstble The Publlc Law Cllallons are 10 the firs! laws

[o enact the DarUcular provisions The reference should be understood 10 Include the act and any subsequent wnendments No attempt was made 10 Cite fhe Orlq[nal laws creahnq the overall chapters

or subchapters where the sections ot Interest were added only in later amendments

bLevel of requirement

P = Inventories permtted

R = Inventories required

SOURCE Congressloml Research Serwce 1985

of the Interior to develop the National Natural Landmark Program (4). Concern over wetland ecosystems prompted the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) to initiate an ongoing

inventory of wetland areas in the United States,

independent of a specific congressional directive. (See National Wetlands Inventory in app.

A.)

The primary Federal agencies collecting information on biological resources are those

concerned with managing land and resources.

These agencies include:

● U.S. Department of the Interior

—Bureau of Land Management

—National Park Service

—Fish and Wildlife Service

• U.S. Department of Agriculture

—Forest Service

—Soil Conservation Service

● U.S. Department of Commerce

—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

—National Marine Fisheries Service.

Other agencies that collect biological data include the Environmental Protection Agency,

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the armed forces

agencies in the Department of Defense, the

U.S. Geological Survey, and the Smithsonian

Institution. Each agency has a specific mandate or a program directive to conduct inventories of biological resources within its

jurisdiction. Agencies also have regulatory

responsibility over actions that could affect the
72

maintenance of the diversity of biological resources under their stewardship. Federal agencies that collect data on biological resources

are presented in table 2,

On-site maintenance of biological diversity

is rarely considered in Federal legislation specifically requiring inventories of resources (3).

The mandates appear to address diversity

maintenance indirectly in relation to the conservation of natural resources (which include

biological resources, soils, water, and air). For

example, the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act reauthorized the Soil Conservation Service to conduct national inventories,

which are now known as the National Resources Inventories (NRI), Maintaining biological diversity is not a stated objective in their

mandate, but the inventories provide baseline

information on a wide range of natural resources, including some of the Nation’s biological resources, (See NRI in app, A,) NRI data

could be used to identify areas around the

country where planning and management programs are needed to maintain biological diversity.

Although it does not mention biological

diversity maintenance as a specific objective,

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) mandates

the analysis of data on species that are threatened or endangered, or potentially threatened

or endangered. In response to the ESA, Federal agencies concerned with resource and

land management collect and maintain data on

the distribution and abundance of the endangered species that fall within the agencies’

jurisdictions. These data can be used directly

to determine the status and location of biological diversity and provide information necessary to maintain adequate diversity. The available data also assist agencies in efficiently and

professionally carrying out their responsibilities for conserving resources.

An agency’s response to a given mandate or

policy for a biological inventory depends, in

part, on the specifications included for the

data. Few Federal agencies consolidate resource data nationally, unless specific direction is provided by Congress or in a policy,

because data coordination is considered timeconsuming, and because large volumes of data

are costly to maintain. Additionally, many Federal resource agencies have decentralized their

internal decisionmaking processes, Field offices or regional offices are given authority for

collecting data and for managing the resources

under local jurisdiction. Consequently, many

inventories are decentralized, reflecting the organizational structures of the Federal agencies,

and national aggregation of data may be of little use to field offices,

Consolidating or even analyzing data from

disparate sources is difficult at present, because standardized definitions are lacking, because different agencies have different objecTable 2.—Federal Agencies With Resource Information and Data-Gathering Programs by Resource Type

NPS BIA DOD Scs FWS FS BLM NOAA EPA Corps

Wildlife:

Wildlife habitat . . . . . . . x x x x x x x

Migratory birds. . . . . . . . . x

Anadromous fish . . . . . . . x x

Freshwater fish . . . . . . . . X x x x x

Endangered species . . . . X x x x x x x x x x

Pesticide monitoring. . . . x x

Marine birds . . . . . . . . . . . x x x

Vegetat :

Forest . . . . . . . . . ... . X x x x x x x x

Rangelands . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x x x x

Aquatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x x

Riparian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x x x

Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x x x x

KEY NPS—National Park Service; BlA—Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOD—Department of Defense; SCS—Soil Conservation Service; FWS—Fish and Wildlife Service,

FS—Forest Service; BLM—Bureau of Land Management, NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, EPA—Environmental Protection Agency;

and Corps—Corps of Engineers

SOURCE Adapted from Council on Environmental Quality, 1980, and Appendix A.
13

—.

tives, and because data collection efforts either

overlap or are duplicative. Confusion exists

over the meanings of terms such as wildlife,

fish and wildlife, biological resources, and natural resources. Wildlife, for instance, may be

interpreted legislatively in several different

ways, including:

mammals that are hunted or trapped

(game);

mammals generally, the word animal also

is sometimes used in this way;

those animals, whether vertebrates or invertebrates, that are not fish—a usage that

has no technical or biological equivalent;

vertebrates; and

both vertebrates and invertebrates (3),

Because of disparate definitions of wildlife, two

agencies mandated to inventory wildlife may

collect data on different subsets of the resource.

For example, one agency might inventory game

mammals, and the other might collect data on

all resident terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates, Interpretation of what kind of biological data to collect can vary within an agency,

as well.

In addition to defining terms differently,

agencies have different objectives for biological inventories and consequently collect different kinds of data. The kinds of data collected

usually reflect the missions of the agencies, For

example, although both the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have

authority to inventory fishes, NOAA might

conduct inventories of commercially harvested

fish species for economic forecasting in the

fishing industry, whereas BLM might conduct

inventories of the nongame fish populations

the agency is directed to manage and sustain.

Generally, the authority to conduct an inventory does not clearly define what resources the

data collection should address.

An inventory, itself, may be incidental to a

broad mandate within an agency. This is the

case with the migratory bird inventories conducted under the authority of the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act. The act directs FWS to manage migratory bird populations and regulate

harvesting of selected species. In order to accomplish the objectives of this mandate, FWS

maintains large volumes of data for tracking

population trends.

Finally, mandates and policies to conduct inventories of biological resources may overlap

other mandates within an agency or among

agencies. Data collection in the coastal zone

is a case in point. Apparently, NOAA, FWS,

and NPS each have authority to conduct coastal resource inventories. Federal data collection

in the coastal zone may be duplicative, or it

may overlap State efforts to inventory and manage coastal resources,

STATE AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

State agencies concerned with managing history surveys, State heritage programs, and

land or natural resources are authorized to con- similar efforts.

duct resource inventories under mandates and

policies similar to Federal legislation. Such

agencies include State fish and game departments, wildlife departments, forestry agencies,

and others. Like Federal agencies, few State

agencies are instructed to collect data that are

directly applicable to the maintenance of bioA recent survey 4 of State natural resources

programs indicated that the responding States

collected biological data, but that the responsibilities for data generation and maintenance

tended to be scattered and uncoordinated

among agencies. Natural history surveys

logical-diversity. Although most biological in- ~,+~ n 1 n f~ rma ] su r~,e} of St a tc agen{; ies l\’as (:ondu(, ted b}’ the ventories do not consider biological diversity I,ihrarian of the Illinois Natllra] I Iistor} Sur\t:}, The results from

maintenance, exceptions include State natural the letters sent to th[’ Statr\ ,~r[’ Llnpul)l i~hfx] an(j I)n(:[)ml)i][l(i,
14

within some States represent efforts to consolidate biological and natural resource information in centralized locations. Formally authorized surveys of State biota exist in Kansas,

Illinois, Montana, Oklahoma, Nevada, New

York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. These

surveys were mandated to collect and synthesize biological data and, in some cases, maintain voucher specimens, but the completeness

of the surveys varies widely. Montana’s Natural Resource Information System, authorized

in 1983, has not been funded, and Wisconsin’s

biological data has not been updated for more

than 40 years. Illinois’ Natural History Survey,

however, has been active for more than 100

years and maintains a large collection of biological data.

States without formal natural history surveys

generally have authority to collect data on

game fish and wildlife, and on land cover (e.g.,

forests, croplands, rangelands). Recent interest in nongame species and rare plants led to

new authorizations in most States for research

and inventories on nongame species, as well.5

’

A cooperative State and Federal effort began

a few years ago to consolidate information on

fish, mammals, birds, and selected invertebrates into statewide databases whose formats

were consistent among the States. These State

biological information systems, known as State

Fish and Wildlife Information Systems or “Procedures” databases, are operating in 10 States

to help State agencies organize and manage

fish and wildlife information, and to provide

a consistent source of information for Federal

agencies concerned with how particular projects will affect fish and wildlife resources (l).

No discussion of institutions conducting biological inventories would be complete without

highlighting the State Natural Heritage Programs and The Nature Conservancy (TNC).

Each of the approximately 43 existing Natural

Heritage Programs conducts or consolidates inventories of existing biological data to identify

the occurrence of organisms or species assemblages that are rare, threatened, endangered,

or locally endemic. The Natural Heritage Programs assimilate biological data with the express

purpose of using it to maintain biological diversity. Heritage programs may be operated in one

of three ways: 1) solely by the State, 2) under

cooperative agreement between TNC and the

State, or 3) solely by TNC.

Natural Heritage Programs make important

contributions to State and Federal agencies involved in protecting threatened and endangered species—which means protecting species

diversity. The programs provide data to identify land or water areas that need protection

to maintain diversity. Although data quantity

and quality vary from State to State, data generated at the State level are collated and summarized at the national level by TNC to provide information on biological diversity across

the country. In many geographic areas, TNC

is the only institution collecting data on rare,

sensitive, or endemic resources that may require special management considerations to

maintain their integrity as populations. In these

areas, TNC efforts help to fill an important gap

in biological data needed for the on-site maintenance of biological diversity.

In addition to TNC heritage programs, numerous small, nonprofit organizations collect

data on biological resources. Groups like the

land-preservation trusts conduct inventories of

the lands under their stewardship; and speciesprotection organizations, such as the World

Pheasant Organization, collate data for specific

taxonomic groups.” A survey of all data generated by these organizations and biological research data generated by universities would be

an impossible task.

5The following States have enacted legislation to fund nongame

fish and wildlife programs: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Cokrado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New

York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,

South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin (2).

Wee OTA’S background paper, Grassroots Conservation of Biological Diversity in the United States, prepared in support of

a forthcoming OTA assessment on Technologies To Maintain

Biological Diversity.
. 

15

In summary, biological data are collected, serving biological resources. Little effort is

collated, or synthesized by most institutions made to consolidate the vast amounts of data

with responsibilities for, or interests in, con- generated by these institutions.

CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES

1, Cushwa, C., Multi-State Fish and Wildlife In- cal Inventories or Survey s,” commissioned paformation System Project, Virginia Polytechnic per for Office of Technology Assessment, 1985.

Institute and State University, personal commu- 4. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

nication, Blacksburg, VA, Jan. 22, 1986. Service, “Eastern Deciduous Forest—Volume 1,

2. National Wildlife Federation, “Do Something Southeastern Evergreen and Oak-Pine Region, ”

WILD—Citizen Opportunity To Fund State National Park Service Natural History Theme

Management of Wildlife, ” undated pamphlet, Studies No. 1, 1975.

Washington, DC.

3. U.S. Congressional Research Service, “Mandates to Federal Agencies To Conduct Biologi-
Chapter 3
Chapter 3

Existing Biological Databases

HIGHLIGHTS

● No national inventory of biological resources exists, and national databases

cannot be easily consolidated into a comprehensive biological database because

of incompatibilities in definitions, terminology, and data collection efforts.

● Steps have been taken to begin formulating standards for biological data and

to increase the coordination of Federal activities related to collecting and maintaining biological data.

OVERVIEW

Data on biological resources are abundant

and varied because of the different objectives

perceived within each agency and the number

of agencies collecting data. A 1977 survey of

ecological monitoring activities indicated that

the Federal Government had at least 1,600

monitoring projects underway (12). Many of

these efforts have generated data and, hence,

created the need for databases. The databases

discussed in this section are primarily those

field-collected biological data maintained by

Federal agencies.

A Federal resource agency’s responsibilities

for biological conservation are reflected in the

kind of data and database most useful to the

agency or the data users. The objectives and

responsibilities of the resource scientists and

managers dictate the kinds of databases created and maintained. Scientists interested in

mapping ecotypes, for example, would not be

interested in maintaining data on nutrient cycling within each ecotype as part of the databases. Scientists attempting to manage animal

populations for maximum production of offspring, however, might require databases containing very specific information on reproduction and genetic characteristics of individuals

within the populations,

‘This database and others can be found in app. A.

Few Federal biological databases are created

or designed specifically to measure biological

diversity, partly due to the lack of congressional or administrative direction to consider

biological diversity in data collection. Notable

exceptions exist, however. For example, the

Wildlife Habitat Relationships Programsl developed by the Forest Service (FS) are designed

to help biologists maintain terrestrial vertebrate

diversity in National Forests. The endangered

species files maintained by numerous Federal

land-managing agencies also aid efforts to reduce the loss of biological diversity on lands

or in waters under the agencies’ stewardship.

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) maintains

a “candidate species list” and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) maintains a database on the

location of Research Natural Areas found on

Federal, State, and private lands. These databases help Federal employees identify specific

aspects of diversity that could be considered

in on-site resource planning and management.

In the future, the Endangered Species Information System (see app. A) will provide information and management guidelines to a number of Federal agencies working to conserve

endangered species and their habitats.

Generally, biological databases incorporate

wide arrays of information on organisms, populations, species, habitats, or ecosystems. Data

on an organism or population range from a

19
20

scientific name (genus and species) to a full

complement of life history information (e. g.,

age, sex, behavior, food habits, and habitat affiliations and uses). Databases devoted to species may simply include physical characteristics or may contain detailed information on

local populations or even individual behaviors.

Databases focused on habitats and ecosystems

include specific information on the species that

are present and their interactions or simply

provide the locations of the ecosystems or

habitats.

Biological data are the least standardized

forms of natural resource information (9). Although collectors of data on water and the

atmosphere appear to have adopted standardized names and units of measure, collectors of

biological data have few standards for data terminology, measures, or even names of given

organisms. In many cases, different standards

exist within individual Federal agencies. For

example, each of the 33 ecosystem identification surveys conducted under the National

Park Service (NPS) in its National Natural Heritage Program was based on a different land

classification system (11). The result is incompatibility in the terms used to identify ecosystems within the different regions,

Another factor contributing to the incompatibility of databases is the goal-oriented nature

of data collection. Data generated in surveys

and monitoring projects tend to be site-specific

and designed to meet single goals. Because of

this narrow goal orientation, little consideration is given to standardized formats or potential compatibility with other systems, and little effort is made to apply existing data to other

uses, although the range of applicability may

be wide, These factors limit the ability to consolidate data to provide information about wide

geographic areas.

Appendix A lists Federal databases containing biological data, Most of the databases were

created in the past 5 to 7 years. The list provides a general description of each database,

including the content, purpose, geographic

coverage, taxonomic coverage, status, users of

the data, and a contact person (if known or

available). The list is not a comprehensive survey of Federal databases, but it provides examples of the kinds of biological data that Federal agencies collect or maintain. Table 3 is a

summary of appendix A.

Geographic Coverage

The list in table 3 is biased towards databases

of regional or national coverage, (See discussion of methodology in app, A.) Databases with

national coverage are specific to single biological resources or to a few resources (e. g., FWS’

National Wetland Inventory; see app. A), or

provide only cursory information on a broad

range of resources (e. g., the National Resources

Inventory compiled by the Soil Conservation

Service), No national inventory of biological resources exists.

In addition, databases listed as national or

regional generally do not cover all land areas

of the United States. The Forest Inventory conducted by the FS is national in scope but does

not cover all land area in the United States,

Similarly, although NPS’ Endangered Species

Data Base (see app. A) will be national in coverage, it is restricted to NPS lands.

Regional databases appear to contain greater

detail than national databases. For example,

the FWS regional databases provide specific

data on several selected fish or bird species,

whereas the national databases contain more

generic information on a wide range of organisms. Similarly, the regional FS wildlife databases (see app, A) contain more specific information on wildlife species than the national

Resources Planning Act Wildlife Data Base (see

app. A).

Geographic gaps in biological databases are

not readily apparent, judging from the infor-
21

Table 3.–Taxonomic Coverage of Federal Agency Databases (summary of app. A)

Amphibians/ Aquatic

Database Vegetation Trees Mammals Birds reptiIes animals

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

National databases:

NPFLORA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nationwide Rivers Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Natural Landmarks Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Endangered Species Data Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

. .

x

x

x

. . . ,..

x

x

x

. . .

x

x

.

.

. . x

. . . . . . .,. . . .

Regional databases:

Coastal Barriers Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Atlantic Region Resource Data. . . . . . . .

. . .

x

. . .

x

. . .

. . .

.

. . .

.,.

.

.

State/sub-State databases:

Wild and Scenic Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Biosphere Reserve Data Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bear Information System, Yellowstone. . . . . . . .

Ground Cover System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vegetation Data, Great Smoky Mountains

National Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Channel Islands Information System . . . . . . . . .

x

x

x

x

x

x

. . .

x

x

,,.

x

.

x

. . . . . .,.

x

. . .

x

.

. . . . . . . .

x

x

x .

x

. . .

x

. . .

x

. . .

x

Bureau of Land Management

Regional databases:

Range Site Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SVIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IHICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RAIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wild Horse and Burro Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . .

x

x

x

x

.

x

x

x

x

. .

... . . . . .

. .

x

. .

x

. . .

x

x

. .

x

. .

x

,,. . . .

State/sub-State databases:

Extensive Forest Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Forest Operations Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TPCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STORMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wilderness Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fire Management Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Threatened and Endangered Species Data Bases

x

x

. . .

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . ,.. . . . . . .

,.. . . . . . ,..

,..

x

.

x

. . . .

x x

x

x

.,.

,..

x

. .

x

. . .

x

,..

x

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National databases:

Winter Waterfowl Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North American Breeding Bird Survey . . . . . . . .

Mourning Dove Call-Count Survey . . . . . . . . . . . .

River Reach Fish Data Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wildlife Refuge Management Information

System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Wetlands Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wetland Plant Species Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Endangered Species Information System . . . . .

Candidate Species List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Habitat Suitability Index Models . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service . . . . . . . . . .

x

x

x

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

.

