federal geographic data committee vegetation subcommittee

7/11/2006 FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

Federal Geographic Data Committee Vegetation

Subcommittee

Coordination Group Briefing July 11, 2006

Ralph Holiday Crawford, Ph.D.USDA Forest Service R&D, National Program Leader

Subcommittee Chair


FGDC National Vegetation Classification Standard

Overview

•Purpose and Scope

•History•NVCS Today


Purpose and Scope


Promotes the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data on a national basis.

OMB Circular A-16

Purpose and Scope


FGDC National Vegetation Classification Standard • Purpose

– Facilitate data-sharing

– Develop a cross-walking standard for vegetation data and information

– Builds on existing classification systems

Purpose and Scope


FGDC National Vegetation Classification Standard • Scope

– Mandatory for all vegetation data gathered using federal funds.

– Cross-walking requirement applies to:• Vegetation plot data• Vegetation types (taxonomic units)• Vegetation map units

Purpose and Scope


History


FGDC National Vegetation Classification Standard -

1997• Established a physiognomic/floristic

vegetation hierarchy.

History





• Established a content standard for the physiognomic levels.– A list of vegetation types.

History





• Established a content standard for the physiognomic levels.– A list of vegetation types.

• Initiated the development of a process standard for the floristic levels.– How to define floristic vegetation types.

History


FGDC-NVC Partnerships

U.S. Forest Service (lead agency) * Natural Resources Conservation Service * U.S. Geological Survey-BRD/NBII * U.S. National Park Service * U.S. Bureau of Land Management * U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service * National Aeronautics and Space Administration * Department of Defense * Environmental Protection Agency * NatureServe * Ecological Society of America (Vegetation Classification Panel)


NVC Milestones• 1996-98.NVC Hierarchy completed by TNC (modified

UNESCO 1973). • 1997-98. FGDC adopts hierarchy as federal standard:

Complete set of physiognomic units (content standard); Provisional set of floristic units.

• 1998. ESA Panel is tasked to create a set of guidelines and peer review process for floristic units.

• 1998-02. Partners test the hierarchy (USFS, NatureServe) and request revisions. Canadian partners begin collaboration on a Canadian NVC.

• 2003. Hierarchy Revisions Working Group to explore revisions to upper levels.

• 2004 ESA Panel completes its guidelines; FGDC begins work on standards for floristic units, based on dynamic content standard.

• 2005 HRWG completes its draft revisions, FGDC incorporates those revisions into standards process for all units. Mexican partners begin collaboration on Mexican NVC.

History


Hierarchy Revisions Working Group

INTERNATIONAL British Columbia Ministry of Forests

NatureServe-Canada Ministère des Resources Naturelles, Québec

NatureServe, Latin America Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico

Director of the COROLAB, Venezuela

UNITED STATESU.S. Forest Service (co-chair)

NatureServe (co-chair)University of Oklahoma

Bureau of Land ManagementCalifornia Department of Fish and Game

University of North Carolina - Botanical Garden

History


NVCS Today


NVCS Today2006

• FGDC revising floristic and physiognomic parts of NVC standard

• Federal agencies are working with the provisional NVC

• Nature Serve continues to maintain provisional set of associations and alliances:

• ESA VegBank plot database now operational.• ESA Panel developing Peer Review Process.

Current Status / Timeline


Revision of the FGDC Vegetation Classification

Standard• Resolve identified problems with the

physiognomic hierarchy.






• Complete the process standard for classifying alliances and associations.






• Complete the process standard for classifying alliances and associations.

• Establish all levels of the FGDC hierarchy as a “dynamic content standard.”



Implementation Needs• Databases (e.g., VegBank, Biotics, Peer

Review Tools) have been built in support of NVCS, but need further development to fill in gaps.

-prototypes of test tools are in development

Support Needs


Implementation Needs• Databases (e.g., VegBank, Biotics, Peer

Review Tools) have been built in support of NVCS, but need further development to fill in gaps.


• A large backlog of vegetation types will need to be peer reviewed to begin implementation of the FGDC Standard.

Support Needs


Implementation Needs• Databases (e.g., VegBank, Biotics, Peer Review

Tools) have been built in support of NVCS, but need further development to fill in gaps.


• A large backlog of vegetation types will need to be peer reviewed to begin implementation of the FGDC Standard.

• Peer review and data management for the dynamic content standard will require continuity of funding (move away from an ad-hoc funded collaboration).

Support Needs


Timeline for FGDC Standard• July 2006 – Review of draft standard by FGDC

agencies and partners.• Oct 2006 – Address review comments. • Nov 2006 – Submit final to Standards

Working Grp. • Early 2007 – Public Review. • Late 2007 – Approval by Coordination Group.

• Later 2007 – Endorsement by Steering Committee.

• 2008 and beyond – Implementation.



Federal Geographic Data Committee Vegetation

Subcommittee

Ralph Holiday Crawford, Ph.D.email: [email protected]


Proposed FGDC Vegetation Hierarchy

(example)VegetatedNatural/Semi-natural

PhysiognomicClass Forest and WoodlandSubclass Temperate Forest and WoodlandFormation Temperate Evergreen Broadleaf and Conifer Forest

Phyto-geographic-FloristicDivision Southeastern North American Evergreen

Broadleaf and Conifer ForestMacrogroup Southern Pine ForestGroup Shortleaf Pine - Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest

FloristicAlliance Pinus taeda - Pinus echinata AllianceAssociation Pinus taeda/Symplocos tinctoria-Morella cerifera-

Vaccinium elliotii Association



Dynamic Content Standard • Initiates an innovative approach to

streamline the FGDC standards process to revise the list of vegetation types.

• The classification content would be maintained by an authorized body with oversight from a national peer review board.

• Requires databases for vegetation types, plot data, and peer review tracking.– Prototypes have been developed by Nature Serve

and the ESA Vegetation Classification Panel.



Changes to the FGDC Hierarchy

• Move Natural vs Cultural vegetation distinction to top of hierarchy.

• Reduce and revise physiognomic levels.

• Add new mid floristic levels that reflect broad phyto-geographic affinities.


federal geographic data committee vegetation subcommittee

Documents

vegetation data

floristic vegetation

federal standard

process standard

list of vegetation types

dynamic content standard

national park service

crosswalking standard