Ecosystem Management Tools and Techniques:
Proceedings of a CRS Workshop

94-430 SPR

The Gap Analysis Program (GAP) of the National Biological Survey
TERRA Tools and Techniques for Ecosystem Management

APPENDIX II. PROGRAM OF THE EVENT
APPENDIX III. BIOGRAPHIES OF SPEAKERS AND CRS STAFF

THE GAP ANALYSIS PROGRAM (GAP)
OF THE NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY

Presented by J. Michael Scott (7)

Thank you. I will discuss the Gap Analysis program (GAP) of the National Biological Survey (NBS), which is an effort to map land cover and vertebrate distributions across the entire country. GAP is an interagency effort, involving over 200 different State and Federal agencies, and private groups. It is a bottom-up approach with national guidelines. The logic behind this approach is that we have national standards, but the people who are best suited to determine the level of detail they need and what questions they are going to ask are really at the local level--departments of fish and game or county government representatives, for example.

In dealing with ecosystem management, we are dealing with a variety of levels of biological organization at a variety of spatial scales, from the genetic to the ecosystem level. An individual Gap Analysis project operates at the community level, somewhere between the ecosystem and species level. Traditionally, wildlife biologists have operated at the smaller population level and species level when asking management questions. We have been more reactive than proactive in our managing efforts. Because of limited time and resources, managers have frequently waited until there was a problem before taking action. We can do better.

Gap Analysis is an attempt to look at the distribution of indicators of biological diversity, terrestrial vertebrates, and land cover types -- vegetation types -- and ask how those elements of diversity are distributed relative to areas that are managed for long-term maintenance of those same surrogates of biological diversity. Gap Analysis allows for participatory and proactive management of natural resources; it is not reactionary. Gap Analysis has many areas of focus, it:

• Emphasizes ecosystem based resource management, not single species;

• Identifies areas of unprotected species and community occurrence;

• Identifies areas where sensitive species do not occur so that you have the opportunity not only for proactive management, but also for identifying areas where there may not be conflicts (I believe that is equally important); and

• Places emphasis on areas of occurrence of multiple unprotected communities and species.

The mix of those communities and species can be any mix that is of biological or political interest to you. you can ask what is the distribution of birds versus areas managed for them. Or, be more specific and ask what is the distribution of ponderosa pine? The results of Gap Analysis can be used to quantify habitat fragmentation and loss. Once we have a complete vegetation map for the country, we can ask the question: How has the distribution of that vegetation type changed over time? We have a baseline standard, and using some of the Landsat imagery dating back to 1972, we can go back in time as well as forward in time. It establishes a base (of data in digital format) to survey and monitor changes in land cover types. This will permit management actions to be taken on behalf of vegetation types and species while they are still common, and that's absolutely critical -- to be proactive rather than reactive.

In addition to providing information on the status of protection efforts for biodiversity, GAP provides an ecologically defensible framework for more detailed monitoring programs. Traditionally, we have established study areas for convenience. Gap Analysis allows us to look at the total distribution of ponderosa pine, for example, within an entire ecoregion. Thus, we are able to transcend traditional political boundaries such as national forests. We could look at the occurrence of ponderosa pine not only in the Boise National Forest but also in adjacent national forests in Idaho, Oregon, or elsewhere where ponderosa pine occurs, regardless of whether it is U.S. Forest Service lands, U.S. Bureau of Land Management lands, or state owned. We look at the distribution of the resource, not the distribution of the resource within a politically convenient subdivision.

The benefit of Gap Analysis is that it is standardized, systematic, hierarchical, validated nationwide, and based to a large extent on existing data. We frequently find when we start getting involved in a GAP project in a State that a lot of data sets that we didn't know about do exist, and a lot of data sets that we thought existed are not available, had been lost, or never existed. So, by working with cooperating partners to identify data sets that can be used by the entire group, we can share the data in our joint efforts to address resource issues.

Brian Biggs of the U.S. Geological Survey Eros Data Center, has been demonstrating the Mosaic Program we are using to make the GAP data sets available to a wide user community--and that is one of our biggest challenges. When you are dealing with large data sets, how do you make the information available to those people who are in a position or have a need to use that information? They may have different areas of interest. They also have different levels of sophistication in terms of how they can use the data. you can hand some people a computer tape, and everything is fine--they will slap it on their workstation and away they go. Others don't have a workstation; they just have a PC and will simply be interested in a hard copy of the data. Therefore, you really have to make your data available to the users in a format that they can understand and most importantly, can use.

