Federal Geographic Data Committee Vegetation Subcommittee

1. 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 Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

2. Overview FGDC National Vegetation Classification Standard • Purpose and Scope • History • NVCS Today FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

3. Purpose and Scope FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

4. Purpose and Scope OMB Circular A-16 Promotes the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data on a national basis. FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

5. 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 FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

6. 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 FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

7. History FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

8. History FGDC National Vegetation Classification Standard - 1997 • Established a physiognomic/floristic vegetation hierarchy. FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

9. History FGDC National Vegetation Classification Standard - 1997 • Established a physiognomic/floristic vegetation hierarchy. • Established a content standard for the physiognomic levels. • A list of vegetation types. FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

10. History FGDC National Vegetation Classification Standard - 1997 • Established a physiognomic/floristic vegetation hierarchy. • 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. FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

11. 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) FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

12. History 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. FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

13. 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 STATES • U.S. Forest Service (co-chair) • NatureServe (co-chair) • University of Oklahoma • Bureau of Land Management • California Department of Fish and Game • University of North Carolina - Botanical Garden FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

14. NVCS Today FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

15. Current Status / Timeline NVCS Today 2006 • 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. FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

16. Current Status / Timeline Revision of the FGDC Vegetation Classification Standard • Resolve identified problems with the physiognomic hierarchy. FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

17. 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. FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

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

19. 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. -prototypes of test tools are in development FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

20. 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. -prototypes of test tools are in development • A large backlog of vegetation types will need to be peer reviewed to begin implementation of the FGDC Standard. FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

21. 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. -prototypes of test tools are in development • 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). FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

22. Current Status / Timeline 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. FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

23. Federal Geographic Data Committee Vegetation Subcommittee Ralph Holiday Crawford, Ph.D. email: rcrawford01@fs.fed.us FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

24. FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

25. Current Status / Timeline Proposed FGDC Vegetation Hierarchy(example) Vegetated Natural/Semi-natural Physiognomic Class Forest and Woodland Subclass Temperate Forest and Woodland Formation Temperate Evergreen Broadleaf and Conifer Forest Phyto-geographic-Floristic Division Southeastern North American Evergreen Broadleaf and Conifer Forest Macrogroup Southern Pine Forest Group Shortleaf Pine - Loblolly Pine - Oak Forest Floristic Alliance Pinus taeda - Pinus echinata Alliance Association Pinus taeda/Symplocos tinctoria-Morella cerifera- Vaccinium elliotii Association FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

26. Current Status / Timeline 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. FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing

27. Current Status / Timeline 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. FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Briefing