Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Natural Science”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 415 records · Page 23Linked to original sources
USGS2001

Chemotaxonomy for naturally macerated tree-fern cuticles (Medullosales and Marattiales), Carboniferous Sydney and Mabou Sub-Basins, Nova Scotia, Canada

Naturally macerated cuticles (NMC) and one synangium, representing medullosalean and marattialean tree-fern species, from two Carboniferous coalfields in Nova Scotia, Canada, are investigated. The samples were analyzed by infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and by pyrolysis-gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry (py-Gc/Ms) techniques in search for chemical signatures that would help in developing a chemotaxonomic classification of Carboniferous fern species, assuming genetically dependent make-up of cuticles. FTIR-derived CH2/CH3 ratios, in conjunction with contributions from carboxyl groups, demonstrated a better potential for discriminating between medullosalean genera and species than molecular signatures obtained by py-Gc/Ms. However, the latter provided better data for differentiating medullosalean from marattialean tree ferns as a group. Changes in the chemical make-up of naturally macerated cuticles due to sample preparation are discussed. ?? 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

International Journal of Coal Geology↗
USGS1995

Coastal ecosystem decision‐support GIS: Functions and methodology

To solve coastal resource and environmental issues and handle complex spatial data and information effectively and efficiently, a coastal ecosystem decision‐support geographic information system (GIS) is being developed at the Southern Science Center of the U.S. National Biological Service. With three subsystems, natural resource management, environmental impact assessment, and data and information handling, respectively, the multifunctional system is designed to provide decision makers with tools to integrate and organize various environmental data and information for analytical modeling, spatial query, and graphic visualization. The multiple integration approach was employed in this system's development based on a commercial GIS, which includes subsystems integration, environmental data integration, decision‐support functions integration, and analytical model integration.

Marine Geodesy↗
USGS2011

Geographic science for public and Tribal lands management

There are more than 650 million acres of U.S. public and Tribal lands, most found west of the Mississippi River. Scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey's Western Geographic Science Center are working to increase the scientific information available for natural resource decision making, while continuing productive collaborations with Federal land managers, Tribal leaders, and local communities.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2009

St. Louis Area Earthquake Hazards Mapping Project— A progress report-November 2008

St. Louis has experienced minor earthquake damage at least 12 times in the past 200 years. Because of this history and its proximity to known active earthquake zones, the St. Louis Area Earthquake Hazards Mapping Project (SLAEHMP) is producing digital maps that show variability of earthquake hazards, including liquefaction and ground shaking, in the St. Louis area. The maps will be available free via the internet. Although not site specific enough to indicate the hazard at a house-by-house resolution, they can be customized by the user to show specific areas of interest, such as neighborhoods or transportation routes. Earthquakes currently cannot be predicted, but scientists can estimate how strongly the ground is likely to shake as the result of an earthquake. Earthquake hazard maps provide one way of conveying such estimates. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which produces earthquake hazard maps for the Nation, is working with local partners to develop detailed maps for urban areas vulnerable to strong ground shaking. These partners, which along with the USGS comprise the SLAEHMP, include the Missouri University of Science and Technology-Rolla (Missouri S&T), Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), Saint Louis University, Missouri State Emergency Management Agency, and URS Corporation. Preliminary hazard maps covering a test portion of the 29-quadrangle St. Louis study area have been produced and are currently being evaluated by the SLAEHMP. A USGS Fact Sheet summarizing this project was produced and almost 1000 copies have been distributed at several public outreach meetings and field trips that have featured the SLAEHMP (Williams and others, 2007). In addition, a USGS website focusing on the SLAEHMP, which provides links to project results and relevant earthquake hazard information, can be found at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/ceus/urban_map/st_louis/index.php. This progress report summarizes the methodology and data used to generate these preliminary maps. For more details about many of the topics in this summary the reader is referred to the Karadeniz (2007) and Chung (2007) Ph.D. theses.