.,.

. .

. . .

. . .

. .

x

. . .

x

x

x

x

x

. . .

x

x

x

x

. .

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

. . .

x

x

x

. . .

x

x

x

x

. . .

x

x

x

x

. . .

x

x

x

x

. . .

. . .

. . . .

Regional databases:

Waterfowl Breeding Ground Surveys . . . . . . . . .

Woodcock Singing Ground Survey . . . . . . . . . . .

Sandhill Crane Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Great Lakes Commercial Catch Data . . . . . . . . .

Great Lakes Research Fish Data . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FISHNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coastal and Marine Bird Data Base . . . . . . . . . .

Coastal Area Characterization Studies . . . . . . . .

Coastal Ecological Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coastal and Estuarine Species Profiles . . . . . . .

x

x

x

. . .

. . .

. . .

x

x

x

x

. . . . . . ,..

. . .

. . .

,..

,,.

,..

. . .

,..

. . .

. . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

x

x

x

. . .

. . .

. . . . . .

. . ,.. . . .

. . .

x

x

x

,..

x

x

. . .

x

x

x

. .

x

x

. . x
22

Table 3.—Taxonomic Coverage of Federal Agency Databases (summary of app. A) —Continued

Amphibians/ Aquatic

Database Vegetation Trees Mammals Birds reptiles animals

Marine and Waterbird Colony Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Threatened and Endangered Species Sighting List

. . . . . . . . . . . .

x x

Plant Information Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “X”

. . . . . . . . .

x

RAPTOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

x

Terrestrial Species Data Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . x . . .

U.S. Geological Survey

. , .

National database:

Land Use/Land Cover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x . . . . . .

Regional database:

. . . . . .

Coastal Ecological Inventory ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . X x x x x x

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Soil Conservation Service

National databases:

NRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Forest-Soil Data Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Range Data Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regional database:

New England Animal Species Data . . . . . . . . . . .

U.S. Forest Service

National databases:

Forest Inventory and Analysis ., . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Range Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FSRAMIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RPA Range Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research Natural Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RPA Wildlife Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regional databases:

RUNWILD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WILDHAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RARE Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State/sub-State databases:

Inventory Data for Timber Management Planning

Fuels Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Timber Stand Analysis and Silviculture Prescription

Western Sierra WHR Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Coast Cascades WHR Program . . . . . . . .

North East Interior WHR Program . . . . . . . . . . . .

Southern California WHR Program . . . . . . . . . . .

x x . . . . . . . . . . . .

x x . . . . . . . . . . . .

x . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . x x x , . .

x x . . . . . . . . . . . .

x x . . . . . . . . . . . .

x x . . . . . . . . . . . .

x x . . . . . . . . .

x

. . .

x . . . . , . . . . . . .

x x x x x x

. . . . . . x x x x

. . . . . . x x x x

x x x x . . . x

x x . . . . . . . . . . , .

x x . . . . . . . . . . , .

x x . . . . . . . . . . . .

, . . . . . x x x . . .

, . . . . . x x x , . .

, . . . . . x x x . . .

. . . . . . x x x . . .

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/NATIONAL OCEANIC AND Atmospheric ADMINISTRATiON

National Ocean Service

Regional databases:

Marine Living Resource Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

National Estuarine Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

. . . x x

National Marine Fisheries Service

Regional databases:

Fisheries Statistics Data Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

Bowhead Whale Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

x

Icthyoplankton Survey Data Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

RACE Ground Fish Data Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

x

x

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

x

x

x

x

. . .

x

x

State/sub-State database:

Northern Fur Seal Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . ...
23

— —

Table 3.—Taxonomic Coverage of Federal Agency Databases (summary of app. A)–Continued

—

Amphibians / Aquati c

Databas e Vegetatio n Tree s Mammal s Bird s reptiIe s animal s —.

National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service

. — .

National Environmental Data Center. . . . . . . X

MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Benthic Resource Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment. 1986

mation in appendix A. Identification of specific

geographic gaps would require consolidation

of known databases on different biota. In some

cases, gaps within databases are not widely recognized because of limits in mapping or

tabulating capabilities. Alternatively, gaps in

regional or national databases may be known

only to the individual data collectors within a

specific geographic area, as is the case with the

Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) Integrated Habitat Inventory and Classification

System (see app. A) (10).

Taxonomic Coverage

Each land management agency listed in appendix A maintains data on vegetation or land

cover for lands under its jurisdiction. In addition, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and

the FS maintain data on land cover on all lands

within the contiguous United States. Plants of

economic importance (e. g., timber and range

species) generally receive the primary attention

when vegetation inventories are compiled.

Aquatic plant species are inventoried by a

number of Federal agencies, including FWS,

FS, and the National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Data on mammals, birds, and fish also are

stored by each of the Federal agencies in the

list. In some databases, available data cover

only species of economic or Federal significance—those species that are commercially

harvested, federally listed as threatened or endangered, or protected by international treaty.

Other databases, such as the Resource Assessment and Conservation Engineering Ground

Fish Data Base compiled by the National Max x x x

. . . . . . . . . x —

rine Fisheries Service (see app. A), contain data

on a number of species.

Taxa that are not as clearly defined as mammals and birds generally receive less attention

in biological databases. For example, database

coverage of amphibians and reptiles is smaller

than that of birds and mammals. Aquatic animals, with the exception of fish, receive even

less attention than do amphibians and reptiles.

Data on insects (class Insecta) were not available in the databases listed,

The lack of data on insects is the most obvious gap in taxonomic coverage of data collected on-site. The Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service maintains an extensive

museum collection of insect species, which

may be sufficient to fill apparent gaps in biological knowledge in field inventories (6). However, museum specimens must be identified

relative to their native habitats, using a classification system compatible with on-site inventories, if they are to be of use in evaluating onsite diversity.

Aquatic plants currently are receiving considerable attention, but aquatic animals are not.

Few Federal agencies inventory and maintain

data on aquatic animals other than fish, partly

because of the costs of field inventories and

identification, and because of the lack of specific mandates to consider these organisms in

on-site inventories.

The taxonomic categories used in appendix

A are broad, precluding detailed analysis of

further taxonomic gaps in biological data coverage. For example, some databases containing data on fish species cover only single species or a few species (e. g., FWS’ FISHNET; see
24

app. A) whereas others cover large numbers

of species (e.g., FWS’ River Reach Fisheries

Data Base; see app, A). Data on a taxa may vary

by location within a regional or national database, which is the case with BLM’s Integrated

Habitat Inventory and Classification System

(IHICS; see app. A). BLM State and District

files included in the IHICS vary considerably

in the coverage of mammal, bird, or amphibian and reptile taxa. In the Shoshone District

in Idaho, for example, the data predominantly

concern game species, whereas the Elko District in Nevada provides comprehensive coverage of vertebrates (10).

Data Overlap

In response to a congressional mandate that

threatened and endangered species be considered in agency activities, all Federal agencies

maintain data on species that are federally

listed as being threatened or endangered. Such

data may be duplicative.

Coastal and estuarine resources also are inventoried by a number of Federal agencies.

Comprehensive databases have been developed

regarding birds, vegetation, habitats, and ecosystems. (See, e.g., the Coastal Ecological Inventory, Marine and Waterbird Colony Data,

National Estuarine Inventory in app. A.) Although data vary among these databases, overlap appears to exist for some of the resources.

Consolidation of these inventories could provide a comprehensive database of biological

diversity in coastal areas.

Defining specific areas of overlap or gaps in

biological data coverage would be extremely

difficult currently because databases from

different sources generally are not consolidated. Agencies and individuals have their own

terms, definitions, and scientific names for biological data, which renders databases incompatible and hinders data consolidation. Even

if common data elements were adopted, database administrators would be faced with high

manpower costs for the time needed for manually bringing existing databases into compliance with the new standards. However,

developers of future databases could adopt

common standards to allow wide distribution

of available data among agencies and individuals, increasing the applicability of the data.

DATABASE COORDINATION

Questions of data compatibility among Federal agencies have been raised for many years.

For data to be compatible, those who collect

and compile data must use consistent terminology and definitions for each data element.

Such standards, spelled out in a “data dictionary, ” allow data to be interpreted and used by

persons other than those who collected the data

or created the database.

Making databases compatible among and

within agencies would increase the potential

for sharing information, thereby increasing the

utility of all data generated. If agencies could

pool their data resources, comprehensive regional and national information might be available on biological diversity in the United States.

At the least, it would be possible to determine

where gaps occur in the information that is

available currently, and priorities could be

established for future data collection.

Steps have been taken within the past decade or so to formulate standards for biological data. The motivation to establish compatible databases came partly in response to

congressional mandates for national inventories and assessments (e.g., the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Soil

and Water Resources Conservation Act, and

Forest and Range Research Act). Budgetary

and manpower shortages for biological inventories provided additional motivation for sharing data. Coordination among institutions increases their abilities to share knowledge of

biological resources.
25

Existing Institutional Coordination

A number of formal interagency cooperative

agreements were signed in response to congressional directives and State of the Environment Addresses by President Jimmy Carter in

the late 1970s. Among these, the Interagency

Assessment and Appraisal Liaison Committee

(IAALC) and the Interagency Agreement Relating to Classification and Inventory of Natural Resources (5 WAY) have taken action

directly related to the collection and maintenance of biological data.

The IAALC was formed to coordinate resource assessment activities between the SCS

and the FS under the authority of the Soil and

Water Resources Conservation Act (RCA) and

the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) assessments. Because the RCA assessment requires inventories

mostly on non-Federal lands, and the RPA

assessment requires inventories mostly on Federal lands, coordination between the two

assessments could establish comprehensive

data on most of the contiguous United States.

One of the achievements of the IAALC was

standardization of permanent plots in areas

where the assessments are overlapping or adjacent. By using the same permanent plots for

data collection, the two agencies could work

cooperatively to collect data at those sites, reducing the duplication of agency effort.

Members of the IAALC also are working on

standardizing terminologies for land cover to

use in the assessments so that data can be interchanged between the RCA and RPA assessments. An effort to develop standard classifications for rangeland vegetation types is in the

planning stages. The committee members plan

to produce a joint RCA-RPA assessment report

on wildlife habitats in conjunction with the

1989 assessments (5). This coordination of major national biological inventories could provide important insight into the status of wildlife and their habitats—one aspect of biological

diversity in the United States.

The other major cooperative effort between

Federal agencies, the 5 WAY, was formed to

develop standards for land and water classifications and terminology in natural resource inventories, including biological inventories (4),

The cooperative agreement was signed by five

agencies (BLM, FWS, U.S. Geological Survey,

FS, and SCS), which gives the agreement its

nickname. Working groups were established to

address specific areas of interest, such as landcover terminology, vertebrate-species nomenclature, and land or water classification. Standards adopted by the 5 WAY were sent to the

signatory agencies with recommendations that

the standards be adopted into official agency

policy.

The 5 WAY adopted a common nomenclature for vertebrate species in the United States

and a common terminology for types of land

use and land cover (e. g., definition of a forest

land). However, neither of these standards for

inventories has been incorporated into agency

policy by all of the agencies represented by the

5 WAY. Other efforts towards standardizing

inventories include an analysis of a common

classification system for land use and land

cover (3) and an evaluation of the FWS wetland

classification system (2). The vegetationclassification system is under informal review

or “field truthing” to determine whether the

system is applicable to any given field location

(8), A wetland plant species list and classification of hydric soils will be formulated to complement the wetland classification system.

Except for the vegetation classification

group, all of the working groups under the 5

WAY were disbanded in 1985 (7). However, the

policy groups will continue to meet and exchange information on activities that may be

of interest to other agencies and to provide opportunities to coordinate their limited manpower and financial resources,

The success of the IAALC and the 5 WAY

coordination efforts depends on whether the

agencies officially endorse the committee recommendations and integrate them into existing programs, Adoption of these standards

could increase the utility of future databases

by allowing agencies to interchange data.

Standards that improve the potential for data

consolidation also promote efforts to develop
26

national coverage of data on biological diversity,

Another cooperative effort is occurring in the

Multi-State Fish and Wildlife Information System project, in which several Federal agencies

have provided financial and technical assistance to coordinate statewide databases of fish

and wildlife species. These databases are designed to have compatible formats and data

sets as the core portion of the State databases,

so that the same kinds of information will be

available from each of the databases. Beyond

adopting this core of data standards, States add

into the system the data they feel will be useful to their needs. Federal agencies cooperating with the project hope to establish a comprehensive clearinghouse of information about

fish and wildlife within each State. The clearinghouse would provide reliable baseline data

for formulating projects’ impact statements.

Statewide information systems are currently

operating or are under consideration in more

than 12 States. If the systems in different States

are compatible, regional or even national information on fish and wildlife diversity could

be compiled,

Efforts at sharing information also occur between government agencies and private organizations. TNC provides information on biological diversity to Federal agency personnel.

TNC and State Heritage Programs provide Federal agencies with inventory data and expertise in devising plans or developing management strategies that can help to maintain

biological diversity.

Each of these information-sharing efforts can

increase the ability of Federal agencies to maintain biological diversity. The efforts also help

increase the utility of data being collected on

biological resources. However, the lack of a nationwide database on U.S. biota may continue

to hinder a comprehensive evaluation of biological diversity.

Suggestions for a National

Biological Database

Federal and State agencies, private organizations, professional biologists, and legislators

are joining in the discussion on the need for

a national effort to coordinate biological data.

The suggestions for what a national biological

database should be, how it could be organized,

and how it could be funded, are as varied as

the people discussing the effort (1).

A national database for biota could be a catalog or list of organisms that reside permanently or temporarily in the United States. The

database could incorporate existing taxonomic

information from field and lab identifications

of each species. A national database also could

include existing ecological information on each

species (e. g., food and reproductive requirements, habitat affinities, and interspecific interactions). In addition, it could include information on species interactions by identifying and

cataloging ecosystems throughout the country.

Each of these approaches to a national database would incorporate different kinds of data

and would serve different purposes. No agreement has been reached yet on what purpose

a national database should serve. A species listing could be used to help determine the biological diversity within the United States as

well as to help identify taxonomic categories

where little is known about the diversity of

species. A taxonomic database could be a centralized source of data for field manuals and

synthesized reports to assist biologists in identifying species on-site, The inclusion of ecological data could help people making decisions

about on-site planning and management activities to maintain biological diversity.

Most observers agree that a national biological database should incorporate existing databases and institutions. Questions remain unresolved as to how they should be incorporated

and what institutional arrangements would be

needed. No division of institutional responsibilities has been proposed.

One approach would be to establish a central clearinghouse or distribution point for information on existing biological databases. The

clearinghouse could provide basic information

on the availability of biological data and the

compatibilities with other databases having

similar kinds of data. The clearinghouse could
27

use a bibliographic database to store and manage descriptions of the multitude of biological

databases that currently exist. With a bibliographic information system, existing sources

of information and any new sources could be

accessed in an easily searchable format,

Another approach would be to create a network of satellite databases around the United

States to provide actual data on biological resources. The network could serve a centralized

computer facility for accessing data, without

the need for a large mainframe computer or

series of mainframe computers to handle all

available biological data. Data managers from

regional locations could feed data into the system and retrieve data out of the system, provided some standards were established for entering data into the network. Either approach

would allow managers and decisionmakers access to information that could be used to effectively maintain biological diversity.

Establishment of a clearinghouse or database

network would require designation of a central coordinating institution—either a new institution or an existing institution. To assign

coordination responsibilities to a new institution would require an act of Congress, The new

institution would need authority to work with

existing Federal agencies to obtain information

about their databases or to obtain data from the

databases. Delegating authority to an existing

institution to coordinate data activities might

also require an act of Congress. In the absence

of legislative action, several institutional mechanisms for interagency cooperation exist, including formal interagency agreements and

memoranda of understanding. If existing institutional mechanisms were used, the interagency efforts would need enough authority to

affect agency programs and policies, Although

previous interagency cooperative efforts to coordinate data and data collection, including the

5 WAY, made strides in the direction of cooperation and standardization, the agencies did

not follow through on recommendations from

these efforts. Legislation may be necessary to

ensure that such cooperative efforts affect

agency activities,

Lack of funding would constrain the development of a national database that identified

what information was available on biological

diversity and provided access for effectively

using that information, Federal agencies might

be reluctant to finance a database coordination

effort unless the products of the database were

directly applicable to the agencies’ missions.

A survey funded and supported exclusively by

private efforts might preclude access to some

government agency data, The use of Federal

funding, however, would require that trade-offs

be made with existing programs in order to finance a new one,

Another negative aspect of a centralized approach to data access might be the need to develop lines of communication with data collectors and administrators. Information on any

databases that were developed would have to

be provided to an agency’s central office for

that office to be effective. This would increase

the paperwork associated with database development, In addition, establishing a centralized

office to transfer data would require trade-offs

with existing programs within the agency,

However, the dollar savings from increased

compatibility of data and better access to data

appear to outweigh the costs of developing

these functions within and among agencies,

Prior to the development of a national database on sources of biological information or

biological data, a national assessment of existing biological data is necessary. To date, no

comprehensive national assessment of biological data or of existing Federal databases has

been undertaken. Based on the results of a national assessment of biological data, decisions

could be made on the best way to manage existing information. A national assessment also

would delineate gaps in geographic or taxonomic knowledge of U.S. biological diversity

that could be used to set priorities for future

data collection,

Although there are technological barriers to

creating a national database, they are not insurmountable. Many technological problems

may be overcome if the users of the database
28

are willing to compromise as to the objectives

and methodologies chosen to link existing databases or to develop a new database. In any

event, technological innovations already are

facilitating the collection and use of biological

data for the maintenance of biological diversity. Chapter 4 discusses those technological

innovations relevant to biological data.

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES

1.

2,

3,

4.

5.

6,

Association of Systematic Collections, Proceedings of Hearings on a National Biological Survey, Lawrence, KS (in press).

Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V,, Golet, F, C,, and

LaRoe, E, T., Classification of VVetZands and

Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service Publication FWS/OBS-79/31, 1979.

Driscoll, R. S., Merkel, D, L., Radloff, D. L.,

Snyder, D. E., and Hagihara, J. S., An Ecological Land Classification Framework for the

United States, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service miscellaneous publication No,

1439, 1984.

