Vegetation Mapping Projects What works What doesnt

1
Vegetation Mapping ProjectsWhat worksWhat
doesnt ?

• More than just a map

2
NPS/USGS Vegetation Mapping Projects

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

3
Background

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

4
Background

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

5
Big Mistake 1

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

6
Big Mistake 2

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

7
Big Mistake 3

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

8
Yet another mistake

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

9
What should you do?

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

10
Requirements

• Meet NPS overall management policies, standards
  and guidelines
• Conform to Federal Geographic Data Committee
  standards
• metadata, transfer, classification etc.
• Has a nationally consistent, hierarchical,
  classification scheme
• Meet National Map Accuracy Standards
• Thematic accuracy gt80 per class
• Scale of 124,000
• Minimum mapping unit of 0.5 hectare

11
Major steps for each Park

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

12
Products from the program

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

13
FGDC National Vegetation Classification System

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

14
Build a team

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

15
More team

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

16
Management

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

17
More Management

• Keep projects moving
• Dont stop and re-start
• Ask for help when you need it (or before)
• Coordinate with the national office

18
Mapping beyond the NVCS

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

19
Relationship with FIREPRO

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

20
New Models

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

21
What else is new?

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

22
More?

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

23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
LESSONS LEARNED working with the NVC within the
VMP

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

29
WHAT TO DO NEXT?

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

30
More Information

• Visit the Veg Mapping Homepage
• http//biology.usgs.gov/npsveg

31
Thanks

• Mike Story and Chris Lea
• NPS IM
• [phone] [phone]
• mike_story_at_nps.gov
• chris_lea_at_nps.gov