USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program & Benthic Overview Karl E. Brown, Vegetation Mapping Program Mgr Natural Resource Program Center Biological Resources Management Division Benthic Habitat Mapping Workshop June 3-5, 2008

Outline and Overview Background Approach, Process & Products USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Overview Outline and Overview Background Approach, Process & Products Present Program Status Hybrid Techniques Available Data / Website Suggestions to the Benthic Habitat Mapping Effort

What is it? High priority requirement of the NPS I&M Program Background What is it? High priority requirement of the NPS I&M Program National (Service Wide) Program Begins long term vegetation monitoring program Has many short term immediate applications

NPS I&M Program Base Cartographic Soils Geology Vegetation Background NPS I&M Program Base Cartographic Soils Geology Vegetation Bibliographies Species lists Air quality Water quality

NPS vegetation mapping projects Background National Program Differs from other NPS vegetation mapping projects 270 park units (full park coverage) 4423 7.5 minute USGS quadrangles National scope Participation of multiple agencies Consistency in detail and accuracy between parks Produces digital products available on WWW Coordination at multiple levels

Standards NPS management policies, standards & guidelines Background Standards NPS management policies, standards & guidelines Federal Geographic Data Committee standards metadata, transfer, classification etc. Nationally consistent, hierarchical, classification scheme National Map Accuracy Standards Thematic accuracy >80% per class Scale of 1:24,000 Minimum mapping unit of 0.5 hectare

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

Products from the Program Data Issues Products from the Program Aerial photography/ imagery (hardcopy / digital, 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) All appropriate metadata

FGDC National Vegetation Classification System 2006 Data Issues FGDC National Vegetation Classification System 2006 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) The system is hierarchical which allows it to be used for many different levels of analysis and study - from National to regional to each Park to each site. It is also standard - so we do not have to reinvent the wheel for each park, although a lot of development work has to be done for each park.

Standard Comparisons 1 2 3 New mid levels 4 5 6 7 8 FGDC 1997 - standard Revised Hierarchy 1 CLASS CLASS 2 SUBCLASS SUBCLASS 3 FORMATION GROUP FORMATION New mid levels 4 FORMATION SUBGROUP DIVISION 5 FORMATION MACROGROUP 6 ALLIANCE GROUP 7 ASSOCIATION ALLIANCE 8 ASSOCIATION

Present Status Data Issues Approximately 165 projects in process 30 Parks started (1994-2000) 29 Park projects started in 2001 11 Park projects started 2002-2004 2005 completed 11 more parks, continued 73 ongoing projects, and initiated 24 new starts 39 Parks completed for web access more completed soon; 62 AA stage completed 62 FY 05; 80 FY 06; 116 FY 07; 146 FY 08 Alaska: 6 parks complete in 2003; 3 in 2004; 3 new ongoing in 2005; 4 more completed 2006-7; 3 more starts 2006-08 USGS partnering on funding, 3 methods, archiving contract, collaborative fire and fuels datasets, variability analysis and surface model developments

Program Status Status June 2007

Process & Products Maps and Spatial Data

Accuracy Assessment Assessment of class accuracy across the park: Process & Products Accuracy Assessment Assessment of class accuracy across the park:

Process & Products Metadata

Process & Products Reports

Data Availability http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/ Process & Products All products are made available via a public internet website: http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/

USGS-BLM Vegetation & Invasive Plants Characterization Projects Program Status USGS-BLM Vegetation & Invasive Plants Characterization Projects Gunnison Gorge NCA

USGS-USFWS Vegetation Mapping Projects Program Status USGS-USFWS Vegetation Mapping Projects Ouray NWR Lacreek NWR We are just getting started with FWS. We are working with Region 6 out of Denver to start 2 refuges – Ouray and Lacreek. There are close to 150 refuges in Region 6 and over 500 refuges nationwide covering 92 million acres of land and water. Region 6 is taking the lead for the Agency on this effort – we have really not had national support to date, but I think with the completion of these two projects will really show the agency the value of these products – consistent, useful for practical on-the-ground management, yet scientifically sound.