5 WAY, Interagency Agreement Related to Classifications and Inventories of Natural Resources,

Interagency Agreement Information Report No.

2, 1981.

Hoekstra, Thomas, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, personal

communication, Ft. Collins, CO, 1985.

Knutson, Lloyd, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Insect

Identification and Beneficial Insect Introduc7.

8,

9.

10.

11.

12,

tion Institute, personal communication, Beltsville, MD, 1985.

Muller, Kit, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Office of Planning,

personal communication, Washington, DC,

1985,

Nordstrom, Gary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Resources Inventory Program, personal communication,

Washington, DC, 1985.

Olson, R. J., Review of Existing Environmental

and Natural Resources Data Bases, ORNL/TM8928 (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1984),

Peterson, Larry, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver

Service Center, personal communication, Denver, CO, 1985,

Stewart, Arthur, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of Interagency Resources, personal communication,

Washington, DC, 1975.

U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, interagency Task Force Report on Environmental

Data and Monitoring—FinaZ Report, 1980,
Chapter 4

Technical Aspects of

Biologcal Data
Chapter

Technical Aspects of Biological Data

Automation and computerization have provided and should continue to provide many tools to increase the quality and quantity of biological data, to store

and manipulate data, and to increase access to data.

These tools also can perpetuate data incompatibility and inaccessibility.

Data=Entry Technologies

Developments in automated data-entry systems for use in the field can improve data collection by reducing data-entry errors. These

portable systems remove unnecessary intermediate steps, Traditionally, biological data

have been recorded on collection forms and

carried by hand to central processing facilities

to be copied onto computer coding forms. (Figure 1 shows the paths along which data are

transferred by conventional methods and by

automated data-entry systems. ) Developments

in the technology of electronic hardware have

resulted in small solid-state memory units with

increased storage capacity and longer lasting

batteries. These advances have permitted the

recent development of dependable, portable devices for entering and storing data in the field.

When such devices are used, data are immediately recorded in a computer-compatible

form, and intermediate steps of transcribing

data are eliminated (11]. However, eliminating

intermediate steps may mean that not all parts

of the field data are entered into the computer,

therefore some valuable information (e.g., animal behavior) may be lost. Moreover, these

portable computers may not be rugged enough

for some kinds of field work where dust and

moisture are a problem.

The data-entry process has also been simplified by developments in optical-characterrecognition technology, which makes it possible to scan and convert printed materials into

digital form. Companies are beginning to market technologies that can scan and digitize

almost anything that is printed on a piece o f

paper. Once digitized, the image is stored on

a microcomputer diskette from which it can

be accessed and manipulated. Errors occur in

copies or field forms but the problems are in

the process of being solved. Although this technology provides opportunities for capturing

graphic material, the large amount of memory

required for storing the images makes the technology relatively expensive (7).

Remote Sensing Devices

Other significant technological advances in

data collection have occurred, improving the

quality of data and broadening the scope of the

data collected. One such technology is remote

sensing, which has developed rapidly during

the past 25 years as one benefit of space research.

Remote sensing means gaining information

without direct contact (6), Remote sensing technology includes aerial photography, radar, infrared imagery, and other devices. With regard

to on-site maintenance of biological diversity,

remotely sensed information is most commonly

used when preparing inventories to establish

baseline data and to allow monitoring of

changes that occur over time, For instance,

remote-sensing imagery can detect large animals, such as seals, caribou, and pelicans, thus

providing a means to census animal popula31
32

Coding

from field

forms and

keypunchin g

On-1ine

keying from

field forms

Figure 1 .–Paths of Data Transfer for Conventional and Automated Data Entry

Conventional l

r *

P

I

t

t

r

T

Field

form d

cards

-

ti

t

1

?

Field

forms .

d

Automated

Transport Transport

memory device

device

Telephone

communicatio n

SOURCE, J.A, Newcomer and J. Szajgin, “Evaluation of an Automated Field Data Entry System,” /n-P/ace Resource Inventories: Principles and Practices—Proceedings of National Workshop (Orono, ME: University of Maine, 1981),

tions. However, the utility of this type of data

is significantly reduced by several factors, including interactions between the color of the

animal and the color of the background, and

the obscuring effects of vegetative cover (10).

The use of thermal-infrared scanning, which

senses temperature differences between animals and their backgrounds, apparently has

met with limited success (3).

Remote sensing has been used more as a tool

for studying vegetation than for studying animals. Aerial photography is used when detailed

habitat data (e.g., information about vegetation

cover) are required for relatively small sites.

Landsat is used for general reconnaissance surveys of large areas, because it provides multipple views at low cost. Landsat imagery is used

to delineate crop production regions or specific

forest types. Its repetitive coverage makes the

Landsat system useful for temporal monitoring of habitat changes. Low-level aerial photos,

especially color infrared, are much better than

satellite imagery for showing the dominant

genera and species of vegetation. Even so, this

type of information is more reliable if supported by field verification (see figure 2) (2).

Although remote sensing has been used routinely by government agencies and other organizations to collect biological data, its costs are

often high, especially where time-effective imagery is necessary, making it unaffordable for

the average user. Other problems, such as unfavorable weather conditions, frequently prevent aerial photos or satellite images from being available for the season that would provide

the best biological information. Special skills

are required to interpret and use the information derived with some of the technology. And
.

33

Figure 2.— Remote Sensing Devices Increase the

Coverage of Area From Which Data Is Collected

ite data

in some cases (e. g., monitoring changes in species composition within a small area), the level

of resolution may not provide as much detail

as field verification does for the kinds of data

that are most useful.

The use of remote-sensing devices in coastal

areas also presents a variety of problems. The

vastness of coastal zones necessitates coverage

of extensive areas. Urban areas and near-shore

waters are heterogeneous, however, which

means that high resolution of the land coverage is needed to identify habitat patches. Information must be provided about the sea’s surface as well as its subsurface down through the

water column to identify ocean biota. To further complicate the matter, cloud cover in

coastal zones requires either more frequent

scanning or cloud-penetration capability, raising the cost of the technology (15).

SOURCE: R. Best, Handbook on Remofe Sens/ng In F/sh and W//d//fe Manage.

menf (Brooklngs, SD Remote Sensing Institute, South Dakota State

Unlverslty, 1983).

DATA STORAGE

Developments in storage technology over the are entered in the order received. But a strucpast 20 years have increased the options for tured database management system (DBMS)

storing data. Information-storage technology greatly increases the efficiency of data storage

probably is the topic of greatest interest to those and use. The added efficiency results from the

responsible for managing biological data. fact that most biological databases are dynamic

and open-ended: that is, new parameters are

Software

added, old ones are dropped, and new ways

of examining data are to be expected (4).

Biological data may be stored in unstructured A DBMS is a software system that provides

flat files–two-dimensional files in which data access to the database and accommodates a va-
34

riety of applications using the same data. Most

of the generalized DBMSS in use today were

developed in business environments and were

influenced by the problems with hardware,

software, and other factors encountered there.

Most of the systems are oriented toward modifying and retrieving formatted data, such as

inventories and accounts. Many businessoriented DBMSS are successfully applied to

scientific data, particularly for low-level tasks

such as keeping structured records and generating reports (14),

Systems designed specifically for managing

scientific data began appearing in the early1970s (9). Most of these systems either lack full

sets of data management operations or are specialized. Management of scientific data is most

advanced in well-funded areas, such as defense, medicine, and industry-related research,

and least advanced in the biological sciences

(9),

Some difficulties in designing databases reflect the extreme complexity of the natural

environment. A database is an abstraction of

the natural system, which cannot be described

in all its original detail. Problems with definition of abstract entities occur in such tasks as

delimiting entities (from the continuous whole);

distinguishing like-entities (e.g., assigning

unique identifiers to each pine tree); and identifying changes in the essential natures of entities (l). Some problems with modeling a natural system result from insufficient knowledge

of the system itself, Deciding what biological

attributes to include for each entity can be a

major problem in designing a database, because the types of questions to be analyzed are

not yet fully known.

The majority of biological databases available

today do not contain the data necessary for spatial analysis (e.g., geographic distribution of a

species) and plotting of the spatial data. A special type of data management system, known

as geographic information system (GIS), has

been developed to handle explicit spatial data,

make necessary calculations, and plot that data

as required. A GIS is particularly useful to biological diversity maintenance because it provides the means to present an integrated view

of a geographic area by, for example, overlaying several kinds of data. Overlay mapping allows a view of the distribution of plant and animal species over a large area and reveals the

factors (e.g., roads, streams, different habitat

types) that might have influenced such a distribution. (Figure 3 illustrates the kinds of

information that can be overlaid.) (See the

American Farmland Trust 1985 survey of GIS

softwares for more information, )

GISS can display any information capable of

being mapped on graphics terminals. Most of

the several types of GISS can generate overlays

and display maps and can change scales readily. The more sophisticated ones can compute

areas, distances, peripheries, and intersections;

and use shading to enhance understanding.

Recent advances allow color coding and color

display and printing, Major Federal land managing agencies (e. g., the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Fish

and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service)

have been using, or are beginning to use, GISS

to map natural resources and to conduct project impact assessments.

The large volume of spatial data required to

run a GIS restricts its application to small

areas, As the level of resolution increases, the

volume of spatial data increases, which means

that the storage capability must also increase,

Unpublished estimates by the Defense Mapping Agency indicate that a world database at

the lo-meter level would require a storage capability on an order of magnitude larger than

any database known at this time (10). Consequently, many GIS applications in the United

States cover only project-specific areas. The

largest civil GIS operational today, the Canada

Geographic Information System, which is operated by Environment Canada, covers the developed portion of Canada and is still acquiring data nearly two decades after establishment

(lo).

A major problem in spatial databases today

arises from the desire to represent different

levels of spatial generalization within the same

database or to change the level of generaliza-
35

Figure 3.— Representation of a Main Geographic

Information System Function of Overlaying Several

Types of Environmental Data

Human

settlements

Animal

populations

Vegetation

cover

Water

resources

Soil

types

Base

map

SOURCE Untted Nations Environment Programme/Global Environment Monitor.

lng Systems, G/oba/ Resource /n70rrnaf(on Databases (Nairob/ GEMS

Pub//catIon, 7985)

tion once the database has been created. Where

multiple levels of spatial generalization are required, the current solution is to create multiple copies of the database, one for each different scale. Other limitations of GISS include

their high maintenance costs, the labor intensiveness of digitizing data, and the need for

technical expertise to operate the system. A

Forest Service brief estimates the initial installation cost of a GIS to be $50,000 to $100,000.’

Finally, different systems cannot easily share

data when the data are stored and handled in

different and incompatible ways.

Hardware

Significant hardware developments include

30-fold gains in processing speed, major increases in reliability and storage capacity, dramatic reductions in the sizes and prices of

equipment, and improvements in display resolution and graphics capabilities. Data management and analysis have relied primarily on

mainframe computers, which are fast, have

large memories, and are very expensive. Minicomputers offer many of the characteristics of

mainframes at substantially lower prices. Because of storage and processing limitations,

however, a minicomputer cannot serve as

many users as a mainframe can serve (12)$

Microcomputers have revolutionized the

computer industry. They are fast enough for

most single-user applications and perform best

on tasks requiring quick responses. Recently,

however, a new class of computers based on

the latest 16- and 32-bit2 microprocessors has

been developed. These supermicrocomputers

bridge the gap between the micros and the

minis, offering minicomputer capabilities

while serving several users at one time. The

supermicros now cost between $10,000 and

$50,000, but they should become less expensive within the next few years (12).

I This figure is intended only to give a general idea of the

magnitude of cost.

‘Generally, the larger the bit size, the greater the amount of

memory a computer can manipulate at any given time, and the

faster the manipulation. Therefore, 16- or 32-bit microcomputers

are faster and can handle more data simultaneously than the

8-bit micros developed 5 to 10 years ago.
36

Major developments are also taking place in

magnetic storage, optical disks, and a combination of magnetic and optical storage (7). Magnetically stored data is recorded by repeatedly

polarizing tiny areas along the surface of the

magnetic medium. The size of the polarized

areas and how closely together these areas can

be packed determine storage capacity. Technological advances continue, allowing more

and more bits of data to be packed into given

areas.

An optical disk typically stores data as a series of spots on a light- or temperature-sensitive

medium. The technology seems ideal for preparing multiple copies of archival data as information is digitized onto a master disk and

then replicated for distribution. The lifespan

of the optically recorded information is projected at more than 40 years (7), The major disadvantage of optical storage when compared

to magnetic storage is that the data cannot be

erased.

Efforts to develop erasable optical-storage

media currently combine magnetic and optical technologies. Heat from a focused laser

beam is used to impose a magnetic orientation.

This information then can be read using polarized laser light. As the method of storage is

magnetic, information stored in this fashion

can be erased to free disk space for the storage of new data.

DATA RETRIEVAL

Until recently stored data had to be retrieved

by searching card catalogs and agency file cabinets or by making telephone or mail inquiries

—very time-consuming tasks. Today, technological developments have facilitated the ease

with which data can be retrieved. Improvements in telecommunications, in particular,

have increased the number of options.

Data transmission via telephone is one of the

fastest growing fields in the information industry. This growth has been spurred by such developments as fiber-optics technology, which

promises improved efficiency and lowered

costs. Using laser light and a bundle of glass

strands, it is possible to transmit more than

240,000 telephone conversations simultaneously. The major problems with telecommunications for data transmission at present are the

comparatively high costs, relatively slow speeds,

and fairly high error rates. Satellite technology

has great potential to reduce the cost of longdistance transmissions. Because telecommunications depend on the quality of the phone connections, their reliability varies with location

and time (8).

The same telecommunication technology

that provides access to a large centralized database also facilitates access to smaller databases

distributed in different localities. Advances in

telecommunication technology make it increasingly practical to build small, local databases

that can be remotely accessed and maintained.

With the aid of special software to facilitate access, the user can easily access data residing

on different computers. Data at available varied locations can be searched, modified, or

moved from one computer to another (transferred from a mainframe to a microcomputer,

for example) for future use (7).

Telecommunication developments also have

facilitated the use of data in printed form.

Microcomputers coupled with optical scanning devices can now be used to store printed

images, which can be transmitted to remote

locations.
37

OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

Automation and computerization have provided many tools to increase the quality and

quantity of biological data collected, to store

and manipulate data in a variety of forms, and

to allow more users to have access to data.

Computer software and hardware are changing rapidly, are becoming easier to handle, and

are less costly to acquire and maintain. The

range of new technologies, however, can present some difficulties that require careful planning to overcome.

Many software packages exist, and more are

being developed. Software for many operating

systems is available in the public domain, but

documentation of public domain software

tends to be poor, and problems using the programs are common (13). Commercial software

packages often are better documented than custom software or software developed in-house.

Moreover, the costs of the latter maybe higher

than those of commercial software when the

hidden costs, such as salaries, are included. In

addition, the utility of custom or in-house software may decline when the original developers

or users leave, taking away their intimate

knowledge of the system (5).

The variety of technological options brings

problems as well as opportunities. At present,

biological databases are fragmented, and each

is designed for its own purpose. (See ch. 3,)

This situation creates incompatibilities that

may hinder the process of linking databases together or of simply exchanging data between

agencies. The diversity of technologies can exacerbate this problem. Caught up in computer

enthusiasm, individual database managers may

use different software programs or create their

own programs, making it difficult to access

data on another agency’s computer. For example, delineating the goals of data collection before acquiring the software and hardware

could minimize the use of several types of software (that may be incompatible) within a particular project or program. Therefore the technical aspects of database development could

benefit from careful planning and coordination. To ensure such coordination in planning,

designing, implementing, and maintaining

databases would require high levels of institutional support,

CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

Bell, J., “Data Modeling of Scientific Simulation

Programs, ” Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD

[international Conference on Management of

llata, Orlando, FL, 1982.

Best, Robert, Handbook on Remote Sensing in

Fish and Wildlife Management (Brookings, SD:

Remote Sensing Institute, South Dakota State

University, 1983).

Carneggie, D. M., Schrumpf, B. J., and Mouat,

D.A. (eds.), “Rangeland Applications, ” Manual

of Remote Sensing, 2d cd., R.N. Colwell (cd.)

(Falls Church, VA: American Society of Photogrammetry, 1983).

Gault, F, D,, “Database Management Systems

for Science and Technology,” Database Management in Science and Technology, J,R. Rumble, Jr., and V.E. Hampel (eds.) (New York:

North-Holland, 1984].

.5 Gurtz, M. E., “Development of a Research Data

Management System ~“ Research Data Managemen t in the Ecological Sciences, Belle W,

Baruch Library in Marine Science No, 16,

William K. Michener (cd.] (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1986),

6. Hardy, E., “Remote Sensing for Land and

Water Resource Management, ” Remote Sensing for Resource Management, C, Johannsen,

and J. Sanders (eds. ) (Ankeny, IA: Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

7’. Kennedy, E,, and Kelly, M., “ADP Technological Perspectives of Biological Survey Systems, ”

Proceedings of Hearings on a National Biological Survey (Manhattan, KS: Association of Systematic Collection, 1986).

8, Klopsch, M. W., and Stafford, S. G., “The Status

and Promise of Inter-site Computer Communi-
38

cation, ” Research Data Management in the

Ecological Sciences, Belle W. Baruch Library

in Marine Science No. 16, William K. Michener

(cd,) (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1986).

9. Komarkova, V., and Bell, J. L., “Characteristics

of Scientific Databases and Database Management Systems, ” Research Data Management in

the Ecological Sciences, Belle W. Baruch Library in Marine Science No. 16., William K.

Michener (cd.) (Columbia, SC: University of

South Carolina Press, 1986).

10. Marble, D., “Technical Aspects of Databases in

11

12.

Natural Systems,” paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, unpublished,

1985.

Newcomer, J. A., and Szajgin, J., “Evaluation of

an Automated Field Data Entry System, ” InPlace Resource Inventories: Principles and

Practices—Proceedings of National Workshop

(Orono, ME: University of Maine, 1981).

Stafford, S. G., Klopsch, M. W., Waddell, K. L.,

Slagle, R. L., and Alaback, P. B., “Optimizing the

Computational Environment for Ecological Research, ” Research Data Management in the

EcoZogicaZ Sciences, Belle W. Baruch Library

in Marine Science No, 16, William K. Michener

(cd.) (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1986.)