GAP is about cooperative partnerships; and the structure for one state project -- the State of Washington, for example -- shows the wide range of those cooperating. Partners include the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State University, the Department of Commerce Tiger files, the Bureau of Census data files, the Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and a wide variety of groups. In California, most of the program (about 80 percent) is being paid for by private individuals, private companies, development companies, and gas and electric companies. Why? Because they are interested in developing and operating in a more predictable world, and they believe some of the data sets provided by the Gap Analysis projects will help.

GAP is dynamic; it varies from State to State; and it varies because of the interest of the state cooperators. Examples of cooperators include: Biosystems Analysis, a private consulting company; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; Department of Defense; and Maine Department of Conservation, large groups--state, federal, and private. There are over 200 of them nationally.

The national standard for map scale for GAP is 1:100,000. Many of the questions cooperators are asking require at least 1:100,000 scale, covering land units of a hundred hectare minimum. We have taken it down to 5 hectares in some states to meet the need of local cooperators. I would emphasize something else that Nancy Tosta of the U.S. Geological Survey referred to, that the scale at which you operate really is dependent on the question you are asking. We have to be very careful that we are not just asking for the delivery of the data set, but we are asking a specific set of questions and then generating the data set or sets that allow us to answer those questions. Looking at a national strategy, we would perhaps want to start at the highest levels of biological organization because those are frequently the easiest and the cheapest to gain information about. As you get more details by going from 1:1,000,000 to 1:250,000, 1:100,000, or 1:24,000, it takes more time and more money to gather that information .

How is the information from GAP being used? The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), in cooperation with the Gap Analysis project at the University of California-Santa Barbara, examined the occurrence of natural communities which the County Government Association had identified as being at risk. They looked at their occurrence as mapped by their Gap Analysis project, and combined the Gap Analysis maps with the information they had on local zoning and asked the question, "What is the distribution of the plant communities at risk relative to areas zoned for open space, and those areas zoned for development?" The result was a map showing where there are opportunities for change, where potential conflict might exist, and where potential conflict does not exist. I would emphasize this map was developed in response to a very specific question being asked by the organizations belonging to SCAG.

Another example of how derivative data sets can be developed can be demonstrated by a data set showing the distribution of western juniper, a particular vegetation type in Idaho relative to special management areas. What you find is very little acreage of western juniper within areas that are managed for long-term maintenance of biological diversity. Western juniper is by no stretch of the imagination on anybody's list of threatened or endangered or even sensitive communities, but I would argue that perhaps 20 or 30 years from now, there might be some species at risk associated with this community if significant acreages of western juniper are lost.

An example of a very common community type where we didn't have any problems 40 years ago and where we now do have problems is the coastal sage communities in southern California. When I grew up in southern California, coastal sage was something that you got out of the way so that you could put up a new housing development or other land improvement. Today, one endangered species and about 80 candidate species are found in coastal sage, and we have a crisis where a crisis did not exist as recently as 20 years ago. We can avoid a significant number of those types of crisis management situations if we identify the distribution of all vegetation types today and make sure that we have adequate occurrence of each in special management areas. We need to manage communities like western junipers for their long-term maintenance before a crisis situation arises. We can do it when motherhood issues are not involved, and all interests can sit down at the table as partners and deal with it in an objective, proactive manner.

TERRA TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES
FOR ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

Presented by Virginia Ferreira (8)

INTRODUCTION

The Terrestrial Ecosystem Regional Research and Analysis (TERRA) Laboratory is a collaborative effort among federal, state, and private entities. The interdisciplinary staff produces tools and technologies to further global change research, which are also useful in ecosystem management. TERRA participates in integrated assessments, which complement the research program by serving as a test bed for TERRA tools.

A discussion of TERRA Laboratory includes some history and logistics of creating such a group. TERRA's two-pronged program, comprised of research and applications, is characterized. The connection between global change and ecosystem management is described. The three TERRA products demonstrated at the "Workshop on Tools and Technologies of Ecosystem Management" are described; each is a linkage between a pair of useful tools which combine to produce new dimensions in global change and ecosystem management research:

• Modular Modeling Complex linked with Computer Visualization Technology

• HyperSAM, linking hypermedia and Structured Analysis Methodology

• Active Response Geographic Information System (ARGIS), linking an electronic meeting system with a GIS.