New Models “New/other” technologies Sister Bureau hybrid techniques High Resolution Remote Sensing eCognition segmentation Laser Rangefinder Remote GPS positioning Sister Bureau hybrid techniques FWS Lower cost Vegetation Map “Light” Savings from reduced field collection BLM / USFS vegetation cross walks ROMO/GRSA Field Vegetation Guides – VOYA Network strategy / plans PACN & MOJN

Cabrillo is working with State, Corps, and US Navy to figure out jurisdiction of the park. 120 acres.

Multiresolution Segmentation Hybrid Techniques Multiresolution Segmentation Levels can be used to compare results of segmentation based on different scale parameters and homogeneity criterion. Layers can be weighted. Weights determine to which degree the information is used during the process of object generation.

Hybrid techniques – summary of current efforts Mixed imagery and Sister Bureau eCog segmentation and skeleton polygon sampling (GRSA) PI / eCog linework and model verification (MEVE) / ground reference; add attributes (field & automation savings) Classical accuracy assessment (AA) or small park methodology (census of MMU @ GRKO, LIBI, KNRI, FOUN) Verify eCog gradient test against completed AA (ROMO) Machine classification and PI field sample verification (LAVO)

National Park / Environs – data successes Summary & Partnerships 1 National Park / Environs – data successes Consider areas of interest for small park methodology Evaluate sparse vegetation sampling need and plot sizes Fire and fuels protocols may integrate fuels stratification in sample design Develop fuel model polygons from NVCS vegetation polygons / photos Other fire and monitoring program data needs…

NPS / Environs – fire data summary Summary & Partnerships 2 NPS / Environs – fire data summary Park Fire Management team field verify / photo reference fuel model types Evaluate LANDFIRE data potential; AA of EVT layers How map classes improve Landfire and other models Research partnering for a hybrid approach, as needed Fire fuel classes / types Fuel loadings (1/10/100 hr…) Fire Regime Condition Class LANDFIRE update as appropriate and as supported by partnership

Summary of Efforts in 2007-8 Fund $4M ongoing projects in 25+ networks Summary & Partnerships 3 Summary of Efforts in 2007-8 Fund $4M ongoing projects in 25+ networks Provide technical support and planning assistance to parks, networks, and regions Prioritize candidate projects with VMP team Facilitate new planning based on park and network leveraged funding using hybrid innovations; new starts in ~ 2011-12 Action plan for creation / migration of NPS data, and USGS-NPS archiving Develop and serve planning templates on the web and a PLOTS 3.0 database update

Suggestions to Benthic Efforts Benthic Partnerships 1 Suggestions to Benthic Efforts Stabilize the mapping standard, even a draft for NPS Marine Parks Work the 3 prototype parks, networks, and regional candidate areas Evaluate candidate projects against the draft standard Grow / update from the prototypes

Benthic Habitats of Florida Bay, Florida, 1991-1995 Source: NOAA Coastal Services Center

Suggestions to Benthic Efforts Benthic Partnerships 2 Suggestions to Benthic Efforts Learn the USGS business model and facilitate joint papers on standards innovations Regional Executive partnership on Green Book budget development, and USGS-NPS archiving Develop and serve planning templates on the web and a draft 1.0 (geo?) database container

Contact Information More Information Visit the USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Website: http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg Karl Brown, Ph.D. NPS I&M (Program Lead) karl_brown@nps.gov Mike Mulligan USGS (Program Lead) mike_mulligan@usgs.gov Chris Lea NPS I&M (Ecologist) chris_lea@nps.gov Theresa Singh USGS (VMP Website) theresa_singh@usgs.gov Tammy Hamer NPS I&M (Program Assistant) tammy_hamer@partner.nps.gov

Thanks Karl Brown, Ph.D. NPS I&M (Program Lead) (970) 225-3591 karl_brown@nps.gov Chris Lea NPS I&M (Ecologist) (303) 969-2807 chris_lea@nps.gov Tammy Hamer NPS I&M Program Assistant (970) 267-7201 tammy_hamer@partner.nps.gov