13. Stafford, S. G., Alaback, P. B., Waddell, K. L., and

Alagie, R. L., “Data Management Procedures in

Ecological Research,” Research Data Management in the Ecological Sciences, Belle W.

Baruch Library in Marine Science No. 16,

William K, Michener (cd,) (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1986),

14, Town, W. G., Powell, J., and Huitson, P. R.,

“Recent Experience of the Application of a

Commercial Data Base Management System

(ADABAS) to a Scientific Data Bank (ECDIN),”

Information Processing & Management 16:91-

108, 1980.

15. Zetka, E., “Coastal Zone Management Information Needs: Potential Landsat Applications, ”

Remote Sensing for Resource Management, C.

Johannsen and J. Sanders (eds.) (Ankeny, IA:

Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).
Chapter 5

Summary Findings
Chapter 5

Summary Findings

This background paper describes the extensive activity undertaken by the Federal Government, mostly as a result of legislative mandates

to collect biological data. The paper points out

that very little of the Federal data can be easily applied to the maintenance of biological

diversity, because the data are scattered throughout many agencies, maintained in various

forms, and stored in different, and frequently

incompatible, systems. These factors make it

very difficult, if not impossible, to retrieve,

compare, and consolidate the data for use in

designing strategies for on-site maintenance of

biological diversity in the United States. Many

of the problems, however, could be easily

solved or avoided in the future with strong institutional commitments to coordination and

cooperation in collecting and applying biological data.

The following is a brief discussion of this

paper’s three major findings concerning biological data,

FINDING 1:

Few of the numerous mandates for Federal

agencies to collect biological data or to maintain biological databases are directly applicable to the maintenance of biological diversity

in the United States.

A body of Federal legislation authorizes various Federal agencies to collect and compile

selected information on plant and animal life

in the United States. (See ch. 2,) As a result,

numerous Federal agencies conduct biological

inventories, creating enormous quantities of

biological data that address various aspects of

biological diversity. Because few of these laws

explicitly cite the maintenance of biological

diversity as an objective, biological diversity

is not considered in a comprehensive or coherent manner. The legislation usually directs or

authorizes an agency to conduct inventories,

but the mandates can be interpreted differently

by different individuals within and among

agencies. Due in part to the differences in

agency objectives and in the interpretations of

agency objectives and directives, the information collected on individual organisms and on

taxa varies considerably. Data gaps exist geographically and taxonomically. Some taxonomic groups generally are ignored in field inventories. Others, particularly plants and animals

with economic or recreational value, are inventoried extensively by more than one Federal

agency. As a result of all these factors, existing biological data cannot be easily applied to

decisions regarding the maintenance of biological diversity.

One solution to this problem would be an explicit mandate to the appropriate Federal agencies to compile existing data on the status of

biological diversity in the United States and to

conduct periodic reviews of this diversity, The

result could be agency cooperation similar to

that undertaken by the U.S. Forest Service and

the Soil Conservation Service in their joint

assessment of wildlife and its habitat under the

Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act

(RCA) and the Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act (RPA) (see ch. 3), although appraising biological diversity would involve

more than two Federal agencies. In addition,

Federal agencies could be required to consult

with appropriate State agencies (e. g., Natural

History Surveys) or private organizations (e.g.,

The Nature Conservancy) to locate sources of

biological data that are not available within the

Federal system. The compilation of existing

biological data for the maintenance of biological diversity could take a number of forms. (See

ch. 3.)

The process of identifying and compiling existing biological data relevant to the maintenance of biological diversity would help to pinpoint areas where data overlap or are lacking.

At the least, such a process would initiate activities to coordinate the collection and entry of

data and, thus, would facilitate the retrieval of

data. As with the RCA-RPA process, one benefit of coordination might be the establishment

of standards for data collection and data entry.

41
42

In addition, existing Federal laws authorizing biological inventories would need to be

reviewed to eliminate potential conflicts or inconsistencies with a new mandate for coordinating biological data. Under such a mandate,

the responsibilities of Federal agencies would

need to be clearly defined, Otherwise, the mandate could increase the quantity of biological

information and perpetuate the inconsistencies

and incompatibilities of the data maintained

by different agencies. The extent of consistency

that is necessary would determine how much

funding would be needed.

FINDING 2:

Rapid technological advances, especially in

the computer field, could have both positive

and negative effects on the collection, storage,

and retrieval of biological data.

Recent advances in technologies have increased, and should continue to increase, the

quality and quantity of biological data collected, and the accessibility and usability of

such data. Technological advances are likely

to decrease the cost of data collection, maintenance, and retrieval. (See ch, 4.) These advances include microcomputers for field data

collection, new and more flexible databasemanagement packages, and sophisticated telecommunication technologies to increase data

access and retrieval.

Although new technologies provide greater

opportunities for data managers and data users,

the variety of computer hardware and software

could exacerbate the current problems of incompatibility and inaccessibility, Technologies

appear to be selected on an ad hoc basis, frequently reflecting the preference, knowledge,

or expertise of individual data collectors and

administrators.

Various Federal agencies have begun to coordinate database-management activities, especially in the case of geographic information systems, However, coordination among agencies

in the purchase and development of information technology is extremely difficult, because

different agencies have different missions,

needs, and uses. Obviously, no one databasemanagement system could meet all the needs of

one agency, let alone the needs of all agencies.

A solution to these technology-based problems may be to establish an external review

process that would assist agencies in setting

up data networks and provide consultation on

hardware and software systems. The review

process could be coordinated through an agency like the National Academy of Sciences or

the congressional General Accounting Office.

Professional societies of both resource professionals and computer specialists could play a

role in designing office systems that would

meet the needs of most users and would allow

compatibility in hardware and software among

users within an agency. Formal consultation

with computer specialists could provide independent review of the utility of existing computer systems and could help agencies set priorities for purchasing additional hardware and

software to meet agency needs. Because outside consultants would need to work closely

with automated-data-processing personnel and

database administrators within each agency,

a mechanism to establish dialog between agencies would have to be developed, Once such

a mechanism were established, standardized

data mechanisms for data exchange could be

developed.

The cost of establishing database hardware

and software compatibility among and within

agencies would depend on the extent of communication desired. An overall system plan

that linked all potential users of the data, providing links between offices and between geographical regions, would be costly in the short

term because it could require the purchase of

new data systems or the reprogramming of existing systems to fit a standard framework.

Careful planning and institutional coordination

would substantially reduce the need to make

hardware or software changes. In some cases,

however, building communication between

database-management systems might be as simple as purchasing telephone modems or exchanging diskettes containing data through the

mail.

FINDING 3:

Lack of overall institutional coordination of

databases reduces the value of existing biological data, especially those housed in Federal agencies.
43

Although a large amount of biological information is being collected, the data tend to be

site-specific, project-related, and generally inaccessible to most potential users. Individual

Federal agencies frequently do not know what

biological data they themselves have collected,

much less what other agencies have collected.

Consequently, many efforts are duplicated, and

the coordination of data is limited both among

and within agencies.

Inventories of Federal biological databases,

such as the inventories conducted by the Fish

and Wildlife Service and the Environmental

Protection Agency (see app. A), help secondary users identify existing data files that might

be of use, Such activities should be encouraged,

Even with these inventories, however, the efforts of data collectors and database administrators need to be coordinated in order to avoid

duplication within and among agencies, and

to provide broad use of the data collected.

The establishment of certain standards, such

as common data dictionaries, would be an important first step to data-sharing between agencies, thereby reducing the need for different

agencies to collect similar data. It would, in

addition, greatly aid efforts to address the technological difficulties discussed earlier. Establishing data standards, however, is a formidable task. The difficulty is exemplified by the

inability of agencies to agree on even a common definition of wildlife.

Existing cooperative efforts, such as the Interagency Assessment and Appraisal Liaison

Committee (IAALC) and the Interagency Agreement Relating to Classification and Inventory

of Natural Resources (5 WAY), have been working to standardize the data collection processes

and classification systems of different agencies.1 [See ch. 3.) These interagency committees also exchange information about data collection and consolidation activities within the

member agencies, For example, a working

group under the 5 WAY recently completed an

inventory of natural resource databases available within the member agencies.

Coordination could be formalized within the

Federal agencies through the establishment of

a national biological database, or each agency

could ensure that one centralized office would

remain aware of database activities within that

agency. (For discussion of a national database

see ch, 3.) In a few cases, individual Federal

agencies have designated offices or personnel

to serve such a function, but most agencies

have no agencywide coordination of biological data. Centralized offices could serve as

clearinghouses of data, improving the access

managers and researchers within the agency

have to data, as well as providing a source of

public information for State and private institutions. Personnel within the centralized offices could assist the agencies in reviewing data

compatibility (of technology and of the kind of

data collected and maintained), which could

reduce the agencies’ costs for maintaining data.

Although centralized offices for data coordination would not eliminate the need for interagency cooperation under

5 WAY and the IAALC,

should greatly facilitate

eration.

— —

agreements like the

centralized offices

interagency coopI Although these interagency groups have led to agreements

on data nomenclature standards and land-cover terminology

standards, these agreements are not incorporated into the policy and practices of each agency represented in the interagcy

cooperative effort. If agency policies do not reflect the interagency agreement, these committees do little to standardize

activities beyond merely providing a forum for communication.

Appendix A

Examples of Federal Agency Databases

Containing Biological Information

Methodology

Many Federal agencies maintain databases containing biological data. A survey was conducted between June and December 1985 to determine the

approximate number, scope, and coverage of these

databases. The survey began with an examination

of information from existing database inventories

(20,38,61,62,64,71), followed by telephone calls to

determine the status of previously published surveys. These calls led to identification of other contacts and databases. This approach had a built-in

bias toward databases known to a wide audience.

Therefore, more databases of national or regional

coverage were identified than were databases of

local, sub-State, or State coverage. No attempt was

made to develop a comprehensive listing of Federal databases. The following list provides examples of the kind of biological data collected on-site

by the major Federal agencies responsible for biological resources. The list probably represents less

than 20 percent of the databases containing biological information currently maintained by Federal

agencies.

The geographic coverage of each database is described. National databases include data consolidated from sources throughout the United States.

Regional databases include data consolidated from

sources within a region, such as the Pacific Northwest States, State and sub-State databases contain

data from one statewide area, such as Tennessee,

or from a location within the State, such as one national park. Databases are geographically categorized on the basis of where the data are located. For

example, if the data are available at a specific subState location where the data were collected (e.g.,

a BLM Resource Area], the database is considered

a sub-State database, regardless of whether the data

are available from a number of unique locations

across a broader geographic area.

The taxonomic coverage of each database also is

described. The categories used for taxa are the class

level for animals and the kingdom level for plants.

The inclusion of data on trees within a database is

noted.

Users of each database are identified in broad categories. The primary Federal agency using the ciata

is listed first. Use by other Federal agencies or

States is also noted. The “others” category includes

private users, such as universities, individual researchers or interested persons, conservation or

other organizations, and county officials or

agencies.

If a primary contact person or office has been

identified for the database, it is included.

References mentioned with the databases can be

found in a list at the end of this appendix.

A summary table of this appendix can be found

in chapter 3, pages 21 through 23.

Federal agencies that collect biological data but

are

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

not described in this appendixl include:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture

Research Service;

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs;

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Reclamation;

U.S. Department of Energy—Ecological Experimental Area Program:

Environmental Protection Agency;

National Science Foundation—Long Term

Ecological Research Program; and

Smithsonian Institution.

Existing Biological Databases

Summary of the U.S. Department

of the Interior

The U.S. Department of the Interior has no central source for biological databases. The agencies

considered here include: the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geological Survey. The National Park Service recently compiled a list of

microcomputer applications in agency programs

(61]; the list provided a starting point for this survey. In addition, a recent issue of Park Science discussed microcomputer applications in the natural

resources division. Examples from each of these

sources are included. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Office of Information Transfer is completing

an inventory of FWS databases (35). Currently, no

such inventory or clearinghouse of databases exITlme constraints preclude th[> so rve} of many databases maintal ned

hy ag[>n(:les SO( h as thes~

47
48

ists within the agency. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Geological Survey databases were

identified, in part, in the review of a recent inventory of databases prepared by a working group of

the Interagency Agreement Relating to Classifications and Inventories of Natural Resources (20).

National Park Service (NPS)

1. National Park Flora (NPFLORA)

Content: A listing of all vegetation within each

of the National Parks, including species

names, taxonomic characteristics, and status

from State and Federal lists of sensitive,

threatened, or endangered species.

Purpose: Designed as a reference and management tool.

Geographic coverage: National—national park

lands.

Taxonomic coverage: Vegetation within the National Park Service lands.

Status: Ongoing data entry as information becomes available from specific park areas.

Currently available on computer for all Class

I Air Quality classification sites administered

by the National Park Service. Class II sites

are being entered.

Users: Park managers and interpretation specialists, other Federal agencies, States, others.

Contact: Gary Waggoner, Science Section, Denver Service Center, Denver, CO.

References: (60,66)

Z. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory

Content: Approximately 61,700 river and stream

miles in 1,524 segments in the coterminous’

United States (2 percent of total U.S. river

mileage) with data on surface flow, cultural

development, and cursory fish and wildlife

information.

Purpose: To determine potential candidates for

the wild and scenic rivers system for river

segments greater than 25 miles in length (or

less than 25 river miles if outstanding values

were known),

Geographic coverage: National—3,250,000 river

and stream miles in the coterminous United

States.

Taxonomic coverage: Broad categories of fish

and wildlife. No species-specific studies conducted,

Status: Report issued in January 1982, No updates planned.

Users: NPS planners, Congress, States, other

Federal agencies, others.

3.

4,

5.

Contact: Bernie Collins, Division of Rivers,

Washington, DC.

Ecological data can be found in the regional

offices for the river segments of each region.

Reference: (11).

National Natural Landmarks Program Data

Base

Content: The inventories completed under the

National Landmarks Program for 33 ecological units in the United States. Data vary between studies as does the amount of field research,

Purpose: Surveys generally provide a very

coarse filter for identifying ecologically significant areas that could be future candidates

for landmark designation.

Geographic coverage: National—all physiographic provinces of the United States.

Taxonomic coverage: Varies by inventory but

generally includes all economically or ecologically important plant and animal species.

Status: 33 surveys complete and published. Inventories in report form and titles computerized.

Users: NPS, States, others.

Contact: Arthur Stewart, Division of Interagency Resources, Washington, DC.

Reference: (52).

Endangered Species Data Base

Content: Systemwide endangered species database to collate information from all national

park units on federally designated threatened

and endangered species,

Purpose: To provide nationwide data on threatened and endangered species.

Geographic coverage: National–all NPS lands.

Taxonomic coverage: Federally listed threatened or endangered plants and animals.

Status: Planning and internal review stage. Currently, southeast region has species list in

notebook; midwest and northwest regions

have contract with FWS to identify species;

and southwest region has list of species and

occurrences on a word processor.

Users: To be determined, depending on design

of system,

Contact: Nick Churin, Division of Biological

Services, Washington, DC.

Reference: (10).

Coastal Barriers Inventory

Content: Information on the location, physical

and natural characteristics, ownership and

administrators, and protected status of coastal barrier islands.
49

6

7.

8.

Purpose: Used to determine potential additions

or deletions of units from the National Coastal Barrier Resources System,

Geographic coverage: National—coastal areas.

Taxonomic coverage: Unknown.

Status: System is on a computer and is updated

regularly.

Users: NPS, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Geological Survey, States, others.

Contact: Audrey Dixon, Science Support Staff,

Division of Natural Resources, Washington,

DC.

Reference: (23).

COMMON

Content: Summary: type information on park

adminstration, acreage, natural and cultural

features, and planning documents.

Purpose: To provide NPS staff with easy access

to park-by-park information.

Geographic coverage: National—all park system

units.

Taxonomic coverage: Unknown.

Status: An initial phase of COMMON is entered

in a computer.

Users: NPS staff, could be available to other

agencies and private organizations or individuals.

Contact: Ann Frondorf, Natural Resources

Operations Support Staff, Washington, DC.

Reference: (23].

North Atlantic Region Resource Data

Content: Data on vegetation and soils and on

air and water quality for NPS lands in the

region.

Purpose: Used in research projects as baseline

information and also for analysis of changes

in vegetation over time, either naturally or

as a result of air and water quality changes.

One goal of the system is to network all national park offices into regional databases.

Geographic coverage: Regional—units of National Park Service region.

Taxonomic coverage: Vegetation.

Status: Ongoing data-entry from research and

management programs. At least four units

are linked into the system. Data digitized for

mapping.

Users: NPS staff.

Contact: Office of Scientific Studies, North Atlantic Region, Boston, MA.

Reference: (21).

Wild and Scenic Rivers Program

Content: Designated wild and scenic rivers

were inventoried for cultural, ecological, geological, historical, and recreational value.

Purpose: For inclusion in the Environmental

Impact Statements for each river segment

designated.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—60 percent

river segments congressionally designated as

wild and scenic rivers.

Taxonomic coverage: Varies according to the

river segment but generally includes fisheries

and vegetation.

Status: Reports are no longer being written due

9.

10.

to manpower and funding constraints. Data

no longer being collected.

Users; NPS, other Federal agencies, States, Congress, others.

Contact: John Huebert, Division of Rivers, Washington, DC.

Reference: (64).

Biosphere Reserve System Data Files

Content: Six reserves have attempted to collate

all environmental information into volumes

from disparate sources.

Purpose: For research and public interest use.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—Smoky Mountains, Glacier, Organ Pipe, Isle Royale, Olympic, and Big Bend National Parks.

Taxonomic coverage: Varies depending on reserve but all reserves have basic information

on flora and vertebrates.

Status: Smoky Mountains and Glacier manuals

are published. Organ Pipe, Isle Royale, Olympic, and Big Bend are awaiting publication.

Efforts to collate information from other reserves have not occurred.

Users: NPS, States, others.

Contact: Bill Gregg, Man and the Biosphere Program/NPS office, Washington, DC.

Reference: (27).

Bear Information System

Content: Records of all sightings, and management actions for trapped or radio-tagged

bears.

