Abstract
The Wilderness Society's (TWS) GIS and remote sensing program, The Center for Landscape Analysis, has grown into a strong contributor to the national and regional conservation efforts of many organizations. These organizations include other environmental groups, federal, state and local government agencies, and Congressional offices. This paper will describe past, current and future efforts to cooperate with, and contribute to, the work of these organizations.
Outreach and cooperative efforts take many forms including a series of workshops to explain and clarify President Clinton's Northwest forest plan. The workshops were attended by over 250 citizen activists. Aside from this project, the Center continues to fill general requests for mapped information with help from volunteers trained in GIS at the Center. The Center also distributes its ancient forest, Pacific salmon and Northwest forest plan data in digital and mapped formats to a number of environmental groups, governmental agencies and private industries. Volunteers and staff of other environmental organizations such as the Greater Ecosystem Alliance and Sierra Club have been using the facilities of the Center to learn and build their GIS skills while creating and analyzing data for their own uses. In the future, the Center will cooperate on projects and provide information to the Forest Service, the Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, LightHawk, Sierra Club, Washington Wilderness Coalition, and many others.
Background
The Wilderness Society (TWS), founded in 1935, is devoted to the
preservation of wilderness and wildlife, protecting America s prime forest,
parks, rivers, deserts, and shorelands, and fostering an American land ethic.
TWS, with over 250,000 members, is a strong advocate for wilderness
protection, working to increase awareness of how publicly owned land is
managed. The function of TWS's research department, called Resource
Planning and Economics (RPE), is to provide credible scientific
information on which to base TWS recommendations for changes in public
policy concerning land and resource management. This department is
comprised of ecologists, economists, public policy analysts, and the Center
for Landscape Analysis.
The primary function of the Center is to conduct projects using GIS and
remote sensing and then package the information for use by TWS
departments, other activists, decisionmakers, government agencies, the
scientific community, the media, and the public. The Center provides
useful products such as reports, maps, charts, tables and other output as
well as digital data. We also work to fill requests for image or map
products from organizations that have no internal facilities. These requests
usually involve output from data that the Center has already collected for
TWS projects.
Goals
Cooperative projects have recently been a focus of the Center. We seek
out groups with whom we have common goals and try to use the strengths
of the individual organizations. The Center provides the GIS and remote
sensing expertise and the cooperators (usually another environmental
organization) provide volunteers, field information, and collect input from
other activists.
The Center also provides services such as training and advice. TWS assists
other groups by reviewing work plans, advising them on technical
methodologies, and providing access to our GIS and remote sensing
facilities and staff. As time and space allows we invite staff or volunteers
of other conservation organizations to use our hardware and software and
provide them with advice and training. Such cooperative efforts yield
mutual benefits - needed training for other organizations, and useful data or
products from their work for TWS.
Past efforts
Northwest Forest Plan
In 1993, the government released a draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) concerning federal lands within the range of the endangered Northern
Spotted Owl. This was followed by a final EIS in January 1994. These
documents provided the basis for President Clinton s Northwest Forest
Plan. The initial project for TWS was to review these EISs and produce
critiques which included charts, maps, and graphs produced by our GIS.
These critiques were submitted to the government. Although the hope was
that changes would be made to the Northwest Forest Plan, it was necessary
to prepare for its eventual implementation. Many activists were familiar
with individual forest plans and their accompanying rules for filing
comments and protesting decisions. The Northwest Forest Plan created a
new set of rules and guidelines, and appended management prescriptions to
individual forest plans. Along with these new rules, new committees were
created to oversee the plan. The majority of activists had neither the time
nor the ability to sift through the mounds of documents provided by the
government to determine the actual effect of the plan in their area of
concern. TWS staff was already familiar with the plan because of the time
spent reviewing the documents to produce comments. What was needed
was a guidebook to the plan so that activists could quickly pick up on the
important changes.
TWS conducted a project to explain the plan and to show activists where
to concentrate their efforts. This project was designed to provide a set of
products including a guidebook, maps, and case study examples and then
present this information at training workshops. TWS took the information
provided and synthesized it into an easy to understand guidebook bringing
out the important changes. TWS then used the GIS to display the plan and
its components. The Guidebook to the Northwest Forest Plan was written
by public policy expert Michael Anderson. This guidebook condensed the
draft EIS, the final EIS, the Record of Decision, along with a variety of
appendixes into one comprehensive document. Highlighted were a brief
history of the ancient forest debate, descriptions of the new management
categories set out in the plan, and key times and events where the public
could influence the process of implementation. The Center provided maps
displaying the location of the new management areas, federally owned
lands, key watersheds, and roadless areas for the entire region affected.
These maps were inserted into the guidebook for reference with some
descriptive tables detailing the acreages of particular designations.
The maps inserted into the guidebook were good for general reference but
not for detailing how the plan would affect a specific region or forest.