Illinois, Missouri↗
USGS2022

U.S. Geological Survey—Department of the Interior Region 11, Alaska—2021–22 biennial science report

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mission: The USGS national mission is to monitor, analyze, and predict the current and evolving dynamics of complex human and natural Earth-system interactions, and to deliver actionable information at scales and timeframes relevant to decision-makers. Consistent with the national mission, the USGS in Alaska provides timely and objective scientific information to help address issues and inform management decisions across five inter-connected themes: Energy and Minerals; Geospatial Mapping; Natural Hazards; Water Quality, Streamflow, and Ice Dynamics; and Ecosystems. The USGS in Alaska consists of approximately 350 scientists and support staff working in three Alaska-based science centers, a Cooperative Research Unit, and USGS centers outside Alaska, with a combined annual science budget of about $60 million. In the last 5 years, USGS research in Alaska has produced many scientific benefits resulting from more than 1,050 publications. Publications relevant to Alaska can be conveniently searched by keyword through the USGS Publications Warehouse at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/search?q=Alaska .

Alaska↗
USGS2022

Action plan for restoration of coral reef coastal protection services: Case study example and workbook

This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Research and Development, as part of the Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) research program, with support from Tetra Tech, Inc., and in collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and The Nature Conservancy. The ACE research program provides scientific information and tools to support USEPA’s commitment to clean air, clean water and sustainable natural resources, even as environmental conditions change. A key component of this is the development of sound science to support adaptation. Adaptation involves preparing for and adjusting to the effects of climate change and its interactions with other global and local stressors. Because these effects are diverse, interactive, and difficult to predict, adapting management of natural resources in this context can be very challenging. Coral reefs—which provide valued ecosystem services such as fisheries, coastal protection, and tourism—are threatened by the effects of increased sea surface temperatures, sea level rise, and intensifying storms. These large-scale stressors are interacting with local stressors such as pollution, overfishing, and recreational misuse to drive ongoing and accelerating declines in coral reef ecosystems. Thus, there is a rising urgency to design and implement climate change adaptation measures that will enable reef resilience in the face of these changes. This includes accounting for, and adjusting to, the combined effects of climate change and local stressors in coral reef protection and restoration efforts. The action plan, example case study, and workbook found in this report demonstrate a structured process for integrating climate-smart design considerations into restoration planning using A Manager’s Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning and Design. The focus is a hypothetical coral reef restoration project that has a goal of recovering nature-based coastal protection services using restoration interventions. The intent is to provide readers with a completed example of how to use the Guide workbook to inform a draft action plan, centering on the topic of coastal protection as a burgeoning area of interest in coral reef science and management communities. The information in this hypothetical case study is not intended for direct use; rather, it provides a starting point for more detailed planning that would occur in specific places. And while a full review of the current literature on reef restoration methods is outside the scope of this report, readers are encouraged to use the examples herein as well as in the Guide as a jumping-off point for exploring the rapidly growing body of information on methods, techniques, successes, failures, monitoring challenges and future directions of coral reef restoration in a changing world. The workbook, together with the action plan, can serve as a valuable record of the planning thought process as well as a living document for adaptive management, to be updated through time as improved information becomes available.

EPA Report↗
USGS2015

Getting ocean acidification on decision makers' to-do lists: dissecting the process through case studies

Much of the detailed, incremental knowledge being generated by current scientific research on ocean acidification (OA) does not directly address the needs of decision makers, who are asking broad questions such as: Where will OA harm marine resources next? When will this happen? Who will be affected? And how much will it cost? In this review, we use a series of mainly US-based case studies to explore the needs of local to international-scale groups that are making decisions to address OA concerns. Decisions concerning OA have been made most naturally and easily when information needs were clearly defined and closely aligned with science outputs and initiatives. For decisions requiring more complex information, the process slows dramatically. Decision making about OA is greatly aided (1) when a mixture of specialists participates, including scientists, resource users and managers, and policy and law makers; (2) when goals can be clearly agreed upon at the beginning of the process; (3) when mixed groups of specialists plan and create translational documents explaining the likely outcomes of policy decisions on ecosystems and natural resources; (4) when regional work on OA fits into an existing set of priorities concerning climate or water quality; and (5) when decision making can be reviewed and enhanced.