THE TERRA LABORATORY

TERRA is an agency-and discipline-neutral space for regional-scale studies of terrestrial and human processes related to global change. TERRA's mission is to incorporate realistic consideration of land and natural resource management into terrestrial ecosystem components of earth system modeling.

The program maintains a balance between the complementary facets of development and applications. TERRA develops integrated-assessment technologies that facilitate collaboration and unite information and models. The Laboratory participates in the performance of integrated assessments by applying and testing the tools and technologies developed at TERRA.

Background

The Laboratory was formed by an August, 1992, Memorandum of Understanding among the USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Forest Service (FS) and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) [now the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)], and the U.S. Dept. of Interior (USDI)-Geological Survey (USGS). The Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) provides systems and project engineering support. IBM Federal Systems Company, Colorado State University (CSU), USDI-Bureau of Mines (USBM), and EPA (USEPA) have contributed human and material resources at TERRA. USDA-NRCS, Utah State University, University of Montana, University of Colorado, and Optimal Decision Engineering Corporation have collaborated off-site in TERRA's technical developments. The Laboratory welcomes new participants in TERRA efforts. TERRA offices opened in November, 1992.

Guidance is provided by a Board of Directors (comprised of Agency and business leaders representing TERRA cooperators) and a Scientific Liaison Group (scientific peers representing appropriate disciplines). The TERRA staff is an interdisciplinary group representative of the wide variety of cooperative organizations listed above. Table 1, on the following page, lists on-site participants; projects also include numerous off-site cooperators.

Participation nature and levels vary among TERRA partners. One example of a cooperative arrangement with TERRA is the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) under which IBM-Federal Systems (a subsidiary of International Business Machines Corporation) participates: "for the purpose of broadening our technological base and by disseminating and making available new knowledge from the Federal laboratory for the development of new products and technologies" (USDA-ARS and IBM-Federal, 1993). The CRADA defines roles and responsibilities, identifies property rights, outlines copyright and patent responsibilities, and describes the symbiotic relationship established between the federal agencies and cooperator. Such agreements are authorized under the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, as amended (15 USC 3710a). CRADAs have broadened the horizons of technological advancement and transfer.

Table 1. A Profile of TERRA Staff (July 1994)

The Global Change/Ecosystem Management Connection

Global change research and ecosystem management problems are intimately related:

• Both require integrated consideration of the entire impact of human activities on natural systems.

• Both require mathematical models to give timely answers to long-term questions of system responses to change. Traditional field research based on "do-something-and-see-what-happens" is time-and resource-intensive. Mathematical models can facilitate computerized experiments by permitting centuries of simulation in a comparatively short time, applying appropriate field-acquired knowledge as available.

• Both require a systems approach; traditional reductionist scientific research produces knowledge useful in developing process-based models, but will not produce the broad, integrated understanding of ecosystem response that is needed for current and future challenges.

• Most global change effects are manifested as environmental (and thus ecosystem) changes.

Research Program

TERRA scientists are advancing knowledge in the following research areas:

• collaboration technology,

• socioeconomic quantification,

• conceptual modeling,

• modular modeling complex,

• networked data resources,

• scale transitions,

• expert systems for model selection and application, and for effects, determination,

• distributed modeling, and

• data and concept visualization.

The tools discussed in following sections are results of these research efforts.

Integrated Assessments and Pilot Projects

Complementing TERRA research efforts are integrated assessments and pilot projects, where the tools and technologies being developed are validated and improved under "real-world" conditions. TERRA has applied collaboration technology, in the form of a facilitated electronic meeting system (EMS), to assist various groups in problem and stakeholder identification. Two projects have been undertaken with the TERRA Active Response GIS (ARGIS): First, ARGIS is being evaluated by a TERRA/Colorado State University Psychology Department study which analyzes group response to use of the tool, and evaluates ARGIS effectiveness in facilitating group decision-making in situations where map data are part of the decision-making process. Another ARGIS pilot project involves assisting with planning for the Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest .

An integrated assessment is being undertaken for the Rio Puerco watershed, in cooperation with a variety of groups. Located in northwestern New Mexico, the Rio Puerco is a tributary of the Rio Grande River. Its contributions include only a small fraction of the Rio Grande stream flow, and an inordinate proportion of the sediment, which is a serious Rio Grande problem.