Additional maps were generated at two more detailed scales. First, the
entire region was divided into five subregions and then displayed at a scale
of 1:500,000. These maps showed the plan s management areas, key
watersheds and roadless areas, and a composite map of salmon habitat.
The first two maps were generated from data provided by the Forest
Service. The last map originated with data that was developed by TWS.
This data released in 1993, described the present and past habitat and the
condition of ten different species of salmon. Other maps were created at a
larger scale of 1:126,720 or 1/2 inch = 1 mile. At this scale, the
management areas, key watersheds and roadless areas were again shown.
Maps showing slope categories were created and, where available, maps
detailing ancient forests location. The ancient forest data was developed
by TWS for twelve national forests west of the Cascades. These maps
enabled individuals to pinpoint the applicable features and rules of the plan
for a particular area.
TWS developed case studies and exercises that asked the activists to
answer questions about a particular area. One case study described an area
that was planned for timber sales. Using the maps, an individual would be
able to determine the management designations in the areas and whether
the timber sales fell within a key watershed, roadless area, or a high slope
area. Then turning to the guidebook find what activities would be allowed
at this location.
The guidebook, maps, and case studies were presented in a series of
workshops at which activists were instructed in the rules and subtleties of
the plan. The workshops took place in Washington, Oregon, and
California and have been attended by over 250 people. All of the datasets,
maps and guidebooks created by TWS are available to all and have been
widely distributed to not only activists but also agency people, the media,
universities and scientists.
Requests
Another service that we have developed is that of fulfilling requests for
both data and products. I mentioned earlier some of the datasets that have
been developed by TWS, such as salmon habitat and condition and ancient
forests. These data have been requested and distributed to government
agencies, environmental groups, universities, forest industries, and
individuals. Other datasets such as federal land ownership and hydrology
collected for previous projects are also available. The policy of TWS is to
only charge for the cost of the tape that is sent out. In addition to data
requests, we also receive numerous requests for maps and images. We
have a variety of maps available that were generated for specific projects,
such as those produced in our review of the Northwest Forest Plan. Our
salmon maps have appeared in newspapers like the Oregonian and the
Seattle Times, and in conservation newsletters like those produced by the
Pacific Rivers Council and the Oregon Natural Resources Council
(ONRC). These requests are completed as time allows.
ONRC requested that we provide maps to help them with their listing
petitions for coho salmon and steelhead trout. We generated maps
showing the habitat and condition of these species. When they were
considering petitioning for chinook salmon, one of the questions raised was
whether the habitat for coho and steelhead overlapped to a large degree
with chinook. If the overlap was great then the petitions for coho and
steelhead would also cover the chinook. ONRC asked us to determine the
amount of overlap between the three species. The Center generated maps
showing the overlap at a scale of 1:500,000 for the four states where these
species are located (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California). To
accompany the maps the datasets were overlaid and tables were generated
showing the overlap between coho and chinook, steelhead and chinook,
steelhead and coho, the overlap of all three species and the amount of
habitat where chinook did not overlap with either of the other two species.
The results of this study showed that while there was a large amount of
overlap between the three species, there were still significant areas where
chinook habitat would not be covered even if coho and steelhead were
listed.
Volunteers
The Center for Landscape Analysis is currently staffed by one GIS
coordinator and one remote sensing coordinator. The Center is equipped
with two Sun Sparcstations, and three PCs. Two of the PCs are equipped
with x-emulation software enabling them to work off of a workstation and
the third PC is used as a data entry station. Limited to only two staff
members but with enough computers for four people, the Center has come
to depend upon the generosity of volunteers. Both parties benefit from the
exchange. Volunteers help us to complete projects, finish tasks that time
constraints does not allow staff to do, and work on projects with little or
no funding. Volunteers gain valuable experience working with GIS and
remote sensing and training provided by TWS s skilled staff. The Center
usually supports three to four volunteers at a time.
The number of requests that come into the Center are more than the staff
can accomodate and volunteers help to fill these requests. One past
request came from an individual who wanted a map of a particular area
showing ancient forest, forest boundaries, cities, rivers, and mountain
summits. Volunteer George Wood designed the map, pulled together the
data needed, met with the requestor to proof a draft, and plotted a final
version. We would not have been able to fill this request initially, but with
George s help we were able to present a final map to an individual who
wished to fight for environmental protection in his area.
Current efforts
Cooperative Projects
The Center has recently been developing cooperative projects with other
environmental groups. These projects have the benefit of pooling
resources and spreading out the workload. The projects we have
undertaken have been evaluated on how closely they match with the needs
and goals of TWS and the mutual benefits expected.
One such project involves the Washington Wilderness Coalition (WWC).