Oceanography↗
USGS2018

Science for a risky world—A U.S. Geological Survey plan for risk research and applications

Executive Summary Natural hazards—including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires, geomagnetic storms, and pandemics—can wreak havoc on human communities, the economy, and natural resources for years following an initial event. Hazards can claim lives and cause billions of dollars in damage to homes and infrastructure as well as lost or compromised economic activity and threats to national security. They also can have adverse environmental, social, economic, and health effects that extend well beyond the immediate area, sometimes with global implications. Changes in population growth, climate, and urbanization may exacerbate hazard impacts. Because of the potential severity of a single hazard event, reducing risk—the potential loss of societally important assets caused by these hazards—is a high priority for everyone, including policy makers, community members, emergency managers, resource managers, utility operators, business owners, and planners. These stakeholders demand usable, user-centric information to support decisions for planning a resilient future and for responding to and recovering from unanticipated events in more adaptable and cost-effective ways. Meeting this demand requires maximizing the use of environmental observations; hazards science; and research on communications, social stressors, and human behavior to deliver risk information in forms that are accessible by decision makers and the public alike. To achieve this, scientists and stakeholders must collaborate to match community needs with actionable insights, research, products, and tools, using advances in technology to improve information discovery and delivery.

Circular↗
USGS2010

Fort Collins Science Center- Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch : Integrating social, behavioral, economic and biological sciences

The Fort Collins Science Center's Policy Analysis and Science Assistance (PASA) Branch is a team of approximately 22 scientists, technicians, and graduate student researchers. PASA provides unique capabilities in the U.S. Geological Survey by leading projects that integrate social, behavioral, economic, and biological analyses in the context of human-natural resource interactions. Resource planners, managers, and policymakers in the U.S. Departments of the Interior (DOI) and Agriculture (USDA), State and local agencies, as well as international agencies use information from PASA studies to make informed natural resource management and policy decisions. PASA scientists' primary functions are to conduct both theoretical and applied social science research, provide technical assistance, and offer training to advance performance in policy relevant research areas. Management and research issues associated with human-resource interactions typically occur in a unique context, involve difficult to access populations, require knowledge of both natural/biological science in addition to social science, and require the skill to integrate multiple science disciplines. In response to these difficult contexts, PASA researchers apply traditional and state-of-the-art social science methods drawing from the fields of sociology, demography, economics, political science, communications, social-psychology, and applied industrial organization psychology. Social science methods work in concert with our rangeland/agricultural management, wildlife, ecology, and biology capabilities. The goal of PASA's research is to enhance natural resource management, agency functions, policies, and decision-making. Our research is organized into four broad areas of study.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2022

Potential effects of energy development on environmental resources of the Williston Basin in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota—Physiography, climate, land use, and demographics

The Williston Basin has been a leading domestic oil and gas producing region. As energy demands have increased, so has energy development. A group of 13 Federal agencies and Tribal groups formed the Bakken Federal Executive Group to address common challenges associated with energy development, with a focus on understanding the cumulative environmental challenges attributed to oil and gas development throughout the basin. To better understand the natural resources in the Williston Basin, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, began work to synthesize existing information on science topics that will support management decisions related to energy development. This report is a compilation of information regarding the natural setting, energy development history, demographics, and related investigations related to energy development in the Williston Basin of Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Completed and ongoing investigations include the topical areas of unconventional oil and gas assessments, water quality, water availability, air quality, effects on human health, and ecological effects.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota↗
USGS2012

U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Climate change challenges many of the basic assumptions routinely used by conservation planners and managers, including the identification and prioritization of areas for conservation based on current environmental conditions and the assumption those conditions could be controlled by management actions. Climate change will likely alter important ecosystem drivers (temperature, precipitation, and sea-level rise) and make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain current environmental conditions into the future. Additionally, the potential for future conservation of non-conservation lands may be affected by climate change, which further complicates resource planning. Potential changes to ecosystem drivers, as a result of climate change, highlight the need to develop and adapt effective conservation strategies to cope with the effects of climate and landscape change. The U.S. Congress, recognized the potential effects of climate change and authorized the creation of the U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) in 2008. The directive of the NCCWSC is to produce science that supports resource-management agencies as they anticipate and adapt to the effects of climate change on fish, wildlife, and their habitats. On September 14, 2009, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar signed Secretarial Order 3289 (amended February 22, 2010), which expanded the mandate of the NCCWSC to address climate-change-related impacts on all DOI resources. Secretarial Order 3289 "Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources," established the foundation of two partner-based conservation science entities: Climate Science Centers (CSC) and their primary partners, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC). CSCs and LCCs are the Department-wide approach for applying scientific tools to increase the understanding of climate change, and to coordinate an effective response to its impacts on tribes and the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural-heritage resources that DOI manages. The NCCWSC is establishing a network of eight DOI CSCs (Alaska, Southeast, Northwest, North Central, Pacific Islands, Southwest, Northeast, and South Central) that will work with a variety of partners and stakeholders to provide resource managers the tools and information they need to help them anticipate and adapt conservation planning and design for projected climate change. The Southeast CSC, a federally led research collaboration hosted by North Carolina State University, was established in 2010. The Southeast CSC brings together the expertise of federal and university scientists to address climate-change priority needs of federal, state, non-governmental, and tribal resource managers. This document is the first draft of a science and operational plan for the Southeast CSC. The document describes operational considerations, provides the context for climate-change impacts in the Southeastern United States, and establishes six major science themes the Southeast CSC will address in collaboration with partners. This document is intended to be reevaluated and modified as partner needs change.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