Figure 12 shows the watershed location in the state. The Rio Puerco joins the Rio Grande upstream of the Elephant Butte Reservoir, a major water supply for the region. Sedimentation in both the Rio Grande and Elephant Butte is a serious concern of the region, and has been studied for decades by many groups. The problem has been a classical case of "if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Rangeland management has been the avenue of amelioration popular among rangeland groups; structure-building has been proposed by some groups; and some channel stabilization efforts are underway, supported by other groups. TERRA proposes a systems approach, utilizing computer simulation modeling and other tools, to coordinate the region's "hammers" in an interdisciplinary study of the integrated effect of structural and nonstructural management alternatives.

TERRA has linked with other agencies and groups with responsibilities and interests in the watershed to study potential landscape changes in response to management and/or climate changes. Touring the watershed, one finds instances of yesterday's corrective efforts creating tomorrow's problems; for example, diversions to stop flow above headouts have started new gullies. TERRA plans to contribute to an interagency examination of the sediment production of the basin, utilizing computer simulation model experiments (including forecasting and hindcasting), and interdisciplinary, inter-institutional systems analysis using group tools. Following these steps, TERRA foresees the possibility of an integrated assessment emerging.

TOOLS USEFUL IN ECOSYSTEM ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT

Developments from TERRA include three products which are each a linkage between available products. TERRA's contributions are the concepts, logistics, and mechanics of linkage.

Modular Modeling Complex/Visualization Technology

The TERRA Modular Modeling Complex is an expanding collection of process models and model components (modules); their data bases, parameter values, system states, and conversion algorithms; and linkages necessary to make the assessments and comparisons needed in the decision process. The Modular Modeling System (MMS) was developed by the US Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the University of Colorado (Leavesley et al., 1992). MMS is the prototype assembler for TERRA's modeling complex. It is a software system designed to support the development, linking, testing, and evaluation of algorithms, and to facilitate the incorporation of user-selected sets of algorithms into an operational model. Models and modules reside in the system "on the shelf', i.e., available for use by other than the developers. Alternative conceptualizations of processes representing different time or space scales, or different algorithms, are thus available for developing models to fit specific situations, or modules can easily be compared for a given situation. Statistical analyses are available in MMS to aid in making decisions or in comparing scenarios or model results.

The modeling complex has the potential to solve a problem common to many available models: model component imbalance. This is illustrated in figure 13. The example system conceptualization contains two components, water and plant. When implemented as a computer model, however, the system sometimes becomes more like figure 14 or figure 15, depending on if the model developer was a hydrologist or agronomist. The individual's expertise is reflected in the complexity of certain components: the hydrologist may move soil water in time steps on the order of a second, but lump plant growth into weekly accumulations, while the agronomist might be growing root hairs on each plant, but moving water weekly. The resulting system models contain mismatched component complexities. Within MMS, the components of both models in Figures 14 and 15 are available, so a model may be built using either both complex water and plant modules or both simple modules, resulting in a balanced model. As an example, the hydrologist may utilize MMS to include the expertise of the agronomist when building a "system" model (using available modules). He now has the option of using the previously developed complex plant module in MMS when first developing a complex hydrology module, avoiding the need to create a new complex plant module.

Visualization technology provides the scientist and decision-maker with the capability to interact with large amounts of complex data through a visual format, maximizing comprehension of the information contained in the data. Three-dimensional data, such as subsurface or atmospheric phenomena, can be displayed in full dimensionality: time-dependent data can be viewed through animation, and tools for probing and manipulating the data can be provided for interactive visualization.

TERRA and IBM are cooperating on a project to link MMS with IBM's visualization software, Data Explorer. Through this link, model scenarios can be analyzed and compared through more comprehensible displays. Land managers, policy makers, and the public will be able to "see" data trends and anomalies in computer output, by using the visualization techniques available in Data Explorer.(9)

TERRA is also pursuing a GIS linkage with MMS, and a PC version of the modeling complex. The final goal is to visualize MMS output together with GIS spatial data, creating more natural displays which include topography, hydrography, and other spatial variables.

