This workshop was convened by an invitation from the Assistant Director of Refuges and Wildlife to all Regions to send representatives to review the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS). The gathering included people from throughout the United States who would ultimately be users of the standard, with a heavy emphasis on botanists/vegetation specialists and GIS staff. Participants were largely from the Service, but also included people from the US Geological Survey-Biological Resources Division, National Park Service, and Ducks Unlimited.
The workshop opened with a brief statement from Skip Ladd, Assistant Regional Director for Refuges in Region 6. Skip reviewed similar efforts including NWI, and encouraged the group in their efforts to create a standard for mapping vegetation and providing good vegetation data for land management.
The next step was to outline the goals and objectives of the workshop. The primary goal was to reach a consensus on whether or not to recommend adoption of the NVCS within the service. If not adopted, we would need to thoroughly justify why we did not believe the national standard would work for FWS. If adopted, we needed to outline the products needed to make implementation practical for Service offices.
Vegetation classification and mapping has been occurring on many Service lands for many years. There is a wide diversity of classification systems in use, and there is a wide diversity of ecosystems and vegetation that Service employees are dealing with. Staff presented information covering many geographic areas and applications which are listed below in order of presentation. We hope to have more information on each presentation available on the Internet shortly.
- Region 5 refuges vegetation mapping (Upstate NY and New England)- Greg Sepik (Refuge
Biologist)
- Agassiz NWR GIS Vegetation Map (Northern Minnesota) - Kevin Hop
- Comprehensive Conservation Planning - Vegetation information needs (Region 6) - Jaymee
Fojtik
- Region 7 vegetation mapping (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other tundra areas) -
Janet Jorgenson/ Steve Talbot
- Vegetative communities at Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR (Southern Texas) - Chris Best
- Mapping vegetation for proactive ecosystem protection (coastal areas, New England) -
Andrew MacLachlan
- NPS vegetation mapping (national)- Mike Story/ Tom Owens/ Maury Nyquist
- Ducks Unlimited vegetation mapping projects (U.S., Mexico, Canada) - Dick Kempka
- Vegetation mapping pilot project at Chincoteague NWR Vegetation (Virginia) - How it
contributes to development of Service wide standards - Paul Steblein
- Walnut Creek NWR - Prairie restoration (Iowa) - Pauline Drobney
- Waterfowl Production Areas - Prairie Pothole area of North and South Dakota - Chuck
Loesch
- Vegetation Panel of the Ecological Society of America (support for and maintenance of
the NVCS) - Steve Talbot
During and following the formal presentations there was extensive discussion on the pros and cons of both the NVCS and existing classification systems, what is needed for a successful national vegetation classification, and what FWS would need to do to implement such a system. The group decided that while it was not without problems, the NVCS was a workable system and that we recommended adoption of the system within FWS. A memo to that effect is being drafted for signature by the Director.
Much of the rest of the workshop was spent defining problems with NVCS that needed to be dealt with prior to implementation, products that are needed to make implementation practical within FWS, and the steps and time frame to reach that goal. The following notes are broken down by those topics, rather than chronological order of discussion.
Existing problems or issues with NVCS and any suggested solutions:
Issue Vegetation mapping is costly; where does the money come from?
Discussion This standard only mandates how to do the vegetation mapping, not that the mapping must be done. Classification and mapping will be done on an as needed basis, with the dollars coming from the project that requires the mapped data.
Issue Depending on the application, varying levels of detail may be needed in the vegetation maps - does adopting the standard restrict this flexibility and responsiveness to needs?
Discussion No. The NVCS only goes down to general (physiognomic) levels (see the attached standard). Offices can stop there or classify through the floristic levels as needed for their application. Virtually all the examples we looked at could be reclassified or crosswalked into the standard as it exists.
Issue The standard was developed for natural systems, but many Service lands are or have been highly manipulated. There have been problems using the NVCS in this type of area.
Discussion The Park Service has encountered the same problem. There is the flexibility built in to the system to define new types of classifications as encountered. A number of experts will be available to work with offices when this type of problem is encountered.
Issue Some very complex systems form such a mosaic of vegetative types that they cannot be separated into recognized groups.
Discussion Items can be defined as a complex of groups: also see the note above.
Issue NWI and Riparian standards - How do they mesh with NVCS
Discussion NWI and the new Riparian standards take a somewhat different tack in that they use water regimes and soils in addition to vegetation to classify areas. NWI is actually referenced within NVCS. Simple guidelines will also be developed, working with NWI staff, on when to use NWI or NVCS, and how to compare them.
Issue NVCS as implemented by the Park Service has been described as having both a Cartographic and an Ecological component. The Cartographic component is very similar to traditional photo-interpretation and digitizing. The Ecological component covers the on-the-ground classification of the vegetation, gathering and field checking data, and conducting biological analysis. Is FWS going to follow this pattern as well?
Discussion This point is open for discussion. Much of the current direction within FWS, including the passage and implementation of the Refuge Improvement Act, mandates the increased use of hard data for management and monitoring Service lands. The data provided by classifying and mapping vegetation would certainly assist in that effort. On the other hand, it could increase the cost ten times by including the Ecological component along with the Cartographic component. It may be that the Cartographic component is the minimum needed to implement the standard, but that tools will also be provided to implement the Ecological component if it is needed and funding is available.
Issue We need to classify our vegetation in detail, but an approved list of the alliances and communities is not available for our part of the country. What are our options?
Discussion The Ecological Society of America, The Nature Conservancy, and the Federal Geographic Data Committee are working on an MOU to further define and maintain the list of vegetative communities. Park Service and the Biological Resource Division of the USGS are actively defining new communities as they map the parks, and are looking for partners to work with. Contractors from these all these groups are available to work with FWS to refine the system to meet our needs.
Issue How does this help me do my job?
Discussion A number of initiative (RIA, CCP, HCP are examples) mandate baseline data and use of scientific methods. Vegetation and/or habitat forms the basis for many management decisions. A national standard enables rollups of the data for ecosystem analysis and long-term trend analysis. Without this type of data we are back to management by educated guess.
Issue The Service does not have very many botanists or vegetation ecologists that can do the field work. In fact, we're just starting to build up GIS staff. How can we possibly do this?
Discussion Contracts, partnerships, cooperative efforts; a major goal of the NCTC class offered in vegetation mapping is to give staff the skill to write and manage a contract, not to physically do all the field work.
Products needed for implementation (A Guide for Use of NVCS in the Service):
- NVCS purpose and overview;
- Intended/example applications;
- Comparison to other vegetation and habitat classification systems; crosswalks
- Data collection guidelines, including potential sources of botanical expertise;
- Vegetation sampling methods;
- Mapping guidelines (For example the recommended MMU, level in hierarchy, accuracy,
minimum area and width of polygons for different application)
- Education and outreach plan
Draft steps and time frame to implement:
(NOTE: Time frames have slipped a bit - general order of the process and steps is still valid. Director's memo was signed in August, 1998. Draft guidelines and charter under discussion in October 1998. User guidelines will be released winter 1998-99)
For additional information regarding this Web page, contact Deb Southworth Green, in the Division of Information Resources and Technology Management, at Deb_Green@fws.gov
Return to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GIS Home Page
Visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home Page
Keywords=GIS, data, metadata, steering, veg, vegetation
Last Modified January 02, 2001 03:06 PM