CONGRESS ON APPLICATIONS OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION … · GIS and resource management...

RENEWABLE R

ESOURCES JOURNAL

SPECIA

L REPORT

RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES FOUNDATION

®

CONGRESSON

APPLICATIONS OF GEOGRAPHICINFORMATION SYSTEMSTO THE SUSTAINABILITY

OF RENEWABLENATURAL

RESOURCES

2 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL autumn 1996

RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES FOUNDATION

MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS

American Anthropological Association

American Congress on Surveying and Mapping

American Fisheries Society

American Geophysical Union

American Meterological Society

American Society for Horticultural Science

American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

American Society of Agronomy

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Landscape Architects

American Society of Plant Physiologists

American Water Resources Association

Association of American Geographers

Society for Range Management

Society of Wood Science and Technology

Soil and Water Conservation Society

The Ecological Society of America

The Humane Society of the United States

The Nature Conservancy

The Wildlife Society

autumn 1996 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL 3

Congress Hosted By

College of Natural ResourcesUtah State University

With Major Support From

USDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceUSDA Forest Service

Additional Support Provided By

USDA Agricultural Research ServiceUSDI Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Geological Survey, National Mapping Division

Other Contributors

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

CONGRESS PROGRAM COMMITTEE

Chair: Gale W. TeSelle, Soil and Water Conservation Society; Members: Dale A. Bucks, USDA,Agricultural Research Service; Sissi Foster, American Society of Landscape Architects; Thomas M.Franklin, The Wildlife Society; Charles W. Gay, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University;Hardin R. Glascock Jr., Public Interest Member of RNRF Board; Albert A. Grant, Public InterestMember of RNRF Board; Clare W. Hendee, Public Interest Member of RNRF Board; Dennis Keaton,USDA Forest Service; Brian D. Keller, The Ecological Society of America; Kenneth J. Lanfear Ameri-can Water Resources Association; John J. Moeller, U.S. Geological Survey; Lawrence R. Pettinger,American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing; Priscilla Reining, American Anthropo-logical Association; Thomas M. Usselman, American Geophysical Union; Ex Officio Members: Ri-chard L. Duesterhaus, RNRF Chairman, Soil and Water Conservation Society; Robert D. Day, Renew-able Natural Resources Foundation; Staff Liason: Christopher M. Koster, Renewable NaturalResources Foundation.


CONTENTS

Foreword .................................................................................................................................................. 5

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 6

Chapters:

Resource Sustainability Data and Information Technology Requirements....................................... 10

GIS and Telecomunication Technology ............................................................................................ 12

Data and Data Management .............................................................................................................. 14

Education and Awareness .................................................................................................................. 16

Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal, State, Local Government Sectors,Non-Governmental Organizations, and Private and Academic Sectors ............................................ 19

Case Studies, Applications and Working Models ............................................................................. 22

Synthesis: GIS Technology and Sustainable Resource Management ............................................... 24

Appendix: List of Delegates .................................................................................................................... 27

About RNRF ............................................................................................................................................ 31

SPECIAL REPORT:CONGRESS ON APPLICATIONS

OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMSTO THE SUSTAINABILITY OF RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES


Foreword

It is significant that the 20 member organizations of theRenewable Natural Resources Foundation decided manymonths ago to authorize a national meeting on geographicinformation systems (GIS) and sustainability. The selectionand joining of these subjects, from the many considered, wassignificant recognition by this scientific community of theincreasing importance of GIS to advancing sustainability.

This report describes an important interdisciplinary gath-ering of more than 100 professionals, scientists and educa-tors at Jackson Lake Lodge in Grand Teton National Park,Wyoming, September 11–14, 1996. Delegates to this na-tional congress on “Applications of Geographic InformationSystems to the Sustainability of Renewable Natural Re-sources” were nominated by RNRF’s 20 member organiza-tions. The synergy created by this diverse group of del-egates—from different employment sectors, from across thecontinent, and trained in the biological, physical and socialsciences—resulted in numerous insightful recommenda-tions to guide our future efforts.