HyperSAM: a Link Between Hypermedia Software and Structural

Analysis Methodology

In evaluating how best to assess environmental impacts and present the results to policy-makers and stakeholders, TERRA uses a Structured Analysis Methodology (SAM). One example of steps in a SAM may be summarized as:

1. Define the issue to be analyzed;

2. Define temporal and spatial scales of the issue;

3. Determine potential effects of the decision/issue being analyzed;

4. Define a conceptual analysis of the system;

5. Develop a formal system model, sensitive to potential effects;

6. Execute model, and analyze results; and

7. Interpret and present analysis and assessment results.

Complete assessments with many steps may require different tools or computerized methodologies. HyperSAM has been developed to provide an easy means of linking appropriate software and to provide information aids to the user. HyperSAM is a linkage between Hypermedia and Structured Analysis Methodology.

Hypermedia is computerized (digital) information of various types, linked to provide users with additional information about topics. It is widely used in computerized encyclopedias, Windows "Help" applications, and other information-rich applications. An example of hypermedia is a paragraph of text that contains a "hot" word, which when selected produces a related picture, graph, map, or entire textual document. A "hot-spot" on a map might produce information about its location, in any available medium (including a more detailed map). Media may also include applications such as a spreadsheet, word processor, or GIS package.

TERRA Laboratory is developing HyperSAM to help users "navigate" through a systematic study of the Rio Puerco project. Figure 16 shows a sample of the prototype system.

Active Response Geographic Information System (ARGIS)

An Electronic Meeting System (EMS) is software that allows participants to perform such functions as brainstorming, consensus building, and voting, through use of personal computers. The group may be together or may be scattered around the world. A "facilitator" station accumulates, stores, summarizes, and distributes information contributed by participants. Advantages of an EMS include the speed of information exchange (everyone can "talk" at once), potential anonymity, and possible lessening of psychological barriers.

A Geographic Information System (GIS) is software that stores, compares, analyzes, and manipulates map data for a single user. TERRA has developed a link connecting an electronic meeting system and a geographic information system. ARGIS (Faber et al., 1994) facilitates the exchange of information in meetings where map data are used. The system combines and analyzes participant responses, creating maps and tables summarizing group input.

ISSUES FOR CONGRESS

The U.S. Congress requested information from CRS about tools and technologies under development for ecosystem management and the issues that may be surrounding their use. The following is response to a CRS compiled list of questions, by topic.

The Limitations of These Tools

The three linkage products discussed above share the limitation of being only in developmental stages.

• HyperSAM is in an early stage, with a prototype being built around the Rio Puerco project. Utilization of HyperSAM in that project will determine if a generic navigation system should be produced.

• ARGIS has been tested, including a validation study; it is being beta-tested (used prototypically in a practical application) on a Forest Service project.

• MMS is the most mature of the three products, with years of USGS and cooperators' efforts invested. It has been initially beta-tested, and is now downloadable over Internet. Final MMS documentation is nearing publication, and TERRA documentation is complete for several enhancements. Limitations of its stage include the need to populate the system with a wide array of modules and databases, and the need to develop an expert system to assist the user in identifying appropriate concepts and modules for a given problem.

Hardware and software may be assets or limitations. HyperSAM and ARGIS are based on commercial software. Factors considered in TERRA development efforts include product availability, support, and costs.

The Direction of the Development of Tools

• HyperSAM is being developed and tailored for use in the Rio Puerco project, and is rapidly changing as more information, updated and innovative software and hardware, and project plans evolve or become available.

• ARGIS is in a more advanced stage, with an available User's Manual, and has been utilized for several projects. Refinements are being implemented.

• Modular Modeling Complex is being tested and enhanced. Recent efforts have included improving system portability, so it is now readily available for a variety of UNIX workstation models; efforts to make a PC-Unix version are under way. Graphics capabilities have been improved with a state-of-the-art visualization package linkage under development.

The Cost of Tools vs. the Cost of Acquiring Data

Federal Agencies are conducting problem-targeted research which TERRA tools may help to make relevant to global change and ecosystem management applications.

TERRA is testing and cooperating in the development of tools with a wide range of costs, from free or minimal cost (public domain and shareware) to expensive software, operating on a range of equipment from inexpensive notebook PC's to workstations. The ultimate goal is to provide easily-accessible tools, applicable on readily-available equipment. To reach this goal, TERRA is utilizing a variety of available software and equipment; as our developments on the high end of costs proceed, it is the nature of the computer industry that costs will decline, and capabilities will expand exponentially.