Purpose: For writing reports on bear activities

and developing management options.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—Yellowstone

National Park, Montana and Wyoming.

Taxonomic coverage: Black and grizzly bear.

Status: Data input ongoing on microcomputer

system.

Users: NPS employees.

Contact: Elfrida Kaminski, ADP Coordinator,

Yellowstone National Park, WY.

Reference.’ (61).
50

11.

12.

13.

Ground Cover System

Content: Data on vegetation plots.

Purpose: To determine aspects such as species

diversity of each plot and to print species lists

from each plot.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—Yellowstone

National Park, Montana and Wyoming.

Taxonomic coverage: Plants.

Status: Data-entry ongoing on microcomputer

system.

Users: NPS research scientists and naturalists.

Contact: Elfrida Kaminski, ADP Coordinator,

Yellowstone National Park, WY.

Reference: (61).

Vegetation Data Base, Great Smoky Mountains

Content: Information on plant species within

the national park and surrounding areas.

Data Include name, life history, habitat, distribution, status, and air quality or other

potential impact information. One unique

aspect of the data is information on the ethnobiology of a plant in southern Appalachian

culture.

Purpose; To manage information on the diverse

flora, allow easy update of the plant checklist, and facilitate planning efforts with accessible data on plant distribution and ecology.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State–Great Smoky

Mountain National Park, Tennessee and

North Carolina.

Taxonomic coverage: Plants.

Status: Update and maintenance of the system

is ongoing,

Users: NPS personnel, others.

Contact; Peter White, Uplands Field Research

Laboratory, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Gatlinburg, TN.

Reference: (69).

Channel Islands Information System

Content: Extensive information on approximately 2,OOO species occurring in the national park. Data include species name, abundance, distribution, reproductive biology,

population age and sex compositions, and

growth rates.

Purpose: To manage and analyze population dynamics data. Database also used in interpretation programs and developing reports,

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—Channel Island National Park, California,

Taxonomic coverage; Mammals, fish, birds, invertebrates, plants.

1

2.

3.

Status: Ongoing data-entry and update as data

are generated from research efforts.

Users: NPS research staff and park managers,

Contact; Gary Davis, Research Science Staff,

Channel Islands National Park, CA,

Reference: (14).

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Range Site Inventory (RSI)

Content: Information on plant species composition, plant production estimates, and mapping of range communities.

Purpose: Data are used to establish livestock

stocking rates and as a baseline for range

monitoring studies.

Geographic coverage; Regional—Western

States, BLM lands.

Taxonomic coverage: Range plants.

Status: Developing computer program to combine SVIM and RSI data, scheduled for availability in 1986. Approximately 50 percent of

BLM land inventoried using SVIM or RSI.

Data available from State offices,

Users: BLM, other Federal agencies, others.

Contact: Rangeland Resources Division personnel in State BLM offices.

References: (20,31).

Soil Vegetation Inventory Method (SVIM)

Content: Data on range vegetation under BLM

jurisdiction, including species composition,

cover, height, and measures of productivity,

Data were generated by range allotment.

Purpose; Currently none.

Geographic coverage: Regional–BLM lands.

Taxonomic coverage: Range vegetation, some

timber.

Status: System archived and unavailable. Some

data will be entered into new range system

along with RSI data,

Users: Currently none.

Contact: Bob Waggoner, Division of Resource

Systems, Denver Service Center, Denver, CO.

Reference: (67).

Integrated Habitat Inventory Classification

System (IHICS)

Content: Combined information from districts

and resources areas on wildlife habitat sites,

standard habitat features (strata), and special

habitat features, Inventory data is collected

on standardized forms for inclusion into

IHICS. Methods documented in BLM Manual Section 6602.
51

4.

Purpose: To evaluate and delineate vegetation

types known to be associated with specific

wildlife species, for wildlife planning and

management.

Geographic coverage: Regional—IHICS coverage of districts and resource areas is varied.

Coverage includes some information on most

of the districts in Nevada, New Mexico, and

Arizona. Some has been done in Idaho and

Alaska and other Western States. The agency

proposes to include all Western State districts within the system.

Taxonomic coverage: Coverage of organisms

varies considerably by district. Arizona has

included extensive information on “nongame” species of wildlife, including breeding birds, amphibians, and reptiles. Other

districts only include information on large

game mammal populations and/or upland

game birds. Thus far, no effort has been

made to include all wildlife populations on

BLM lands within the database.

Status: Ongoing effort by district offices and

Denver Service Center. No anticipated completion date,

Users: BLM, States, others.

Contact: Larry Peterson, Denver Service Center, Denver, CO.

References: (20,41).

Riparian/Aquatic Information Data Summary

(RAIDS)

Content: BLM-wide summary system for all

riparian and aquatic resource information

(plant species composition, structure of the

plant community, animal species present or

associated with existing vegetation) from district offices and resource areas for storage

and retrieval using a standardized system.

Purpose: BLM-wide tracking system of riparian

and aquatic habitat information for land

planning and management. Riparian inventories are conducted in conjunction with

other resource studies.

Geographic coverage: Regional—some districts

already have collected data on riparian and

aquatic resources for inclusion into the

RAIDS. Others would be required to inventory resource areas to collect the information

for each district,

Taxonomic coverage: Both aquatic plant and

fisheries and animal taxa will be represented.

Status: Implemented and included in the BLM

Manual Section 6602.

5.

6.

7.

Users; BLM, other Federal agencies, States,

others.

Contact: Larry Peterson or Paul Cuplin, Denver Service Center, Denver, CO.

References: (20,41).

Wild Horses and Burros Inventories

Content: Wild horse and burro distribution

(herd area), population sizes and population

structures.

Purpose: To assist in management and administration,

Geographic coverage: Regional—eight Western

States where horses and burros congregate.

Taxonomic coverage: Mammals—horses and

burros.

Status: BLM in process of computerizing data

in central system with information on applicants for adoption program and administrative information on the horses and burros

from round-up to disposition.

Users: BLM, others (animal protection organizations).

Contact: Division of Wild Horses and Burros,

Washington, DC.

References: (20,48).

Extensive Forest Inventory

Content: Aerial survey with field verification of

timber sites.

Purpose: To determine timber type, whether

land commercial or noncommercial timber,

and to outline boundaries of timbered areas,

Geographic coverage: State—Western States,

timbered areas on BLM lands.

Taxonomic coverage: Timber, vegetation.

Status: All timbered areas have been inventoried with this method. Data stored in State

and district office files, some on computers,

some on maps,

Users: BLM, Forest Service, States, others (private timber companies).

Contact: Forestry Division personnel, State

BLM offices.

Reference: (39).

Forest Operations Inventory

Content: Inventory of the forest base identified

by Extensive Forest Inventory as capable of

sustaining timber production.

Purpose: Serves as basis for delineating various

forest practices on a specific forest,

Geographic coverage: State—Western States,

BLM forested areas,
52

Taxonmnic coverage: Timber, vegetation.

Status: Ongoing, most sites are currently evaluated. Data stored in State and district offices,

some on computers, some on maps.

Users: BLM, States, other Federal agencies,

others (private timber companies).

Contact: Forestry Division personnel, State

BLM offices,

References: (20,39),

8. Timber Production Capability Classification

(TPCC)

Content: Detailed forest management information on specific sites down to 10 acres in size.

Data includes production capabilities and

soil and environmental conditions at the site.

Purpose: The database provides the detailed

planning information needed to determine

how much to cut and where.

Geographic coverage: State—Western States,

most of the BLM forested areas.

Taxonomic coverage: Timber, vegetation.

Status: Ongoing effort as planning information

is needed. Data stored in files in State and

district offices, some computerized, some on

maps.

Users: BLM planning and forestry staff, other

Federal agencies, States, others (timber companies).

Contact: Forestry Division personnel, State

BLM offices.

References: (20,39).

9. Intensive Forest Survey Inventories (STORMS)

Content: Records kept from field data cards on

reforestation efforts, stocking efforts, species

stocked, and history of reforestation in an

area.

Purpose: To combine reforestation and operation inventory data into one computer-based

system.

Geographic coverage: State—Western States,

BLM forested areas.

Taxonomic coverage: Timber.

Status: Ongoing data-collection effort. Data

computerized in integrated system.

Users: BLM, States, timber companies, other

Federal agencies.

Contact: Forestry Division personnel, State

BLM offices.

References: (20,39).

10. Wilderness Inventory

Content: Inventory covers units of BLM lands

identified as having wilderness potential. Indepth studies are underway to determine resources, resource conflicts from uses of land,

and wilderness values.

Purpose: Data used in EISS and maintained in

files in resource area offices.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—lo Western

States.

Taxonomic coverage: Varies depending on

area, generally vegetation, timber, and some

fish and wildlife.

Status: Narratives of each unit published by

each State office. Inventory efforts are ongoing as part of planning process.

Users: BLM, private organizations.

Contact: Recreation specialists in resource area

offices in 10 Western States.

References: (20,70).

11, Fire Management Data

Content: Vegetation response and resource

changes from wildfires and prescribed burning. Surveys assess postfire vegetation, soil

condition, species change.

Purpose: Some studies conducted to obtain data

on successional changes after controlled

burn.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—13 Western

States, BLM lands.

Taxonomic coverage; Vegetation, timber,

Status: Data collection ongoing. Data in unpublished, localized files.

Users: BLM, other Federal agencies, States,

others (researchers),

Contact: Fire Management Officers, BLM resource area offices.

Reference: (5).

12, Threatened and Endangered Species Data

Bases

Content: Two separate databases maintained by

field offices, one for actual observations of

threatened and endangered plants and the

other for actual observations of threatened

and endangered animals. Because the data

is very site-specific, it is generally unavailable to the public, in accordance with BLM

responsibilities to protect the species.

Purpose: To provide biologists and managers

with easily retrievable data on the known

presence and status of threatened and endangered species.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—data maintained at field offices.

Taxonomic coverage: Plants, animals, and fish

taxa; some data files have more detail than

others.
53

1.

2.

3.

Status: Standard database and input forms developed and implemented in BLM Manual

Section 6602.

Users: BLM biologists and managers, other cooperating agencies.

Contact: Wildlife biologists in individual field

offices where implemented.

Reference: (40],

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

Winter Waterfowl Survey

Content: Data generated from annual survey (in

January) by aerial and field counts at known

concentration areas, Some random survey

data for black ducks.

Purpose: Results are used to monitor changes

in the distribution and status of populations,

particularly those with inaccessible breeding

grounds.

Geographic coverage: National—all flyways,

southern New England south to Florida, Gulf

Coast States, California, some Midwest

States.

Taxonomic coverage: Waterfowl.

Status: Data recorded and computerized at

Migratory Bird Management Office.

Users: FWS, States, others (researchers, flyway

councils).

Contact: Robert Blohm, Office of Migratory

Bird Management, Patuxent Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Reference: (20).

North American Breeding Bird Survey

Content: Information from around 2000 roadside counts each year throughout North

America, Data covers distribution and abundance of some 500 bird species.

Purpose: To track species distribution and

abundance.

Geographic coverage: National—includes transects throughout North America.

Taxonomic coverage: Birds.

Status: Maintained on computer files by Patuxent Research Center.

Users: States, other Federal agencies, others

(conservation organizations, researchers).

Contact: Sam Droege, Office of Migratory Bird

Management, Patuxent Research Center,

Laurel, MD.

Reference: (53).

Mourning Dove Call—Count Survey

Content: Data collected from 20 stops along 900

randomly selected routes. This is a cooperative Federal and State effort.

Purpose: To develop population index for hunting season and regional trend data on mourning doves.

Geographic coverage: National.

Taxonomic coverage: Birds, one species.

Status: Annual survey in the spring, conducted

since 1968, data computerized at Migratory

Bird Management Office.

Users: FWS, States, researchers.

Contact: David Dolton, Office of Migratory Bird

Management, Patuxent Research Center,

Laurel, MD.

References: (20,53).

4. River Reach Fisheries Data Base

Content: Survey of 1,300 stream reaches for National Fisheries Survey, a 3-volume document published in 1984. Data include species

present, legal status of the species, abundance (mostly qualititative), use of stream

reach by the fishery, months of use, and factors affecting survival. This is the only national survey of fisheries completed in the

lower 48 States.

Purpose; Survey provided baseline fishery information. Data support water quality policies within EPA and as reference for fisheries nationally.

Geographic coverage: National—lower 48 States

(except Rhode Island which was omitted

when using random numbers table).

Taxonomic coverage: Fish.

Status: Tapes of data available from EPA Monitoring and Data Support Division. Raw survey forms on file at FWS Western Energy

Land Use Team Office. Data partially synthesized and published. No foreseeable plan to

update data.

Users: EPA, FWS, other Federal agencies,

others,

Contact: Lee Ischinger, Office of Biological

Services, Wetland Ecology Group, Ft. Collins, CO.

Reference: (30].

5. Wildlife Refuge Management Information

System

Content: Umbrella system for all refuge administrative and resource information. Resource

information on forms in each of the refuges

will be included in system. Resource data

varies depending on the charter of the refuge.
-.

54

Purpose: System will provide computer links

between refuges, regional offices, and the

Washington office.

Geographic coverage: National—all refuges, biological information on some.

Taxonomic coverage: Variable, but will include

vegetation, birds, mammals, fish.

Status: Still in the developmental stages. System

will be put up over lo-year period. Pilot

project will be underway with Boston regional office and five refuges in fiscal year

1986. Final goal is network linking the 400

refuges,

Users: FWS Refuge program.

Contact: Bill Brimberg, Division of Refuge Management, Washington, DC.

Reference: (7).

6. National Wetlands Inventory

Content: Data on wetland distribution in the

United States with aerial and ground surveys. Products include detailed mapping of

wetland areas of special concern and statistical study of aerial photos.

Purpose: To determine wetland acreage and

wetland trends by type of wetland.

Geographic coverage: National—includes

Alaska and Hawaii.

Taxonoznic coverage: Ecological areas, wetlands.

Status; Ongoing project, approximately 40 per7.

cent complete for contiguous States and 10

percent complete for Alaska, Hawaii inventory completed. Work is progressing at 5 percent per year for lower 48 States and 2 percent per year for Alaska.

Users: FWS, other Federal agencies, States, private organizations, others.

Contact: Bill Wilen, Coordinator, National Wetlands Inventory, Washington, DC.

References: (13,54).

Wetland Plant Species Data Base

Content: Information on habitat type, indicator

status, FWS region of occurrence, and selected botanical references for wetland plant

species found in the United States. Data are

compiled from reference works, and independent verification of whether a plant indicates a wetland is made by experts of each

plant,

Purpose: To assist biologists in wetland delineation.

Geographic coverage: National—all 50 States

and Caribbean territories and trusts.

Taxonomic coverage: Plants.

Status: 4,000 plant species of 5,400 species

known to be associated with wetlands have

been entered into computer system. Proposed completion date in 1986.

Users: FWS, other Federal agencies, States,

others.

Contact: Porter (Buck) Reed, Division of Biological Services, Wetlands Ecology Group, St.

Petersburg, FL.

References: (43,64).

8. Wetland Plant List Data Base

Content: Compliment of plant species data

(above) by providing on-line index of plant

species scientific name, common name, synonyms, geographic locators, and indicator

status.

Purpose: List may help biologists with rapid

wetland delineations based on species

presence,

Geographic coverage: National.

Taxonomic coverage: Wetland plants.

Status: In development stages, may be available

in 1986.

Users: FWS biologists, other Federal agencies.

Contact: Porter (Buck) Reed, Division of Biological Services, Wetlands Ecology Group, St.

Petersburg, FL.

Reference: (43).

9, Endangered Species Information System (ESIS)

Content: Biological, ecological, and distributional information available on each federally listed threatened and endangered species

that occur within the United States or its territories.

Purpose: System will provide a centralized

source for data on listed species, and will assist in consultation, permit review, planning

coordination and recovery.

Geographic coverage: Will be nationwide.

Taxonomic coverage: Plants, birds, mammals,

reptiles, amphibians.

Status: Initial development complete. Twentyfive species are in prototype database. Data

collection on currently listed species is nearing completion. Projected date for system

availability is 1987 to 1988.

Users: FWS, other Federal agencies, States,

others (initially through FWS regional

offices).

Contact: Bill Gill, Office of Endangered Species,

Ballston, VA.

Reference: (24,26).
55

10, Candidate Species List

11

12,

Content: Published list of species of invertebrates, plants, and vertebrates that are or

were considered formal candidates for listing as a threatened or endangered species,

Candidates are considered in three categories: 1) enough data is available to initiate the

listing process; 2) more data on species are

needed for consideration for listing; and 3)

species is presumed extinct, name given is

invalid, or species was subject to formal review and found to not be endangered,

Purpose: In-house list for identification of candidate species and tracking their current

status,

Geographic coverage: National.

Taxonornic coverage: All species.

Status: Plant list and vertebrate list updated and

published in Federal Register in 1985. Invertebrate list is being updated currently; last

published in 1982.

Users: FWS, other Federal agencies, State agencies, others (conservation organizations).

Contact: LaVerne Smith, Office of Endangered

Species, Ballston, VA,

Reference: (15,50).

Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Models

Content: The HSI models contain brief literature reviews of species-habitat requirements,

and identify habitat factors important in

limiting species distribution and occurrence.

The models include a method of rating habitat values based on habitat variables.

Purpose: For use in inventory, impact assessment, and fish and wildlife planning activities,

Geographic coverage: National.

Taxonomic coverage: Selected vertebrates and

invertebrates,

Status: Reports are published for 125 species,

with additional species being added each

year,

Users: FWS, States, other Federal agencies,

others.

Contact: Team Leader, Western Energy and

Land Use Team, Ft. Collins, CO, for publications.

Reference: (46,59),

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service

Content: Documents reports (and other technical material) from the Federal Aid in Fish

and Wildlife Restoration Programs (DingellJohnson and Pittman-Robertson Acts), the

Anadromous Fish Conservation Program.

the Endangered Species Grants Program, the

Cooperative Fishery and Wildlife Research

Units, and State fish and wildlife agencies.

The database also documents published

papers, technical publications, theses, and

species materials, such as endangered species recovery plans.