How well do the rosgen classification and associated "natural channel design" methods integrate and quantify fluvial processes and channel response?

Over the past 10 years the Rosgen classification system and its associated methods of "natural channel design" have become synonymous (to many without prior knowledge of the field) with the term "stream restoration" and the science of fluvial geomorphology. Since the mid 1990s, this classification approach has become widely, and perhaps dominantly adopted by governmental agencies, particularly those funding restoration projects. For example, in a request for proposals for the restoration of Trout Creek in Montana, the Natural Resources Conservation Service required "experience in the use and application of a stream classification system and its implementation." Similarly, classification systems have been used in evaluation guides for riparian areas and U.S. Forest Service management plans. Most notably, many highly trained geomorphologists and hydraulic engineers are often held suspect, or even thought incorrect, if their approach does not include reference to or application of a classification system. This, combined with the para-professional training provided by some involved in "natural channel design" empower individuals and groups with limited backgrounds in stream and watershed sciences to engineer wholesale re-patterning of stream reaches using 50-year old technology that was never intended for engineering design. At Level I, the Rosgen classification system consists of eight or nine major stream types, based on hydraulic-geometry relations and four other measures of channel shape to distinguish the dimensions of alluvial stream channels as a function of the bankfull stage. Six classes of the particle size of the boundary sediments are used to further sub-divide each of the major stream types, resulting in 48 or 54 stream types. Aside from the difficulty in identifying bankfull stage, particularly in incising channels, and the issue of sampling from two distinct populations (beds and banks) to classify the boundary sediments, the classification provides a consistent and reproducible means for practitioners to describe channel morphology although difficulties have been encountered in lower-gradient stream systems. Use of the scheme to communicate between users or as a conceptual model, however, has not justified its use for engineering design or for predicting river behavior; its use for designing mitigation projects, therefore, seems beyond its technical scope. Copyright ASCE 2005.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2018

Applying recreation ecology science to sustainably manage camping impacts: A classification of camping management strategies

Wilderness and other protected natural areas such as national forests, parks, and refuges are managed to provide high-quality recreational opportunities while preserving natural resource conditions. In managing recreation visitation, land managers could allow visitors to create their own infrastructure of trails and campsites, or they could choose to apply an impact management strategy to provide an infrastructure that includes sustainably designed trails and campsites. Recreation ecology studies have repeatedly demonstrated that informal “visitor-created” trails and campsites are generally not sustainably designed or located (Cole 1981, 1982a, 2013; Marion 2016; Wimpey and Marion 2011). For example, informal trails frequently occur in flat terrain where trail widening and muddiness can be chronic problems, or are fall-aligned (perpendicular to contour lines) in sloping terrain, where they are considerably more vulnerable to soil loss and widening (Marion et al. 2016; Marion and Wimpey 2017). Similarly, visitors are highly attracted to flat terrain near water for camping, where they frequently create substantial numbers of large and unnecessary campsites at densities that threaten visitor solitude, experiential qualities, and natural resources.

International Journal of Wilderness↗
USGS2017

National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Inventory Program: Appalachian National Scenic Trail vegetation mapping project