Data now available or now being collected will be utilized in the modeling effort; but scientists cannot simply acquire data to answer the ecosystem management/global change questions we face. Computer simulation models allow many tests and analyses of results; the real world offers only very limited scenarios in "real" time. By the time answers are available in the real world, the problems will need solutions; TERRA's goal is to provide tools and technologies to facilitate identifying strategies for prevention and/or adaptation.

The Need for New or Different Data

One need is for old (historical) data: there exists a lot of data which would be useful if it were computer-accessible. Several agencies are striving to save and process such data. The USGS is producing large quantities of geographic data, both old (from maps) and new (remotely sensed). This is a valuable resource, necessary for ecosystem-management applications.

Another need is for overall collaboration in design of an open data archival system (one that may be freely accessed, utilized, and shared by all concerned interests) .

Informing Those in the Public Decision Making Process

All of the TERRA tools have potential for transferring more scientific knowledge to the public decision-making process. In addition, HyperSAM and ARGIS are designed to facilitate the process. Figure 17 illustrates TERRA's conceptualized decision-making process, focusing on the role TERRA and TERRA tools might play in the process.

REFERENCES

Faber, B. G., R. Watts, J. E. Hauteluoma, J. Knutson, W. W. Wallace, and L. Wallace. 1994. "A Groupware-enabled GIS." Proc. GIS '94 Symposium, Vancouver, B.C., pp. 551-561.

Ferreira, V. A. and W. K. Lauenroth. 1993. "Computer Simulation Modeling of Pesticide Fate." In: Pesticide Interactions in Crop Production, Beneficial and Deleterious Effects, J. Altman, ed. CRC Press, pp. 87-111.

Leavesley, G. H., P. Restrepo, L. Stannard, and M. Dixon. 1992. "The Modular Hydrologic Modeling System - MHMS." Proc. AWRA 28th Annual Conference and Symposium, Reno, Nevada, pp. 263-264.

USDA-ARS and IBM-Federal Systems Company, 1993. Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, 27 p.

APPENDIX II

PROGRAM OF THE EVENT

The CRS Workshop on Tools and Techniques

of Ecosystem Management

Program

Concurrent Demonstrations of Tools and Techniques of Ecosystem Management by TERRA Lab., National Biological Service/EROS Data Center, and U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 9:00-9:55

Intro and Welcome (Moderator) 9:55-10:00

Keynote Address: Nancy Tosta, Chief, Branch of Geographic Data Coordination, NMD, USGS Presents

Federal Government Perspective on the Tools of Ecosystem Management and Importance for other National Goals including the National Biological Survey and National Spatial Data Infrastructure.

Q&A 10:05-10:50

Discussion and Demonstrations:

- U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Use of GPS in Tracking Non-Game Species on Conservation Reserve Program Lands.

- The National Biological Survey and Gap Analysis.

- An Interagency, Multidisciplinary Approach to Ecosystem Management, Academic and Private Sector Partnership in the Development of Ecosystem Management Technologies. (TERRA Lab.) 10:50-11:30

Hands-on Demonstration of "Active Response GIS" (TERRA Lab.). 11:30-12:00

Breakaway Discussions with Guest Speakers, Interagency Ecosystem Management Coordinating Group Representatives, and Concurrent Demonstrations Resume. 12:00-12:30

APPENDIX III

BIOGRAPHIES OF SPEAKERS AND CRS STAFF

Nancy Tosta is the Staff Director for the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). She is also the Chief of the Branch of Geographic Data Coordination in the National Mapping Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Ms. Tosta is also currently editor of the "Data Data" column in Geo Info Systems magazine. She previously was Deputy Director of California's Teale Data Center. Prior to that she was a policy analyst on natural resources issues for the California Department of Forestry. She has experience in natural resources management and policy analysis, image processing, GIS implementation, management, and coordination, and information technology management and policy. She has B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of California Berkeley.

D. Alan Davenport is GIS Coordinator, for the Office of Migratory Bird Management, of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). He has served over 26 years as a biologist/computer specialist with FWS, this includes more than 14 years at the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (Now National Biological Service's (NBS) Northern Prairies Science Center) in Jamestown, North Dakota, and more than 12 years in the Office of Migratory Bird Management in Laurel, Maryland. He was educated in Wildlife Management, receiving his B.S. in 1962 and M.S. in 1967 from Utah State University and University of Minnesota, respectively. He received his M.S. in 1982 in Computer Sciences from North Dakota State University.