GIS is a technology that can empower communities toparticipate more knowledgeably in local and regional land-use and other natural resources decisions. It is a technologythat promotes interdisciplinary approaches to natural re-sources management—something in which RNRF membersbelieve. Finally, GIS is an important tool in analyzing andvisualizing complex problems. Using this technology in-creases the probability of making better decisions.

This report outlines what needs to be done to realize thepotential of GIS in promoting the sustainability of renewable

natural resources. And, there is plenty to be done. As you willnote, important implementation responsibilities must beborne by private companies, communities, nonprofit organi-zations, educational institutions, and county, state and fed-eral agencies.

Before closing, I am delighted to recognize the efforts ofmany who contributed to the success of this program. First,Gale W. TeSelle, chair of the Congress Program Committee,and the other 15 volunteers who served with him deserve anenormous amount of credit (see the committee roster on page3). They took the general concept for the meeting, approvedby the RNRF Board of Directors, and gave it depth and sub-stance.

Another important contribution was made by the faculty,graduate students, and other personnel of the College ofNatural Resources at Utah State University. The collegehosted a wonderful opening session, with welcoming re-marks from Provost Jay Gouge. During the three-day con-gress, faculty members served as working group chairs, andgraduate students served as working group reporters. Wecould not have succeeded without them.

Finally, a very special thanks goes out to the federal agen-cies which recognize the importance of this interdisciplinarywork by providing financial support. Our federal partners arelisted on page 3.

Richard L. DuesterhausChairman, Board of Directors

Renewable Natural Resources Foundation


In recognition of the critical role thatgeographic information systems (GIS)play in resource management, the Re-newable Natural Resources Foundation(RNRF) convened a national meeting ofGIS and resource management profes-sionals to explore the use of GIS as atool for promoting the sustainability ofrenewable natural resources, particu-larly at the community level. The meet-ing, entitled “Applications of Geo-graphic Information Systems (GIS) tothe Sustainability of Renewable NaturalResources,” was held at the JacksonLake Lodge in Grand Teton NationalPark, Wyoming, on September 11-14,1996.

The purpose of the meeting wasbased on the premise that resource man-agers and local communities need anddemand quality information about whatresources are available and where theyare located. This information must beaccurate, consistent, timely, and share-able. As the management of natural re-sources becomes increasingly commu-nity oriented and the public seeks moreinformation and accountability, GIS

should be considered an essential ana-lytical tool for quickly accessing andcommunicating land-and resource-planning information among resourcespecialists and local communities.

RNRF member organizations be-lieve that GIS is being underutilized byresource managers and by local com-munities. In order to remedy this prob-lem, RNRF brought together over 100delegates from across the United Statesand Canada to reach a greater under-standing of the uses and applications ofGIS as a tool for promoting sustainableresource management among the pro-fessional, scientific, educational, re-source management, and policy-mak-ing communities.

The delegates were nominated by the20 member organizations of RNRF.RNRF made considerable effort toachieve a broad spectrum of disciplinesand backgrounds among the delegateswho represented many different local,state, and federal resource managementand planning agencies, academic insti-tutions, non-governmental organiza-tions (NGOs), and the private sector.Many of the leading authorities in re-source management and GIS attendedthe congress. However, it was not a fo-rum only for “experts” in GIS; RNRFmade a concerted effort to include pro-fessionals from diverse fields whowould benefit from attending the meet-ing regardless of their background inGIS. Indeed, one of the primary objec-tives of the congress was to promote thefuture use of GIS among planning and

resource management professionalswho have had little experience with thetechnology. A list of delegates is pro-vided in the appendix.

The congress had three specific ob-jectives: 1) provide a forum for an inter-disciplinary dialogue and examinationof the applications of GIS for resourcesustainability in the planning, manage-ment, decision-making, and conserva-tion of renewable natural resources; 2)determine the priority issues concern-ing the accessibility, accuracy, consis-tency, and capability of the informationthat can be utilized through GIStecnnology, and consider future appli-cations of GIS technology in resourceanalysis, integrating and managingdata, and in communicating possiblesolutions to complex environmentalproblems; and 3) recommend ap-proaches or actions that need to betaken by federal and state governments,universities, private enterprises, andthe natural resources professions tobetter utilize GIS and its potential ben-efits to community-based decisionmaking in land and resource planning.