WWC has a low end GIS with one PC and ARCVIEW software. Roadless
areas have become the link between WWC and TWS. Roadless areas are
very important for protecting an ecosystem. They function as reservoirs of
biodiversity (along with wilderness areas) and as links for species
migration. WWC is interested in these areas for Washington and TWS
wants to create a GIS layer for Washington as well as for Oregon and
Idaho. WWC has devoted staff time to collecting information from
knowledgeable activists concerning the location of roadless areas. TWS has
digital roadless areas that were defined by the Forest Service s Roadless
Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II). The RARE II areas need their
location and shape corrected. There are also areas that need to be added
that were missed by the RARE II inventory. By combining WWC s work
collecting information with TWS s GIS capability, we have been able to
automate the roadless areas for eastern Washington. TWS will use this
data as a basis for work in other states and for analysis work to evaluate
management plans. WWC plans to establish a roadless area watch and
alert activists to actions that will endanger these areas.
Another successful joint project has been in support of the Cascade
Checkerboard Project directed by Charlie Raines. This project, sponsored
by the Sierra Club, deals with the unique situation of the Cascades where
there is an intermingling of public and private ownership. It is necessary to
create an ecologically sound resource management plan for all ownerships.
The Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club has no GIS facilities but the work
they need to do is well-suited to GIS analysis. The data generated by the
Cascade Checkerboard Project includes updated administrative boundaries
for two forests, detailed roadless areas, and private ownership information.
This work has been successful in interesting diverse groups in developing
land and resource proposals. An immediate goal of this project is to
produce brochures and publications depicting the area and educating others
on its unique circumstances. The Center s remote sensing capabilities have
also been used by the project to produce enhanced color images that
graphically depict the impact of mixed management on the checkerboard
area. Sierra Club s Cascade chapter plans to develop its own GIS but will
continue to rely on TWS s more advanced capabilities.
Training
Center staff train our own volunteers and those from other organizations.
Although it requires an investment of time to train a volunteer, the end
results are an experienced person who can, after receiving brief initial
instructions, take over the tasks associated with a project.
There are numerous projects that TWS works on but has not yet found the
financial resources to support additional GIS or remote sensing staff. With
the help of volunteer Elena Robisch, we are currently working on GIS
support for TWS s Wild Alaska campaign. The TWS Alaska staff
inquired concerning maps at government agencies and discovered that the
majority of them used GIS to store their information. The Alaska staff did
the hard work of finding available data, requesting that the data be written
to tape and sent to us, and following up on their requests. The difficulty at
this point was how to get the data processed and maps output. I have been
training Elena in the use of ArcInfo, ARCEDIT, and ARCPLOT. Her
tasks are to quality check the data, correct any errors, edgematch and
mapjoin data, conduct overlay analyses, and produce products as requested
by Alaska staff.
Another exchange between TWS and WWC has been the use of a
volunteer from WWC. Tim Connell is being trained by TWS staff and is in
turn inputting and processing data. WWC has access to TWS s facilities
which are more extensive than their own, and gains data and a trained
volunteer. Volunteer, Jeffery Lewis, works on TWS projects and on the
Checkerboard project. The addition of Jeff has benefitted TWS not only by
his help on a variety of projects but also by having him train less
experienced volunteers.
Advice
Center staff are also helping other organizations by reviewing GIS and
remote sensing work plans and methodologies. Janice Thomson currently
participates as an advisory member for the Southern Appalachians
Coalition. They are currently developing a work plan to create data layers
to help educate others about the need for protection in the Southern
Appalachians. The coalition plans to critique forest plans, design reserve
systems, and set up GIS and remote sensing facilities. Janice reviews their
work plans and proposals and advises them on remote sensing
methodology. I have worked with a number of groups who wish to use
GIS technology, most recently the Superior Wilderness Action Network
(SWAN). SWAN wants to design a reserve system for the North Woods
area of northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Since they are new
to GIS, I have been helping them decide the types of data they would need,
where they could obtain that data, and how GIS would best be used to
meet their goals.
Conclusion
The Center for Landscape Analysis is committed to collecting digital data,
conducting spatial analyses, and disseminating this vital information. The
Center is also committed to helping other organizations with their GIS and
remote sensing needs. Although this is a well-equipped lab for a non-profit
environmental organization, its resources are limited and in high demand.
In an effort to balance the demands of TWS projects and the needs of other
groups, we use a mixture of outreach and cooperation. These methods
involve providing products such as maps, images, data, and reports and by
providing GIS and remote sensing training and advice. These efforts have
successfully created working relationships with other environmental groups
and government agencies on cooperative projects. By using a variety of
methods, the limited resources of the Center help many individuals and
organizations.
Future work for the Center will involve the continuation of our current
cooperative projects, fulfilling new requests, and the training of new
volunteers. We will also initiate new cooperative projects, such as a
current proposal to combine TWS's remote sensing expertise with the use
of the environmental group LightHawk's new capabilities to acquire digital
data from scanners mounted on their airplanes. Other plans for the Center
include expanding its facilities and staff, and incorporating the expertise of
other specialists, such as ecologists and economists.