Purpose: To provide an easily searchable database that documents a significant amount of

FWS and related agency fish and wildlife research results,

Geographic coverage: National.

Taxonomic coverage; All fish and wildlife species and some plant species in habitat studies;

i.e., essentially all biota,

Status: The system is a searchable file (file 957)

on the dialog system. This database is updated several times annually and it contains

citations back to the 1950s. The system provides copies (paper or microfiche) on request

for publications identified through on-line

searching,

Users: Anyone with access to dialog and with

permission of the FWS.

Contact: Ell-Piret Multer, Columbia National

Fisheries Research Laboratory, Columbia,

MO.

References: (58),

13. Waterfowl Breeding Ground Surveys

14

Content: Aerial and ground survey of waterfowl

nesting areas in May and July to estimate the

size of breeding populations of 10 species

and to estimate production, respectively.

Water areas also mapped and counted. Specific information on breeding adults, brood

success, and habitat change recorded.

Purpose: To set annual harvest regulations.

Geographic coverage: Regional—focused on the

Northern States and prairie pothole region.

Taxonomic coverage: Waterfowl.

Status: Annual effort. Data computerized and

maintained by Migratory Bird Management

office,

Users: FWS, States, other Federal agencies,

others (private organizations, flyway councils).

Contact: Robert Blohm, Office of Migratory

Bird Management, Patuxent Research Center, Laurel, MD,

References: (53,64).

Woodcock Singing Ground Survey

Content: Data collected from 20 stops along

1,000 survey routes.
56

Purpose: To develop an index of population size

for the annual woodcock harvest and to determine regional population trends.

Geographic coverage: Regional—Northern

States, Eastern Canada Provinces.

Taxonornic coverage: Birds—one species.

Status: Yearly survey in the spring, data computerized at Migratory Bird Management

Office.

Users: FWS, States, others (researchers).

Contact: John Tautin, Office of Migratory Bird

Management, Patuxent Research Center,

Laurel, MD.

References: (20,53).

15. Sandhill Crane Surveys

Content: Annual survey of each of the recognized sandhill crane population. The midcontinent population is systematically surveyed aerially along the Platte River in the

fall. Casual ground surveys also occur, and

information on the population from North

Dakota is available from the Bureau of Reclamation,

The eastern population of greater sandhill

cranes are surveyed on the ground in midfall in northwestern Indiana.

The Rocky Mountain population is surveyed on the ground in the winter in the Rio

Grande Valley. In 1985, a spring survey was

conducted in a Colorado valley.

The Imperial Valley (California) population

is surveyed on the ground during the winter.

The Central Valley (California) population

is surveyed on the ground in the winter.

The Pacific Flyway lesser sandhill crane

population is surveyed on the ground in the

Central Valley in California during the

winter,

The federally endangered Mississippi population of greater sandhill cranes is surveyed

each winter in the bottomland hardwood

areas of Mississippi.

Purpose: To determine population size and

monitor trends in population. For some populations, data is used to set harvest limits.

Geographic coverage: Regional—Nebraska,

Indiana, New Mexico, Texas, California,

Mississippi, and vicinities.

Taxonomic coverage: Birds.

Status: Data contained in files within the States

or on the refuges where the survey occurred.

Office of Migratory Bird Management provides an unpublished report with raw and

synthesized information each year. Data also

summarized during International Crane workshop series held periodically (most recent

workshop was March 1985 in Nebraska).

Users: FWS, Bureau of Reclamation, States,

others (Audubon Society).

Contact: Harvey Miller, Office of Migratory

Bird Management, Golden, CO.

Reference: (34).

16. Great Lakes Commercial Catch Data Base

Content: Data collection since the early 1920s

on commercial fish catches in the Great

Lakes from data forms submitted by States.

Data include species caught, location information (lake, State), month of take, and total

catch in pounds and dollar value.

Purpose: Data used for economic forecasting

and to provide information on fish population levels.

Geographic coverage: Regional—Great Lakes.

Taxonomic coverage: Fish of commercial interest.

Status: Data collected and synthesized annually,

computerized since 1971. Data summarized

and sent to National Marine Fisheries Service for statistical analysis.

Users: National Marine Fisheries Service,

States, others (Great Lakes Fish Commission).

Contact: Tony Frank, Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory, Ann Arbor, MI.

Reference: (22].

17. Great Lakes Research Fishery Data Base

Content: Data generated on Great Lakes fish

population through spring and fall surveys

at more or less fixed locations around the

Great Lakes. Information include species,

size, length frequency by species, and population distribution for commercial and forage species.

Purpose: To monitor fish populations.

Geographic coverage: Regional—Great Lakes.

Taxonomic coverage: Fish.

Status: Data gathered annually on targeted fish

species and computerized. Data are published in annual reports and scientific papers.

Users: FWS laboratory personnel.

Contact: Will Hartmann, Great Lakes Fishery

Laboratory, Ann Arbor, MI.

Reference: (22).

18. FISHNET

Content: Information collected on anadromous

fisheries in the Columbia River Basin. Data

are collected at specific locations and can be
57

19.

20.

aggregated into stem segments, by subbasin,

or compiled for the entire basin. Data include

total fish production, total basin runs, available habitat, and spawning information.

Purpose: For fishery resource management and

impact mitigation.

Geographic coverage: Regional–Columbia River

Basin (Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon,

Canada).

Taxononic coverage: Anadromous fish.

Status: Data no longer being entered into system, since April 1985. Data included are only

for chinook salmon to date. Restart for dataentry may occur during fiscal year 1986. Approximately 1,500 sets of information included, providing some data for about 1,000

stem segments.

Users: FWS Fishery Management personnel.

Contact: Wally Steuke, Office of Fisheries Management, Region 1, Portland, OR.

Reference: (51).

Coastal and Marine Bird Data Base

Content: Data consisted of migratory species

within the continental United States [waterfowl, shorebirds, sea birds, and migratory

birds) listed by region, State and various ecological units. Database provided some information on population estimates, feeding,

breeding, and seasonal habitat requirements.

Purpose: To develop habitat management

guidelines.

Geographic coverage: Regional—coastal areas.

Taxonomic coverage: Birds.

Status: Trial project; not continued.

Users: Currently none.

References: [49,64),

Coastal Area Characterization Studies

Content: Information on distribution, habitat

association, population trends or relative

abundance, and legal or protective status of

selected flora and fauna in coastal areas. Data

generated from literature and local, site-specific field files maintained by FWS or researchers.

Purpose: To identify areas where special management considerations are needed,

Geographic coverage: Regional—coastal and estuarine areas, Almost all of the Pacific and

Gulf Coasts, about 50 percent of the Atlantic

Coast (Maine, and South Carolina to Florida).

Taxonomic coverage: Birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, plants.

Status: Studies completed and published. No

more work will be done on this project.

Users: FWS, other Federal agencies, States,

others.

Contact: Harold Rienstra, Information Transfer Specialist, National Coastal Ecosystems

Team, Slidell, LA, for publications.

References: (44,64).

21. Coastal Ecological Inventory

Content: Coastal resources of the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Information includes

land-use designations, all important fish and

wildlife species and their habitats, fish and

wildlife species in need of special protection,

and species use of specific coastal areas.

Purpose: Identify areas for management considerations for fish and wildlife.

Geographic coverage: Regional—Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf coasts.

Taxonomic coverage: General habitat information for species of concern.

Status: Maps and narrative completed.

Users: FWS, other Federal agencies, States,

others.

Contact: Harold Rienstra, Information Transfer Specialist, National Coastal Ecosystems

Team, Slidell, LA, for publications.

References; (44,64).

22, Coastal and Estuarine Species Profiles

Content: Detailed information of selected

coastal and estuarine species. Data includes

food habits, distribution, habitat, and breeding information.

Purpose: To assist species planning and management in coastal areas,

Geographic coverage: Regional—coastal and estuarine areas.

Taxonomic coverage: Selected vertebrates and

invertebrates,

Status: 30 profiles completed, 50 more in some

stage of preparation.

Users; FWS, States, other Federal agencies,

others.

Contact: Team Leader, National Coastal Ecosystems Laboratory, Slidell, LA,

Reference: (44).

23. Marine and Waterbird Colony Data

Content: Colony nesting bird data collected and

synthesized in 5-year cycles for the Atlantic,

Gulf, and Pacific coasts. Data include species

occurrence, relative abundance of species

within the colony, and location information.
58

Purpose: To monitor bird populations,

Geographic coverage: Regional—coastal areas.

Taxonoznic coverage: Birds,

Status: Data are published in reports and some

are available on computers at the regional

offices. Atlantic survey done in 1975 to 1976

and never updated. Gulf coast was updated

in the early 1980s. Pacific coast and Alaska

data not updated since the 1970s.

Users: FWS, States,

Contact: Team Leader, Coastal Ecology Research

Laboratory, Slidell, LA, for publications.

Reference: (49),

24, T&E Species Sightings Data, Montana and

Wyoming

Content: Incidental sightings of endangered

species in Wyoming and Montana: bald

eagles, peregrine falcons, and grey wolves,

Data include species, location, and any additional information available from confirmed sightings by field personnel or other

people. Some data from midwinter bald eagle

survey.

Purpose: Data used as baseline to evaluate potential impacts of proposed projects in Montana and Wyoming.

Geographic Coverage: Regional—Montana and

Wyoming, and sometimes Idaho.

Taxonomic Coverage: Birds, mammals.

Status: Data entry sporadic and continuing,

Users: FWS personnel.

Contact: Wayne Brewster, Endangered Species

Staff, Helena, MT.

Reference: (12).

25. Plant Information Network

Content: Data on species of interest and benefit to wildlife that could be used in surface

mine reclamation. Species from Colorado,

Wyoming, North Dakota, Utah, and New

Mexico were included in system with information on value to wildlife, native county of

origin, wildlife food or livestock grazing

value, and water requirements,

Purpose: Data developed between 1977 and

1979 as a reference manual for people working with surface mine reclamation.

Geographic coverage: Regional–Western States.

Taxonomic coverage: Plants.

Status: System dismantled in 1982. Data available on tapes from FWS Western Energy

Land Use Team in Ft. Collins, CO. Data published as FWS/OBS-83/36.

Users: FWS, other Federal agencies.

Contact: Lee Ischinger, Western Energy and

Land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, Ft. Collins, CO,

Reference: (30).

26. RAPTOR

Content: Information on distribution, abundance, location, status, and species is collected for raptor nests within Utah, Colorado,

Wyoming, and Montana, Species included

are golden eagles, bald eagles, redtail hawks,

ferruginous hawks, prairie falcons, and others.

The system includes between 5,000 and 7,000

records of nest sitings and some habitat information where the nest was found.

Purpose: Data not used continuously but provide baseline information on raptor presence

for project impact analysis, particularly surface mining operations.

Geographic coverage: Regional—Intermountain

West; southeast Utah, West Colorado, parts

of Montana and Wyoming.

Taxonomic coverage; Birds.

Status: System regularly updated at field offices.

Regional database updated a few times each

year.

Users: FWS, States.

Contact: George Bowen, Habitat Resources, Region 6, Denver, CO.

Reference: (6).

27. Terrestrial Species Database

Content: Information on bird species diversity

relative to habitat type and habitat features

for Powder River Basin area. Habitat maps

were devised to correlate bird species diversity to habitat type.

Purpose: Data serve as a methodology model for

regional rapid assessment of habitat quality

values.

Geographic coverage: Regional–portions of

Montana and Wyoming; Powder River Basin

Taxonomic coverage: Birds.

Status: Data generated during 1978 and 1979

Has not been updated. Data published a

scientific paper and in files.

Users: Currently none.

Contact; Duane Asherin, Western Energy and

Land Use Team, Office of Biological Serv

ices, Ft. Collins, CO.

Reference: (4).

U.S. Geological Survey

1. Land Use/Land Cover Data and Maps

Content: Digital data on land use and land cow

for development of 1:250,000 and 1:100,00
59

scale maps. Land categories include wetlands, barrenlands, rangelands, forest lands,

tundra, etc., delineated down to a minimum

map unit of 10 acres.

Purpose: To provide reference maps for land

cover.

Geographic coverage: National.

Taxonomic coverage: Vegetation.

Status: Maps cover approximately 90 percent

of the United States, with index of available

maps updated each year.

Users: Federal agencies, States, others.

Contact: National Cartographic Information

Center for maps or magnetic tapes of digital

data; Midcontinent Mapping Center for

maps from Midwest States; Rocky Mountain

Mapping Center for maps of Rocky Mountain States; and Western Mapping Center for

maps in Pacific States.

Reference: (72).

 Coastal Ecological Inventory

Content: Maps include major land-use designation, important fish and wildlife species and

their habitats, and locates plant and animal

species in need of special attention.

Purpose: Maps (1:250,000 scale) compliment

coastal manuals created by FWS.

Geographic coverage: Regional—Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf coasts.

Taxonomic coverage: Plants and animals.

Status: Maps completed.

Users: Federal agencies, States, others.

Contact: National Cartographic Information

Center, Reston, VA.

Reference: (20).

Summary of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture

Similar to the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture has no single source or

clearinghouse for biological information. Two

agencies in the Department of Agriculture were

surveyed: the Soil Conservation Service and the

Forest Service. The inventories of natural resource

databases prepared for the Interagency Agreement

Relating to Classifications and Inventories of Natural Resources (20) provided a starting point for

database identification. In addition, a recent Forest Service effort to identify databases within the

agency provided additional information about this

agency (8),

Soil Conservation Service (SCS)

1. National Resources Inventories

Content: Inventories of land use and land cover,

including data on vegetation, pasture and

rangeland condition, riparian habitats, and

fish and wildlife habitats. Data collected from

permanent sample points by SCS local and

State personnel. Resolution of data accurate

to the State level and to the multi-county level

(major land resource area) in 1977 and 1982,

respectively.

Purpose: To monitor changes in land use and

land cover, identify areas for resource conservation priorities, and other purposes,

Geographic coverage: National—generally nonFederal lands.

Taxonomic coverage: Vegetation, extrapolation

about wildlife from habitat information.

Status: 1982 survey data collected, final analysis of the data occurring now.

Users: National trend data available to any

party. Data used by other Federal agencies,

States, others (individuals and conservation

groups),

Contact: Gary Norstrom, Resources Inventory

Division, Washington, DC.

Reference: (20,37).

2. National Forest-Soil Data Base

Content: Information on forest tree species in

relation to soil series and soil series to windbreak species, Data collected by SCS personnel in field studies.

Purpose; Central clearinghouse of windbreak

information and source of easily retrievable

data for conservation work and report generation.

Geographic Coverage: National—non-Federal

lands.

Taxonomic coverage; Vegetation, trees and

shrubs.

Status: Data entered and updated as they become available from field studies.

Users: SCS biologists and conservationists,

other Federal agencies, States, others.

Contact: James McClinton, South National

Technical Center, Fort Worth, TX.

Reference: (55),

3. National Range Database

Content: Data from range management plans

and range site inventories prepared by SCS

personnel, Data includes vegetation cover by
60

species and species abundance and potential

forage production,

Purpose: Reference service for range conservation inventories completed and planning tool

for range management.

Geographic coverage: National—majority of

data from private lands in Southeast States

and most western range States.

Taxonomic coverage: Range plants.

Status: Database in development stages. System

may be accessible by the end of 1986 and will

be updated approximately three to four times

annually.

Users: SCS, other Federal agencies, others.

Contact: Clifford Carter, Ecological Sciences

Section, South National Technical Center, Ft.

Worth, TX.

References: (9,47).

New England Animal Species Data Base

Content: -

Information on the distribution, habitat, feeding, and nesting substrates for about

300 terrestrial vertebrates. Data include species name, habitat type, feeding substrate,

nesting substrate, and special habitat needs,

if any. It has the capability for generating

feeding matrices and species list by county

or by State.

Purpose: To assess baseline resources in project

impact assessment.

Geographic coverage: Regional–New England

States.

Taxonomic coverage: Mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles,

Status: Data in quasi-draft form, not necessarily

an authoritative source,

Users: SCS project staff and State biologists,

Contact: Alan Anman, New England Water Resources Planning Staff, Durham, NH.

Reference: (3).

U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

Each of the nine Forest Service Regions maintain

data files on fish and/or wildlife species and their

habitats. These are known as Wildlife (and Fish)

Habitat Relationships (WHR) Programs. Included

in the listing for this agency are examples of the

WHR Programs.

1. Forest Inventory and Analysis

Content: Inventories of forest land in the continental United States, excluding Forest Service and BLM lands. Data collected from

USFS personnel with some intergovernmen2.

3.

tal support. Data are aggregated by Society

of American Foresters forest-cover types.

Purpose: To monitor forest lands.

Geographic coverage: National—forest lands

not managed by BLM or USFS.

Taxonomic coverage: Vegetation—timber and

some other forest data.

Status: Ongoing—Data updated on lo-year cycle with some States inventoried each year.

Data are automated and available at regional

level.

Users: USFS for trend analysis, other Federal

agencies, State agencies.

Contact: James T. Bones, Forest Resources Economics Research Staff, Washington, DC.

References: (20,63).

Range Analysis

Content: Continuous inventory of range condition on all national forest rangelands, including data on existing and potential vegetation.

Data tabulated and available on maps at 1

inch:1 mile scale.

Purpose: To monitor range condition on national forest lands.

Geographic coverage: National—national forest

rangelands.

Taxonomic coverage: Vegetation.

Status: Ongoing inventory procedure, data used

for FSRAMIS.

Users: Forest Service.

Contact: Range Resources Staff, Rosslyn, VA.

Reference: (47).

FSRAMIS

Content: Permittee, number of animal unit

months and animals, vegetation inventory,

site production for each range allotment.

Data on range plants generated using Range

Analysis method. FSRAMIS also will include

Wild Horse and Burro Territorial Plans; allotments designed similar to livestock allotments for horse and burro herds.

Purpose: To track allotment information.

Geographic coverage: National—national forest

lands with livestock allotments.

Taxonomic coverage: Range plants.

Status: In development stage. Region 1 has system almost complete, regions 2 and 4 only

partially completed. System will be available

at each regional office and be coded by allotment.

Users: National forest staff.

Contact; Range Resources Staff, Rosslyn, VA.