Six broad topics were the focus ofdiscussion. Working groups were orga-nized around each of these topics. Thetopics were identified by the RNRFCongress Program Committee as keyissues that confront resource managersand planners in furthering the use ofGIS as a tool for promoting the sustain-ability of renewable natural resources.The six topics and working groupswere:

Introduction

Peter M. Morrisette

The author of this report, Peter M.Morrisette, formerly a member of theRNRF Board of Directors, has a Ph.D.in geography and works as a researchconsultant based in Victor, Idaho. Hehas held positions with Resources forthe Future (RFF) and the Consortiumfor International Earth Science Infor-mation Network (CIESIN).


1. RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITYDATA AND INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS

The focus of this group was to ad-dress the data and technology require-ments of communities for effectivelymanaging and sustaining renewablenatural resources. This group, whichhad to tackle both the concept of sus-tainability and community, had perhapsthe broadest scope of the six workinggroups. Specifically, participants in thisworking group assessed the data andtechnology needs of communities forutilizing GIS, the community level indi-cators of resource health and the dataneeded to support those indicators, theways in which a local community as-sesses its resource sustainability goalswithin the context of state and nationalgoals, and the ways in which GIS tech-nology can support the decision mak-ing process.

2. GIS AND TELECOMMUNI-CATIONS TECHNOLOGY

This group addressed the technologyissues that both enable and limit acommunity’s access to information,data, and tools for using GIS in the man-agement of renewable natural re-sources. With revolutionary changes insoftware and hardware, and the explo-sive growth in use of the Internet and theWorld Wide Web, this group had totackle some very timely and difficultissues. Questions that participants con-sidered included the limitations that re-strict community access to GIS tech-nologies, the extent to which cost is afactor, the extent to which more re-search and development could aid insolving the problem, and other actionsneeded to increase accessibility to GIStechnology at the community level.

3. DATA AND DATA MANAGE-MENT

Identifying data needs and assessingthe adequacy of existing data for com-

munities to engage in sustainable natu-ral resources management was the is-sue addressed by this working group.Data lie at the heart of GIS, and thisgroup had the task of exploring the dataneeds of local communities for effec-tively utilizing GIS technology. Par-ticipants in this working group consid-ered whether there are adequate meansfor knowing what data exist, whetherthey are useful at the community level,and whether there are adequate stan-dards in place for sharing data. Partici-pants also addressed questions of dataintegration, privacy, and legal liabili-ties.

4. EDUCATION ANDAWARENESS

Fostering an awareness of GIS tech-nology as a tool for achieving the sus-tainable management of renewablenatural resources, particularly at thecommunity level, was the focus of thisworking group. Participants consideredthe relationship between GIS technol-ogy and sustainability, the steps neededto increase awareness of GIS, what dif-ferent user groups need to know aboutGIS, the practical applications of GISin resource management and economicdevelopment, and the role of formaleducation at all levels in increasingawareness of GIS.

5. ROLES ANDRESPONSIBILITIES OF THEFEDERAL, STATE, LOCALGOVERNMENT SECTORS, NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZA-TIONS, PRIVATE, ANDACADEMIC SECTORS

What are the roles of government atall levels, universities and the researchcommunity, non-governmental organi-zations, and the private sector in pro-moting the use of GIS as a tool forachieving sustainability of renewablenatural resources? This was the ques-tion addressed by this working group.Specifically, this group focused on is-

sues concerning how these large anddiverse institutions and organizationscould effectively work together, thespecific roles of the private and publicsectors in database management, andthe adequacy of existing mechanismsfor coordination. In addition, workinggroup members considered the role ofRNRF member organizations in en-hancing the application of GIS technol-ogy to resource sustainability.

6. CASE STUDIES,APPLICATIONS, AND WORKINGMODELS

The focus of this working group wasto identify and explore examples of ef-fective resource sustainability thatcould serve as models for others. Spe-cifically, participants in this workinggroup considered models at the federalor state level that might be useful to lo-cal communities, and examples at thecommunity level that could serve as amodel at the state and federal level.How do you evaluate case studies, whatare the indicators of success, and howdo you initiate support for projects atthe community level were other issuesconsidered by this group.