Mike Scott has been Professor of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Leader of the Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, and Research Biologist for FWS working in cooperation with the NBS, since 1986. He received his B.S. and M.S. in Biology from San Diego State University in 1966, and 1970, respectively, and he received a PhD in Zoology from Oregon State University in 1973. He has worked as Assistant Curator, for the Natural History Museum, in the Department of Zoology at Oregon State University, Corvallis, and was Instructor at Malheur Environmental Field Station of Pacific University, Malheur National Wildlife Reserve in Burns, Oregon. Formerly, he was a researcher at the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis. He has received many distinguished professional and educational accolades. Currently, he is evaluating methods used to estimate numbers of animals, assessment of habitat selection by grizzly bears, preserve design at the continental and regional level, determining limiting factors, and designing recovery strategies for endangered species.

Brian Biggs of the U.S. Geological Survey's EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota graduated from the University of California at Santa Barbara with a BA in Geography. He will be attending the Utah State University working toward a Master's in Geography with an emphasis in Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems. He is currently working with the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in collaboration with NBS to create an electronic Encyclopedia of GAP Analysis.

Virginia Ferreira earned a Bachelor's degree in Mathematics at the University of Arizona, and a Master's in Earth Resources--Hydrology at Colorado State University. She served the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in Tucson, AZ and Tifton, GA before moving to Ft. Collins, CO. She is a 24-year veteran of ARS, the last year with TERRA Laboratory. Ms. Ferreira is accompanied by Sanetta Gavette, T'Shanna Smith, Bret Smith, Ernest (E.J.) Soto, and Carl Spongberg who will be assisting with TERRA Lab's demonstrations.

CRS Staff Coordinating the Workshop on the

Tools and Techniques of Ecosystem

Wayne Morrissey is Co-coordinator and Moderator of this Workshop. Mr. Morrissey is a Technical Information Specialist in the Science Policy Research Division of CRS. He holds a B.A. in Geography from the George Washington University. His subject areas include global climate change, Earth and environmental sciences, and data management for global change research. He also organized the Discussion and Demonstration of the CRS Symposium on Ecosystem Management. Ph: (202) 707-7072

Jeffrey Zinn is Co-coordinator of this Workshop. Mr. Zinn is a Senior Analyst in Natural Resources Policy in the CRS Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. He has earned a B.A., M.S. and PhD degrees, all in geography and respectively from the University of Vermont, University of Rhode Island, and Oregon State University. Issues he covers include coastal resources and coastal ocean management, wetlands, soil and water conservation, and land use planning more generally. Ph: (202) 707-7257

---------------------------------------

Endnotes

1. Ecosystem Management: Status and Potential; Summary of a Workshop Convened by the Congressional Research Service, March 24 and 26, 1994. Prepared by the Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division of the Congressional Research Service for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works [S.Prt. 103-98]. Washington, GPO, December 1994. 331 p.

2. Gap Analysis: A Geographic Approach to Protection of Biological Diversity," by J Michael Scott, et al. Wildlife Monographs, no. 123, January 1993: 1-41 1993, Blacksburg, VA., Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University.

3. See, for example, Global Environmental Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions. Paul C. Stern, Oran Young, and Daniel Druckman, editors. Committee on Human Dimensions of Global Change, Commission on the Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, 1992. National Academy of Sciences Press. 308 pp.

4. Wayne A. Morrissey is a Senior Research Assistant in the Science Policy Research Division of the Congressional Research Service.

5. Nancy Tosta is Chief of Geographic Data Coordination for the National Mapping Division of the U.S. Geological Survey. This paper has been edited from a transcript of the original presentation.

6. D. Alan Davenport is a GIS Specialist at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This paper has been edited from the transcript of the original presentation.

7. J Michael Scott is the Unit Leader of the Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. This paper has been edited from the transcript of the original presentation.

8. Virginia Ferreira is a member of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Regional Research and Analysis (TERRA) Laboratory. This paper has been edited from the transcript of the original presentation prepared by Virginia Ferreira and D. DeCoursey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service; B. Faber, Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network; L. Knapp, IBM-U.S. Federal; and R. Woodmansee, Colorado State University. All are members of TERRA Laboratory.

9. Use of product name is not an endorsement by TERRA Laboratory.