Reference: (47).
61

4.

5.

6,

RPA Range Data

Content: Data on all

States coordinated

rangelands in the United

by the Forest Service from

forest plans, from ‘BLM grazing Environmental Impact Statements, and from SCS in

their National Resources Inventories data.

Data are aggregated at ecosystem level. Data

are 75 to 80 percent accurate at the ecosystem level.

Purpose: To prepare summaries of range condition, trends, productivity, and potential.

Geographic coverage: National—all rangelands.

Taxorromic coverage: Range vegetation.

Status: Ongoing effort, with data currently being updated for the 1989 assessment.

Users: Federal agencies, States, others.

Contact: Linda Joyce, Resource Specialist,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO.

Reference: (47).

Research Natural Areas

Content: Continuing inventory for existing and

proposed Research Natural Areas, Data include timber and range vegetation types,

Purpose: To determine whether areas proposed

for RNA status contain vegetation types not

represented in the RNA system,

Geographic coverage: National—Forest Service

RNAs in 33 States and Puerto Rico.

Taxonornic coverage: Vegetation.

Status; Continuous data-entry and system update. Data file maintained by The Nature

Conservancy.

Users: USFS, others.

Contact: Russell Burns, Timber Management

Research Staff, Rosslyn, VA.

Reference: (zo).

Resource Planning Act (RPA) Wildlife Data

Content: Data include terrestrial and aquatic

vertebrates listed by Forest Service Region,

State, national forest, and generally by ecosystem, vegetation type, and seral stage, Data

cover habitat associations and detail population estimates for consumptive-use species.

Purpose; Information used to identify trends in

the wildlife and fish portion of the RPA

assessment.

Geographic coverage: National—all forests,

ranges, and croplands in the 1989 assessment.

Taxonomic coverage: !’vlammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish.

Status: Data currently being updated for 1989

assessment, Joint Forest Service RPA and

Soil Conservation Service RCA assessment

in 1989.

Users: USFS, SCS, other Federal agencies,

States, others.

Contact: Thomas Hoekstra, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, Ft. Collins, CO.

David Chalk, West National Technical Center, Soil Conservation Service, Portland, OR.

Reference: (29).

7, RUN WILD

Content: Data on terrestrial vertebrates and fish

by county and national forest. Data include

habitat association and information on legal

and protected status of the species,

Purpose: To assist fish and wildlife management planning and impact analysis.

Geographic coverage; Arizona and New

Mexico.

Taxonomic coverage: Mammals, birds, reptiles,

amphibians, fish—approximately 1,000 species.

Status: Updated approximately annually. Information available on microfiche, in publications, and in computer programs,

Users: USFS, other Federal agencies, States,

others.

Contact: Rick Wadleigh, Wildlife Unit, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM.

Reference: (65),

8. WILDHAB

Content; Data on amphibians, reptiles, birds,

mammals, and fishes by county, State, and

national forest. Data includes habitat association, special habitat features, relative abundance, reproductive potential and performance, food habits, and legal or protective

status.

Purpose: To assist fish and wildlife management planning and impact analysis.

Geographic coverage: Regional—Oregon, Washington, and northern California.

Taxonomic coverage: Mammals, birds, reptiles,

amphibians, fish.

Status: Updated periodically as data become

available. Data available in publications and

through computer system in Ft. Collins, CO.

Users: USFS, State, others—system difficult to

access,

Contact: Dick Holthausen, Fish and Wildlife

Staff, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland,

OR.

Reference: (68)
9. Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE)

10.

11.

Phase II

Content: Comprehensive inventory of national

forest roadless and undeveloped areas, Data

on land cover (vegetation) and wildlife species within these areas are very general. Data

coded by location and physiographic region.

(NOTE: Data from National Forest Management Plans generally more accurate than

RARE data file,)

Purpose: To identify areas with potential wilderness designations.

Geographic coverage: Regional—national forest

roadless areas.

Taxonomic coverage: Vegetation cursory wildlife information.

Status; Data still computerized but generally

outdated with limited reliability. System

completed in 1979 with sporadic updates and

revisions.

Users: USFS, infrequently.

Contact: Land Management Planning Staff

within each regional office.

Reference; (33).

Inventory Database for Timber Management

Planning

Content: Data on timber resources for each of

the national forests. Data updated about

every 10 years and stored at each forest,

Purpose: To support USFS planning efforts.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—national forest lands.

Taxonomic coverage: Vegetation—timber.

Status: Ongoing data collection on site-specific

basis.

Users: USFS Planners at forest, regional, and

national levels, States, others (conservation

groups).

Contact: Forest Service planning staff on each

national forest.

Reference: (20).

Fuels Inventory

Content; Site-specific inventories of fuelwood

in national forests are completed on the local level. Inventories are conducted on an asneeded basis, and no consistent inventory

procedures are used.

Purpose: To determine fire hazards and treatment needs, and for annual reports on acres

treated to reduce fuel build-up.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—site-specific

areas in national forests.

Taxonomic coverage: Vegetation.

12.

13.

Status: Ongoing data collection on each forest

as needed.

Users: Forest managers to determine timber

treatments.

Contact: Forest Management Staff in each national forest.

Reference: (20)0

Timber Stand Analysis and Silviculture Prescription

Content: Stand-specific inventories of timber

supply and condition on approximately 5

million acres of forest land each year,

Purpose: To assist in national forest planning

and monitor silviculture operations.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—commercial

forest stand on national forests.

Taxonomic coverage: Vegetation.

Status: Continuous inventory collection at the

forest level, Some data are automated and

others are available in map form.

Users; Forest managers, States.

Contact: Forest Management Staff on each national forest.

Reference: (20).

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (WHR)

Programs

Content: Data on species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals by county and national

forest. Species included are resident or common migrants to State, Data include habitat

association, special habitat features, legal or

protective status and general food, cover and

reproduction needs. Habitat classification

systems differ between zones. Data presented

as species note (one-page summary), species

distribution map, and species/habitat matrix.

Data published and available in computerized form by zone. The four California zones

are listed below,

Purpose: To assist fish and wildlife management planning and impact analysis.

Reference: (28,32).

a) Western Sierra WHR Program

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—selected national forests in California.

Taxonomic coverage: Birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles.

Status: System available through Ft. Collins, CO,

and in published form. Data not updated since

1980.

Users: Forest Service, other Federal agencies,

States, others.
63

Contact: William Laudenslayer, Wildlife Staff,

Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA.

b) North Coast Cascades WHR Program

c)

d)

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—-northwestern

California National Forests,

Taxonomic coverage: Mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles,

Status: Data compiled, published, and computerized in 1980 and 1981. Data not updated since

publication, Data also available on microcomputer (32).

Users: Forest Service, other Federal agencies,

States, others.

Contact: William Laudenslayer, Wildlife Staff,

Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA.

North East Interior WHR Program

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—interior national forests from Lassen into Great Basin,

Taxonomic coverage: Mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles.

Status: Data published and computerized from

1980 through 1982. No updates have been

made.

Users: Forest Service, other Federal agencies,

States, others,

Contact: William Laudenslayer, Wildlife Staff,

Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA.

Southern California WHR Program

Geographic coverage: Sub-Sta~e—selected national forests in southern California.

Taxonomic coverage: Mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles,

Status: Publication in draft stage. Maps and computerization not completed. In this zone, habitat matrices will be designed differently from

other California zones. The system will not

have species notes.

Users: Forest Service, other Federal agencies,

States, others.

Contact: William Laudenslayer, Wildlife Staff,

Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA,

Summary of the U.S. Department of

Commerce, National Oceangraphic and

Atmospheric Administration

NOAA maintains a series of data centers within

the Administration: the National Environmental

Data Referral Service (NEDRES) and the National

Ocean Data Center are examples. Data available

from these centers include biological inventories

from a variety of sources within the Administration. The following list provides examples of the

kinds of data available within three different services within NOAA: the Office of Oceanography and

Marine Assessment of the National Ocean Office;

the National Marine Fisheries Service; and the National Oceanographic Data Center within the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service.

Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment,

National Ocean Service

1. Marine Living Resource Database

Content: Data collected and mapped on approximately 100 vertebrates and selected invertebrates found in the Exclusive Economic

Zone (EEZ), Species include marine mammals, some coastal birds, fish of economic or

sport value or forage value for economic species and invertebrates of economic value.

Data on each species include location as

juveniles and adults, qualitative information

on concentration within a given area, and

digitized locational data for mapping. Database also contains information on pollution

discharges in coastal counties and population and economic data by coastal county.

Purpose: To monitor marine resources relative

to human activities in EEZ.

Geographic coverage: Regional—coastal areas.

Taxonomic coverage: Mammals, birds, fish, invertebrates.

Status: East coast file completed in 1978 and

1979 and has not been updated. Gulf coast

data compiled between 1980 and 1983 and

has not been updated. Pacific data compilation just getting started, Arctic Alaska data

compilation began in 1980 and is just finishing,

Users: Other Federal agencies, NOAA, States.

Contact: Tim Goodspeed, Strategic Assessment

Branch, Ocean Assessment Division, Rockville, MD,

References; (17,25).

2. National Estuarine Inventory

Content: Estuarine areas throughout the coterminous United States, Much of the data

cover physical parameters of estuarine areas

but biological data and land use are included,

Purpose: Data are designed to assist in assessment of resource uses in coastal and estuarine systems. A goal of the system is to

evaluate and identify marine and estuarine

resource development strategies that result

in maximum public benefit and minimum

environmental damage,
64

Geographic coverage: Regional—coastal and estuarine areas.

Taxonomic coverage: Vegetation.

Status: Atlas in draft form with final product

expected in early 1986. The database is being developed.

Users: NOAA, Federal agencies, States, others.

Contact: Strategic Assessment Branch, Ocean

Assessments Division, Rockville, MD.

Reference: (56).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

The NMFS Annual Report for 1983 to 1984 on

marine mammals details 19 studies conducted on

marine mammals within the four NMFS regions.

Two of the inventories discussed in the Annual Report are presented here. Additionally, the National

Marine Fisheries Service maintains four regional

fisheries research and management centers and

associated labs: The North Atlantic in Woods Hole,

MA; the South Atlantic in Miami, FL; the Pacific

Southwest in La Jolla, CA; and the Northwest and

Alaska in Seattle, WA. Each Center maintains data

files for biological resources under their jurisdiction. Included here are examples of biological databases from the Northwest and Alaska Fisheries

Center.

1. Fisheries of the United States

2

Content: Information on commercial catch or

landings by U.S. fishermen and foreign fishing vessels within the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone.

Purpose: To monitor harvests and trends in

fishing industry.

Geographic coverage: Regional—indexes of

landings within the Fishery Conservation

Zone.

Taxonomic coverage: Finfish and shellfish of

economic or commercial importance.

Status: Data summarized in annual reports

along with numerous statistics about the fishing industry and markets. The most recent

report includes preliminary information for

1984, Raw data are stored in the Fisheries

Statistics Office of NMFS.

Users: NOAA, States, others.

Contact: Commercial Fisheries Statistics Office,

Washington, DC.

Reference: (19).

Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey

Content: Data on recreational fisheries caught

in marine waters. Surveys are summarized

in reports that include estimates of number

and weight of fish caught as well as species

information collected from telephone interviews and field surveys.

Purpose: To monitor fishery harvests.

Geographic coverage: Regional—marine waters

along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coast.

Taxcmomic coverage: Finfish of recreational importance.

Status: Most recent report covers fish catches

and species from 1981 and 1982. Reports

compiled on a time-allowed basis.

Users: NOAA, States.

Contact: Recreational Fisheries Statistics Office, Washington, DC.

Reference: (18).

3. Bowhead Whale Census

Content: Information on populations and location of bowhead whales in the Pacific.

Purpose: To develop population estimates of

bowheads in the Pacific. Data used to establish takes and harvestable populations.

Geographic coverage: Regional—Pacific marine

areas.

Taxonomic coverage: Bowhead whales, single

species.

Status: Census of whale populations is ongoing.

Users: NMFS, Congress, others.

Contact: National Marine Mammal Laboratory,

Settle, WA.

Reference: (57).

4. Icthyoplankton Survey Database

Content: Data on icthyoplankton resources

from grid of stations visited approximately

quarterly each year. Data collected by Soviet

research vessels as well as NMFS vessels, under cooperative agreements. Approximately

200 species are surveyed.

Purpose: To estimate spawning biomass of commercially important fish species.

Geographic coverage: Regional—Pacific Ocean

areas.

Taxonomic coverage: Fish—icthyoplankton.

Status: Data collection ongoing annually. From

California to Washington, data have been

generated and computerized for past years.

Data from Alaska area available since around

1973, Data from the Bering Sea available

since around 1975.

Users: NMFS staff.

Contact: Arthur Kendall, Resource Ecology and

Fisheries Management Section, Alaska and

Northwest Fisheries Center, Seattle, WA.

Reference: (16).
65

5. RACE Ground Fish Database

Content: Wide series of monitoring and special

study inventories of biological resources

within their jurisdiction, Monitoring surveys

are done every 3 years in the eastern Bering

Sea, Aleutian area, Gulf of Alaska, and along

the Pacific coast from northern California to

northern Washington. Data generated from

trawling efforts, acoustic or “semi-pelagic”

surveys, trapping surveys and intensive,

sight specific studies (e. g., on sea mounts in

Gulf of Alaska). Data grouped taxonomically

and sorted by location, inventory effort, and

taxa.

Purpose: Data create time series of change in

abundance, species distribution, and age

structure.

Geographic coterage: Regional–northwest coast

of coterminous United States.

Taxonornic co~erage: 2,400 species and species’

groups of fish, aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates.

Status: System computerized and interactive,

Data updated continuously.

Users: NMFS, States, Fisheries Commissions

(e.g., International Pacific Halibut Commission), private researchers.

Contact: Susan Picquelle, Data Manager, Resource Assessment and Conservation Engineering Center, Alaska and Northwest Fisheries Center, Seattle, WA.

teferences.’ [2,42).

6. Northern Fur Seal Study

Content: Information includes the age of fur

seals harvested, the number of adult males

on the rookeries and hauling grounds and

number of pups and older seals that die on

the rookeries and adjacent beaches. Behavioral studies also are ongoing,

Purpose: Studies are ongoing on potential

causes of decline of northern fur seal population levels.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—Pribilof Islands, mainly St, Paul and St, George.

Taxonomic coverage: Northern fur seal, single

species data.

Status: Studies on behavior, breeding, and take

of the northern fur seal are ongoing.

Users.’ NOAA, States, others.

Contact: National Marine Mammal Laboratory,

Seattle, WA.

Reference: (57).

National Environmental Satellite,

Data and Information Service

1. National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC)

Content: NODC provides a clearinghouse for

physical, chemical, and biological data collected both by U.S. agencies within and

outside of NOAA and data collected under

international agreement. Examples of the

biological data files available through NODC

are listed below.

Users: Available to anyone; fees charged to recover operating costs.

Contact: NODC User Services Branch, Washington, DC.

Reference: (36),

a) File 002, Benthic Macrofauna

Content: Raw data on number of individuals and

mass of organisms of macrofauna.

Purpose: To provide baseline information on

population densities and distribution,

Geographic coverage; Sub-State—Mid-Atlantic

and U.S. Gulf coast.

Taxonomic coverage: Bottom dwelling macrofauna.

Status: Data collected from 1975 to 1979.

b) File 009, Marine Bacteria

Content: Data from studies of water column and

bottom in numbers per unit volume.

Purpose: To identify density and location of

organisms.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—U.S. Gulf coast.

Taxonomic coverage: Heterotrophic, hydrocarbonoclastic, or halophilic bacteria.

Status: Data collected from 1975 to 1979.

c) File 028, Phytoplankton

Content: Data collected on abundance, distribution, and productivity.

Purpose: To identify primary production in marine areas.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—coastal Alaska,

Puget Sound, and U.S. Gulf of Mexico.

Taxonomic coverage: Vegetation-phytoplankton.

Status; Data collected from 1960 to present.

d] File 030, Intertidal Organisms and Habitats

e)

Content: Data on species abundance and distribution of organisms,

Purpose: To provide baseline information.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—coastal Alaska.

Taxonomic coverage: Vegetation and aquatic

animals.

Status: Data collected from 1974 to 1980.

File 033, Marine Bird Sighting, Ship/Aircraft

Census
66

Content: Sightings recorded from more or less

fixed transect routes.

Purpose: To identify population density and distribution.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—coastal Alaska

and North Pacific.

Taxonomic Coverage: Birds.

Status: Data collected from 1975 to 1982.

f) File 034, Marine Bird Sighting, Land Census

Content: Recorded sightings along fixed transects.

Purpose; To establish population densities, distribution, and breeding locales.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—coastal Alaska.

Taxonomic coverage: Birds.

Status: Data collected from 1975 to 1980.

g) File 100, Intertidal/Subtidal Organisms and

Habitats

Content: Population data on species with some

data on individuals, such as age, sex, and

measurements.

Purpose: To establish population densities and

distributions by species.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State–Puget Sound.

Taxonomic coverage: Aquatic animals, vegetation.

Status: Data collected from 1974 to 1979.

h) File 123, Fish/Shellfish Surveys

Content: Data from mid-water and bottom tow

catches on weight, volume, and number per

unit volume by total catch and by species.

Purpose: To establish density and distribution

measures.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—coastal Alaska,

Puget Sound, U.S. Gulf coast.

Taxonomic coverage: Aquatic animals–mostly

commercially important fish and shellfish

species.

Status: Data collected from 1975 to present.

i) File 124, Zooplankton

Content: Data from studies of marine populations and ecosystems.

Purpose: To establish population abundances,

distributions, and productivities.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—coastal Alaska,

Puget Sound, and U.S. Gulf coast.

Taxonomic coverage: Aquatic animals,

Status: Data collected from 1975 to present.

j) File 127, Marine Animal Sighting and Census

Content: Data from individual, random sightings

and from sightings during systematic surveys

of populations and individuals.

Purpose: To identify population densities, distributions, activities, migratory routes, and

breeding locales.

Taxonomic coverage: Aquatic organisms, mammals.

Status: Data collected from 1981 to 1982.

k) File 132, Benthic Organisms

Content: Data from point sampling, photographic surveys, etc., along the ocean floor.