The National Park Service (NPS) Vegetation Mapping Inventory (VMI) Program classifies, describes, and maps existing vegetation of national park units for the NPS Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program. The NPS VMI Program is managed by the NPS I&M Division and provides baseline vegetation information to the NPS Natural Resource I&M Program. The U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, NatureServe, NPS Northeast Temperate Network, and NPS Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA) have completed vegetation classification and mapping of APPA for the NPS VMI Program. Mappers, ecologists, and botanists collaborated to affirm vegetation types within the U.S. National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) of APPA and to determine how best to map the vegetation types by using aerial imagery. Analyses of data from 1,618 vegetation plots were used to describe USNVC associations of APPA. Data from 289 verification sites were collected to test the field key to vegetation associations and the application of vegetation associations to a sample set of map polygons. Data from 269 validation sites were collected to assess vegetation mapping prior to submitting the vegetation map for accuracy assessment (AA). Data from 3,265 AA sites were collected, of which 3,204 were used to test accuracy of the vegetation map layer. The collective of these datasets affirmed 280 USNVC associations for the APPA vegetation mapping project. To map the vegetation and land cover of APPA, 169 map classes were developed. The 169 map classes consist of 150 that represent natural (including ruderal) vegetation types in the USNVC, 11 that represent cultural (agricultural and developed) vegetation types in the USNVC, 5 that represent natural landscapes with catastrophic disturbance or some other modification to natural vegetation preventing accurate classification in the USNVC, and 3 that represent nonvegetated water (non-USNVC). Features were interpreted from viewing 4-band digital aerial imagery using digital onscreen three-dimensional stereoscopic workflow systems in geographic information systems (GIS). (Digital aerial imagery was collected each fall during 2009–11 to capture leaf-phenology change of hardwood trees across the latitudinal range of APPA.) The interpreted data were digitally and spatially referenced, thus making the spatial-database layers usable in GIS. Polygon units were mapped to either a 0.5-hectare (ha) or 0.25-ha minimum mapping unit, depending on vegetation type or scenario; however, polygon units were mapped to 0.1 ha for alpine vegetation. A geodatabase containing various feature-class layers and tables provide locations and support data to USNVC vegetation types (vegetation map layer), vegetation plots, verification sites, validation sites, AA sites, project boundary extent and zones, and aerial image centers and flight lines. The feature-class layer and related tables of the vegetation map layer provide 30,395 polygons of detailed attribute data covering 110,919.7 ha, with an average polygon size of 3.6 ha; the vegetation map coincides closely with the administrative boundary for APPA. Summary reports generated from the vegetation map layer of the map classes representing USNVC natural (including ruderal) vegetation types apply to 28,242 polygons (92.9% of polygons) and cover 106,413.0 ha (95.9%) of the map extent for APPA. The map layer indicates APPA to be 92.4% forest and woodland (102,480.8 ha), 1.7% shrubland (1866.3 ha), and 1.8% herbaceous cover (2,065.9 ha). Map classes representing park-special vegetation (undefined in the USNVC) apply to 58 polygons (0.2% of polygons) and cover 404.3 ha (0.4%) of the map extent. Map classes representing USNVC cultural types apply to 1,777 polygons (5.8% of polygons) and cover 2,516.3 ha (2.3%) of the map extent. Map classes representing nonvegetated water (non-USNVC) apply to 332 polygons (1.1% of polygons) and cover 1,586.2 ha (1.4%) of the map extent.

Appalachian National Scenic Trail↗
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey—Department of the Interior, Region 11, Alaska—2023–24 biennial science report

Introduction U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mission—The USGS national mission is to monitor, analyze, and predict the current and evolving dynamics of complex human and natural Earth-system interactions and to deliver actionable information at scales and timeframes relevant to decision makers. Consistent with the national mission, the USGS in Alaska provides timely and objective scientific information to help address issues and inform management decisions across five interconnected focus areas: Energy and Minerals; Geospatial Mapping; Natural Hazards; Water Quality, Streamflow, and Ice Dynamics; and Ecosystems. The USGS in Alaska consists of approximately 350 scientists and support staff working in 3 Alaska-based science centers. USGS science activities are also initiated by the Cooperative Research Unit and USGS centers outside Alaska. In the last 5 years, USGS research in Alaska has produced many scientific benefits resulting from more than 900 publications. Publications relevant to Alaska can be conveniently searched by keyword through the USGS Publications Warehouse at https://pubs.usgs.gov/.

Alaska↗
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center science highlights for fiscal year 2023

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center is based in Bozeman, Montana, and has field offices in Glacier National Park, Mont.; Missoula, Mont.; and Knoxville, Tennessee. Our scientists respond to the natural resource management needs of Federal, Tribal, and State partners—directly engaging in the coproduction and application of integrated, interdisciplinary science—and perform place-based research throughout the northern Rocky Mountains, including Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks and the northern Great Plains. However, the scope and implications of our research extend across the Nation. Our research themes are as follows: (1) climate change and drought, (2) species at risk, (3) habitat in changing landscapes, and (4) invasive species and wildlife disease. This Fact Sheet highlights examples of dynamic partnerships and key advances in our themes in fiscal year 2023 (October 2022–September 2023).