Delegates were assigned to workinggroups based on preferences that theyidentified on their meeting registrationforms. RNRF made every effort to bothmeet the preferences of delegates andachieve a balance of disciplines andperspectives in each working group.Using a model developed at its 1992Congress in Vail, Colorado, RNRF ro-tated delegates among different work-ing groups. Each working group metfor four two-hour sessions. Only thechair and recorder remained the samefor each session of a working group.Working group chairs and recorderswere from the College of Natural Re-sources at Utah State University. Thismodel of rotating delegates among fourof the six working groups provided anopportunity for delegates to commenton an array of issues, and for eachworking group to incorporate ideas and


concepts discussed in other groups. Aset of questions was distributed to del-egates at the start of each workinggroup session. The questions, devel-oped by the RNRF Congress ProgramCommittee, were intended as an aid tostructure the discussion of the group.

The congress opened with an eveningreception on September 11 hosted bythe College of Natural Resources atUtah State University. The first full dayof the meeting (September 12) beganwith plenary sessions in the morningand early afternoon. Delegates then metin the first of four working group ses-sions. Working group sessions contin-ued all day on September 13, and thecongress concluded on the morning ofSeptember 14 with a final plenary ses-sion where summary reports of theworking group findings were presented.

To set the context for the workinggroup discussions, the congress openedwith three plenary talks and the presen-tation of two case studies. In the firstplenary, Robert D. Day, executive di-rector of RNRF, presented an overviewof the concept of sustainable develop-ment utilizing the recent report of thePresident’s Council on Sustainable De-velopment. Day noted that the conceptof sustainable development can beviewed as a natural evolution from thetraditional concept of resource conser-vation to one that more fully includeshuman values. Sustainable develop-ment is not necessarily an intractableproblem. Managers need to approach itfrom an incremental perspective inwhich they breakdown large complexissues into smaller individual problemsthat have workable solutions. Dayviews GIS as an enabling technologythat will help resource managers at thecommunity level develop these work-able solutions contributing to sustain-able development and the sustainabilityof natural resources.

In the second plenary presentation,Jack Dangermond, founder and CEO ofEnvironmental Systems Research Insti-tute, presented an overview of the his-

tory and uses of GIS technology andsome insights on its future potential.Dangermond explained that GIS pro-vides a holistic method for examiningresource sustainability issues that al-lows for a cross-cutting look at prob-lems and solutions. Technology is be-coming less of a limiting factor. Thefocus now is on issues of data and sci-ence. He noted the growing reach andpervasiveness of GIS. GIS tools arenow embedded in other software andavailable over the Internet. The trend,according to Dangermond, is clearlytoward more transparent technologiesand more users. He believes that the In-ternet will be the future home of GIStechnology, and it will displace tradi-tional desktop uses. He notes that theage of “maps and apps” is already uponus, where we download a map and anapplication from the Internet.Dangermond is concerned, however,that with the growing pervasivenessand transparency of GIS technology,we run the risk of simplifying problemsand solutions and becoming lost in aworld of virtual reality. We must becareful not to lose touch with the realworld. Nevertheless, GIS is one of thebest tools we have for integrating infor-mation and data, and we must strive tomake the most comprehensive use of it.

In the third plenary talk, John J.Moeller who is the staff director of theFederal Geographic Data Committee(FGDC), provided an overview of fed-eral data coordination activities.Moeller explained the role of theFGDC, National Spatial Data Infra-structure (NSDI), and the NationalData Clearinghouse. These programsare aimed at building partnerships forsharing geospatial data and for estab-lishing shared standards. In addition tothese three plenary talks, there also wasan evening presentation on the evolu-tion of the GIS profession by John C.Antenucci of Plan Graphics, Inc.