Purpose: To identify abundance, distribution,

and biomass of populations.

Geographic coverage: Sub-State—coastal Alaska,

and U.S. Gulf of Mexico.

Taxonomic coverage: Aquatic animals, vegetation.

Status: Data collected from 1971 to present.

Miscellaneous Federal Agencies

Department of Defense

Department of Defense agencies inventory resources on military installations that are sufficient

size for natural resource management applications.

These inventories are embodied in resource management plans. For example, the Marine Corps has

natural resource plans for 10 of its installations.

These plans cover endangered species and general

fish and wildlife, and 6 of the 10 installations also

have timber management plans (1). Likewise, the

U.S. Air Force has 131 current natural resource

management plans in 44 States or U.S. territories.

All military installations maintain some form of

data on threatened or endangered species that reside or migrate through the installations. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers collects

baseline biological information on projects and

activities under its jurisdiction. Although the Corps

of Engineers is not considered a principal source

of biological data, an example of the kind of data

they manage is provided below.

Army Corps of Engineers (COE)

1. Benthic Resources Assessment Project

Content: Technique for analyzing bottom sediments for food resources that could be available for fish. Data generation is currently

underway in four COE districts.

Purpose: Based on food availability, determinations are made on capability of area to sustain

fish populations.

Geographic coverage: Regional—Chesapeake

Bay, Mississippi Sound, others.

Taxonomic coverage: Benthic invertebrates.

Status: Pilot project stage. Results from initial

surveys will be published in fiscal year 1986.

Users: COE Districts.
67

1.

2.

3

4.

5.

6,

7.

8.

9.

Contact: Project Manager, Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Reference: (45).

Appendix A References

Acock, Marlo, U.S. Department of Defense, Marine

Corps, Land Resources and Environmental Branch,

personal communication, Washington, DC, Nov. 13,

1985.

Alton, Miles, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest and

Alaska Fisheries Center, personal communication,

Seattle, WA, Nov. 6, 1985.

Anman, Alan, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service, New England Water Resources

Planning Staff, personal communication, Durham,

NH, NOV. 8, 1985.

Asherin, Duane, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,

Western Energy and Land Use Team, personal communication, Ft. Collins, CO, Oct. 4, 1985.

Birch, John, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management, Division of Fire and Aviation

Management, personal communication, Washington,

DC, July 25, 1985.

Bowen, George, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Division of Habitat

Resources, personal communication, Denver, CO,

NOV. 4, 1985.

Brimberg, Bill, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge Management, personal communication, Washington, DC, July

25, 1985.

Carter, Alan, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Office of Information Services, personal

communication, Rosslyn, VA, June 6, 1985.

Carter, Clifford, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service, South National Technical Center, Ecological Sciences Section, personal communication, Ft. Worth, TX, Jan. 23, 1986.

10. Churin, Nick, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of Biological Services,

personal communication, Washington, DC, June 21,

1985.

11. Collins, Bernie, U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service, Division of Rivers, personal

communication, Washington, DC, June 17, 1985.

12. Crete, Ron, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Office, personal

communication, Helena, MT, Nov. 6, 1985.

13. Dahl, Thomas, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory,

personal communication, Washington, DC, Aug. 1,

1985.

14. Davis, G. E., “Channel Islands NP Develops Microcomputer Based Information System, ” Park Science—

A Resource Management Bulletin 4[3]:10-11 (Corvallis, OR: U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Park Service, spring 1984).

15. Dewry, George, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species,

personal communication, Ballston, VA, Nov. 5, 1985.

16. Dunn, Jean, U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Northwest Fisheries

Center, Resource Assessment Division, personal

communication, Sandpoint, ID, Nov. 5, 1985.

17. Ehler, C. N., and Basta, D.J., “Information for Assess18,

19.

20.

21.

22

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28

29.

ing the Future Use of Ocean Resources, Marine

Pollution Bulletin 13(6):186-191, 1982.

Essig, Ron, U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Statistics Office, personal

communication, Washington, DC, June 5, 1985.

Fitzgibbons, Don, U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

National Marine Fisheries Service, personal communication, Washington, DC, June 5, 1985.

5 WAY, “Interagency Agreement Related to Classifications and Inventories of Natural Resources, ”

Inventories of Natural Resources—Agency Contacts,

unpublished staff paper, Washington, DC, 1985,

Foley, M. K., Diamant, R., Allen, J, R., and Mitchell,

N. J., “North Atlantic Regional Highlights, ” Park

Science–A Resource Management Bulletin 4(3):14-

15 (Corvallis, OR: U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service, spring 1984),

Frank, Tony, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory,

personal communication, Ann Arbor, MI, Oct. 22,

1985.

Frondorf, Ann, U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service, Natural Resources, Operations

Support Staff, personal communication, Washington,

DC, Jan. 8, 1986.

Gill, William, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species,

persona] communication, Ballston, VA, Apr. 8, 1985.

Goodspeed, Tim, U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Office of Oceanographic and Marine Assessment,

Strategic Assessment Branch, personal communication, Rockville, MD, Nov. 5, 1985.

Gravatt, Glenn (Systems Analyst), U.S. Department

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered

Species Program, personal communication, Washington, DC, Jan. 13, 1986.

Gregg, William, U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service, Man and the Biosphere Program, personal communication, Washington, DC,

June 6, 1985.

Ham, Joseph, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, personal communication, San Francisco, CA, Oct. 29,

1985.

Hoekstra, Thomas, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Ex-
68

periment Station, personal communication, Ft. Collins, CO, June 25, 1985.

30. Ischinger, Lee, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services,

Western Energy and Land Use Team, Wetland Ecology Group, personal communication, Ft. Collins, CO,

Oct. 21, 1985.

31, Kane, Don, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management, Division of Rangeland Resources, personal communication, Washington, DC,

July 25, 1985.

32. Laudenslayer, William, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest, Fish and

Wildlife Staff, personal communication, Nevada City,

CA, NOV. 5, 1985.

33, Lundeen, Dean, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land Management Planning Staff, personal communication, Washington, DC, Nov. 14,

1985.

34. Miller, Harvey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, personal communication, Golden, CO, Oct.

21, 1985.

35. Multer, Ell-Piret, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Columbia Fisheries Research

Lab, personal communication, Columbia, MO, June

1985.

36. National Oceanographic Data Center, National

Oceanographic Data Center Users Guide, Key to

Oceanographic Records Documentation No. 14,

Washington, DC, 1984 (updated 1985).

37. Nordstrom, Gary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Soil Conservation Service, Resource Inventory Division, personal communication, Washington, DC, June

25, 1985.

38. Olson, R. J., Review of Existing Environment] and

Natural Resource Data Bases, ORNL/TM-8928 (Oak

Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May

1984).

39. Osterhaus, Cary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Division of Forestry, personal communication, Washington, DC, July 25, 1985.

40. Peterson, Larry, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Division of Resource

Systems, personal communication, Denver, CO, Jan.

13, 1986.

41. Peterson, Larry, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Division of Resource

Systems, personal communication, Denver, CO, June

17, 1985.

42. Picquelle, Susan, U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest and

Alaska Fisheries Center, Resource Assessment and

Conservation Engineering Center, persona] communication, Seattle, WA, Nov. 6, 1985.

43, Reed, Porter, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory,

personal communication, St. Petersburg, FL, Aug. 1,

1985.

44. Rienstra, Harold, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Coastal Ecosystems Team, personal communication, Slidell, LA, July

26, 1985.

45. Saucier, Roger, U.S. Department of Defense, Army,

Corps of Engineers, Waterway Experiment Station,

personal communication, Vicksburg, MS, July 30,

1985.

46. Schamberger, M., Farmer, A. H., and Terrell, A. W.,

“Habitat Suitability Index Models: Introduction, ”

FWS/OBS-82/10, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,

Ft. Collins, CO, February 1982.

47. Schlatterer, Ed, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Division of Range Management, personal

communication, Rosslyn, VA, June 10 and July 15,

1985.

48, Schulze, Vern, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Division of Wild Horses

and Burros, personal communication, Washington,

DC, July 25, 1985.

49. Shanks, Larry, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Office of Program Development,

personal communication, Washington, DC, August

1985.

50. Smith, LaVerne, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species,

personal communication, Ballston, VA, Nov. 5, 1985.

51. Steuke, W., presentation of FISHNET database management system at National Workshop on MicroComputer Application in Fish and Wildlife Management, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO, Oct.

10, 1985.

52. Stewart, Arthur, U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service, Division of Interagency Resources, personal communication, Washington, DC,

June 6, 1984.

53. Tautin, John, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Office of Migratory Bird Management, personal

communication, Laurel, MD, July 25, 1985.

54. Tiner, R. W., Wetlands of the United States: Current

Status and Recent Trends (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

1984).

55. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, National Forest–Soil Data Base User’s Handbook, October 1985.

56. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment,

Ocean Assessment Division, Strategic Assessment

Branch, National Estuarine Inventory, unpublished

mimeograph and map, Rockville, MD.

57. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

Annual Report 1983/84, Washington, DC, June 1984.

58. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Fish and Wildlife Reference Service News-
69

letters, Mar} Nickum (cd.) (Rockville, MI): Informatics, multiple dates).

~{]. [J. S. [)c~pa rt rnent of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Ser\ice, Di\’ision of Ecological Ser\ices, “Habita t

Evaluation Procedures, ” IOZ ESM, 1980.

60. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Ser\rice, Den\’er Service Center, NPFLORA Status Re-

]mrt, Fiscal Year IW4 Science Section, unpublished

report, (l; tober 1984.

61. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Office of Information Management, “In\’entory

of NPS Microcomputer Soft\vare System s,” unpublished report, January 1984.

62. U.S. En\rironmental Protection Agenc}, Office of I,ibrary Sjsterns and Services, lln~ironmental Database

and .Ifudel Direc tor~ r, ~rols. I and 2, Washington, DC,

1 ~j[j :3 .

63. Ian Sickle, Charles, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Ser\’ice, Forest Resources/Resou r(; e Evaluation, personal communication, Rossl}’n, L’A, June 1 0

and 14, 1985.

64. L’incent, hlarj, “Information on Environmental

Databases, ” unpublished staff paper (Ft. Bel\oir, VA:

[~,S, Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Februarj’ 1983).

[;5. 11’adleigb, Rick, {J. S. Department of A,gricu]ture, Forest Ser\’i(; e, South \\restern Regional Office, IVildlife

[;I1 it, personal communication, Albuquerque, Nhl,

O(:t. 29, 1985.

66. ~$’ag~oner, Gar~r, [J. S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Ser\ice, Geographic Information S\’stems, Denver Service Center, personal communication, June 24, 1985.

67. Waggoner, Robert, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, Di\ision of Resource

Systems, Denver Federal Center, personal communication, Denver, CO, Aug. 2, 1985.

68. Warren, Nancy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Fish

and Wildlife Staff, personal communication, Portland, OR, Oct. 29, 1985.

69, White, P. S., and Renfro, L. A., “Vascular Plants of

Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Southern Appalachian Biotic Province: A Computerized

Data Base,” unpublished report, U.S. Department of

the Interior, Great Smoky Mountains National Park,

Uplands Field Research Laboratory, Gatlinburg, TN,

hlarch 1985.

70. Woosley, Terry, U.S. Department of the Interior, 13ureau of I.and Management, Cultural and Wilderness

Resources, Division of Recreation, personal communication, t~ashington, DC, July 25, 1985.

71, Yardas, D., Krupnick, A, J., Peskin, H, hl., and Barrington, W., Director~f of En~Tironrnenta] Asset Databases and J’aluation Studies (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1982),

72. }’onke, Jane, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, National Cartographic Information

Center, personal communication, Reston, VA, Jan. 22,

1986.
Appendix B

List of Acronyms in Test

ACM

ADP

AUM

APHIS

ASC

BIA

BLM

CGIS

COE

CRS

DBMS

DOD

EEZ

EIS

EPA

ESA

ESIS

FS

—Association for Computing Machinery

—automated data processing

—animal unit month (range forage needed

to feed one cow and her calf for 1

month)

—Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

—Association of Systematic Collections

—Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior

–Bureau of Land Management, U.S.

Department of the Interior

—Canada Geographic Information System

—Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army

—Congressional Research Service, U.S.

Congress

—database-management system

—Department of Defense

—Exclusive Economic Zone

—Environmental Impact Statement

—Environmental Protection Agency

—Endangered Species Act

—Endangered Species Information System Data Base

—Forest Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture

FSRAMIS —Forest Service Range Analysis and

FWS

FY

GIS

GRASS

IAALC

IEEE

IHICS

MFWI S

MMC

M M S

NA

Management Information System Data

Base

—Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

–fiscal year (October 1 to September 30

for Federal Government]

—geographic information system

—Geographical Resources Analysis Support System Data Base

—Interagency Assessment and Appraisal

Liaison Committee

—Institute of Electronic and Electrical

Engineers.

—Integrated Habitat Inventory and Classification System

—Multi-state Fish and Wildlife Information System

—Marine Mammal Commission

—Minerals Management Service

—National Arboretum, U.S. Department

of Agriculture

NEDRES —National Environmental Data Referral

Service

NEPA —National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS —National Marine Fisheries Service,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

70

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce

NOAA —National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce

NP —National Park

NPFLORA—National Park Flora Data Base

NPS

NRI

OBS

ORNL

OTA

RACE

RAIDS

RARE

RCA

RNA

RPA

RSI

Scs

S1

—National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

—National Resources Inventories

–Office of Biological Services, Fish and

Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of

the Interior

—Oak Ridge National Laboratory

—Office of Technology Assessment,

U.S. Congress

—Resource Assessment and Conservation Engineering

—Riparian/Aquatic Information Data

System

—Roadless Area Review and Evaluation

—Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act

—Research Natural Area

—Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act

—Range Site Inventory Data Base

—Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

—Smithsonian Institution

SIGMOD –Special Interest Group for Management of Data

SOMA —Spotted Owl Management Area

STORMS —Intensive Forest Survey Inventories

STRI

SVIM

T&E

TNC

TPCC

USDA

USFS

USGS

WHR

5 WAY

Data Base

—Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute

–Soil Vegetation Inventory Method

Data Base

–Threatened and Endangered (Species)

—The Nature Conservancy

—Timber Production Capability Classification Data Base

—U.S. Department of Agriculture

—U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture

—U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior

—Wildlife Habitat Relationships

—Interagency Agreement Relating to

Classifications and Inventories of Natural Resources
Appendix C

Glossary of Terms

Attribute: A characteristic; for example, attributes

of data include record length, record format,

data set name, and so on.

Baseline: The standard from which change is

measured.

Biological diversity: The variety and variability

within and among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur.

Biota: The living organisms of a region.

Bit: Contraction of “binary digit. ” A bit is the

smallest unit of information in a binary system

of notation (8 bits equals 1 byte).

Byte: A sequence of adjacent binary digits (bits)

operated on as a unit; the minimum code necessary to specify a single character (e. g., “A”).

Communities: Aggregation of organisms characterized by a distinctive combination of two or

more ecologically related species (e. g., deciduous forest).

Data: The plural of datum.

Data bank: An organized collection of data,

Database: A structured collection of information

as an entity in itself, or a collection of related files

treated as an entity, which can be manipulated.

Database-management system (DBMS): A software system that provides access to a database

and accommodates a variety of different applications using the same data.

Data element: A class or category of data based on

natural or assigned relationships.

Data file: A collection of related data records organized in a specific manner.

Datum: A piece of information. Normally conveys

little information as an independent item, but

can convey information when used with other

items of data.

Digital: In the form of numbers from O to 9.

Documentation: The creation, collection, organization, storage, citation, and dissemination of recorded information.

Ecosystem: An ecological community together

with its physical environment, considered as a

unit.

Ecotype: Genetically distinct population within the

same species adapted to different environments.

Fauna: Organisms of the animal kingdom.

Flora: Organisms of the plant kingdom.

Gene: A chemical unit of hereditary information

that can be passed from one generation to

another.

Genus: A category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual

characteristics,

Geographic information system (GIS): A special

data system that incorporates explicit spatial

data.

Habitat: The place or type of site where a plant or

animal naturally or normally lives, grows, or

reproduces.

Hardware: Physical equipment, as opposed to a

computer program or method of use; for example, mechanical, magnetic, electrical, or electronic devices.

Interspecies: Between different species.

Inventory: On-site collection of data on natural resources and their properties.

Magnetic storage: The storage of data by means of

devices that use the magnetic properties of storage materials such as magnetic tapes and films.

Mainframe: A large computer system capable of

supporting the activities of many users on an essentially simultaneous basis. Computing capacity, speed, and storage exceed that of the minior micro-computer,

Memory: The capacity of a computer to store and

recall information.

Microcomputer: A small computer designed principally for use by an individual.

Minicomputer: A small computer that is generally

configured for simultaneous use by a small number of people. Larger and more powerful than

a microcomputer.

Modem: A piece of hardware that converts computer codes into signals that can be transmitted

over telephone lines and reconverts such signals

into computer codes.

Nutrient cycling: The process by which substances

or minerals are transferred among organisms

within a given location.

On-site: Within the natural or original environment.

Organism: A living being.

Phenotype: An observable characteristic of an organism.

Population: A group of organisms (of the same species) occupying a specific geographic area.

Remote sensing: Any means of gaining information without direct contact.

Resolution: The level of detail achieved in an in71
72

ventory; for example, data is described as highresolution if the inventory provided information

on biological resources in minute detail.

Software: A set of programs that provide the operational structure of a data processing system.

Species: A taxonomic category ranking immediately below genus, and including closely related,

morphologically similar individuals that actually

or potentially interbreed.

Subspecies: A taxon of distinct, geographically separated complexes of genes, immediately below

species,

Taxon: A taxonomic group or entity (plural: taxa).

Taxonomy: A hierarchical system of classifying

organisms that best reflects the totality of similarities and differences.

Telecommunication: Data transmission between a

computer system and remotely located devices

via a unit that performs the necessary format

conversion and controls the rate of transmission.

Voucher specimens: Specimens of plants or animals collected and preserved for the purpose of

taxonomic identification or verification.

Wildlife: Living, nondomesticated animals.