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2009

Greater Platte River Basins - Science to sustain ecosystems and communities

The Greater Platte River Basins (GPRB), located in the heartland of the United States, provides a collaborative opportunity for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and its partners to understand the sustainability of natural and managed ecosystems under changing climate and resource requirements.The Greater Platte River Basins, an area of about 140,000 square miles, sustains thousands of acres of lakes and wetlands, which provide a staging and resting area for the North American Central Flyway. Part of the GPRB is within the U.S. Corn Belt, one of the most productive agricultural ecosystems on Earth. Changes in water and land use, changing patterns of snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains, drought, and increasing demands for irrigation have reduced flows in the Platte River. These changes raise questions about the sustainability of the region for both wildlife and agriculture.The USGS and partners are developing a science strategy that will help natural-resource managers address and balance the needs of this region.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2016

National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Inventory Program: Natchez Trace Parkway vegetation mapping project report

The National Park Service (NPS) Vegetation Mapping Inventory (VMI) Program is an effort to classify, describe, and map existing vegetation of national park units for the NPS Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program. The NPS VMI Program is managed by the NPS I&M Division and provides baseline vegetation information to the NPS Natural Resource I&M Program. The U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, NatureServe, NPS Gulf Coast Network, and NPS Natchez Trace Parkway (NATR; also referred to as Parkway) have completed vegetation classification and mapping of NATR for the NPS VMI Program. Mappers, ecologists, and botanists collaborated to affirm vegetation types within the U.S. National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) of NATR and to determine how best to map them by using aerial imagery. Analyses of data from 589 vegetation plots had been used to describe an initial 99 USNVC associations in the Parkway; this classification work was completed prior to beginning this NATR vegetation mapping project. Data were collected during this project from another eight quick plots to support new vegetation types not previously identified at the Parkway. Data from 120 verification sites were collected to test the field key to vegetation associations and the application of vegetation associations to a sample set of map polygons. Furthermore, data from 900 accuracy assessment (AA) sites were collected (of which 894 were used to test accuracy of the vegetation map layer). The collective of all these datasets resulted in affirming 122 USNVC associations at NATR. To map the vegetation and open water of NATR, 63 map classes were developed. including the following: 54 map classes represent natural (including ruderal) vegetation types in the USNVC, 5 map classes represent cultural (agricultural and developed) vegetation types in the USNVC, 3 map classes represent nonvegetation open-water bodies (non-USNVC), and 1 map class represents landscapes that had received tornado damage a few months prior to the time of aerial imagery collection. Features were interpreted from viewing 4-band digital aerial imagery by means of digital onscreen three-dimensional stereoscopic workflow systems in geographic information systems. (The aerial imagery was collected during mid-October 2011 for the northern reach of the Parkway and mid-November 2011 for the southern reach of the Parkway to capture peak leaf-phenology of trees.) The interpreted data were digitally and spatially referenced, thus making the spatial-database layers usable in geographic information systems. Polygon units were mapped to either a 0.5 hectare (ha) or 0.25 ha minimum mapping unit, depending on vegetation type or scenario. A geodatabase containing various feature-class layers and tables present the locations of USNVC vegetation types (vegetation map), vegetation plot samples, verification sites, AA sites, project boundary extent, and aerial image centers. The feature-class layer and related tables for the vegetation map provide 13,529 polygons of detailed attribute data covering 21,655.5 ha, with an average polygon size of 1.6 ha; the vegetation map coincides closely with the administrative boundary for NATR. Summary reports generated from the vegetation map layer of the map classes representing USNVC natural (including ruderal) vegetation types apply to 12,648 polygons (93.5% of polygons) and cover 18,542.7 ha (85.6%) of the map extent for NATR. The map layer indicates the Parkway to be 70.5% forest and woodland (15,258.7 ha), 0.3% shrubland (63.0 ha), and 14.9% herbaceous cover (3,221.0 ha). Map classes representing USNVC cultural types apply to 678 polygons (5.0% of polygons) and cover 2,413.9 ha (11.1%) of the map extent.

Natural Resource Report↗