The two case-study presentationsprovided delegates with some real-world examples of how GIS is being

used by communities to solve problemsof resource sustainability. The firstcase study focused on efforts to use GIStechnology in the Greater YellowstoneEcosystem. The Greater YellowstoneEcosystem includes over 20 millionacres centered on Yellowstone Na-tional Park and the seven national for-ests that surround it. A panel discussionwas organized by Frederic H. Wagnerof the College of Natural Resources atUtah State University. The panelistsincluded Anthony Barnosky of theMountain Research Center at MontanaState University; Dave Heilig of theUSDA Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service; Marshall Mayer, CEO ofDesk Top Assistance; Jerry Reese, su-pervisor of the Targhee National For-est; and John D. Varley, director of theYellowstone Center for Resources, Na-tional Park Service. The panelists rep-resented diverse backgrounds and in-terests, and presented numerousexamples of how GIS is being used bystate and federal agencies, local gov-ernments, researchers, and NGOs toaddress questions of resource sustain-ability in the Greater Yellowstone Eco-system. The panelists noted severalsuccessful applications of GIS to re-source sustainability; however, theyalso underscored the need for more co-operation in data collection and shar-ing.

The second case study focused on ef-forts by the New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection to incorpo-rate GIS into all of its permitting andmonitoring activities. The presentationwas made by Henry Garie, director ofthe Office of Information ResourcesManagement for the New Jersey De-partment of Environmental Protection.Garie noted that New Jersey is usingGIS to help strike a balance betweenenvironmental protection and eco-nomic development. He illustrated howGIS is used throughout his agency tointegrate data and make day-to-daymanagement, monitoring, and permit-ting decisions. Garie also noted how his


agency has worked with NGOs to im-prove public access to environmentalinformation in New Jersey.

The remainder of this report presentsthe discussions, findings, conclusions,and recommendations of the delegateworking groups from the congress. Thereport is structured around these sixworking groups. This report is based onthe official recorder notes for each ses-sion, and on notes provided by sessionchairs and by volunteer recorders whowere selected from among delegates at-

tending each working group session.This overview report would not havebeen possible without the high–qualitynotes provided by these individuals.

No formal effort was made at reach-ing a consensus among all the delegateson all the issues. Each working grouphad its own dynamic and incorporateddifferent approaches for structuring dis-cussions and reaching conclusions.There also were variations from ses-sion-to-session within working groups.This report attempts to accurately por-

tray the content and spirit of the discus-sions that took place within the indi-vidual working group sessions. Thefindings, conclusions, and recommen-dations reached at the congress, and in-cluded in this report, represent the opin-ions and ideas of the delegates attendingthe congress and not necessarily thoseof the Renewable Natural ResourcesFoundation and its member organiza-tions, the agencies and organizationsthat provided financial support, or theauthor.«


To effectively use GIS as a tool forsustainable natural resources man-agement, local communities need ac-cess to data and information abouttheir natural resources and the condi-tion of their environment. These dataand information must be assessed andutilized in a complex social and po-litical environment in which localvalues and goals may not mesh wellwith the goals and values of outsideorganizations and institutions (e.g.,state and federal agencies or environ-mental groups). Delegates in thisworking group considered the envi-ronmental data and informationneeds of local communities, the ef-forts needed to meet these data andinformation needs, and the means foraddressing local community needs inthe context of state and national goalsfor sustainable development. The fol-lowing seven questions were pro-vided as a basis for discussion:1. What data are required for a

community to effectivelydiscuss, plan, and engage inefforts to sustain renewablenatural resources?

2. How can a community go aboutestablishing indicators ofresource health?

3. What are the data needs andresource-health indicators for astate or nation to support its goalof sustaining renewable naturalresources?

Resource Sustainability Dataand Information Technology Requirements

4. How does a community assessthe relationship between itsresource-health indicators andstate or national goals?

5. What natural resourceinventories and monitoring dataare needed to measure indicatorsof resource health?

6. What information technologiesare needed by communities tosupport decision makingprocesses related to efforts tosustain natural re-sources?

7. What decision-support systemsand technologies need to beaccessible to a broad range ofcitizens in a community?For most delegates, addressing these

questions first required an attempt atdefining what community and sustain-ability mean. This was an issue raisedby all four working group sessions andformed the basis for much discussion.In general, delegates agreed that com-munities exist at more than one scale,and can be centered on a place or de-fined by shared values and interests.However, most of the focus was on theidea of community as a local place.Within that place, there can be diver-gent values and interests, and localplaces fit into a larger state and nationalcontext.

Most delegates agreed that sustain-ability must be defined within the con-text of the goals and values of a localcommunity. However, a local commu-

nity does not exist in isolation, we alsoneed a shared national concept of sus-tainability. Ideally, goals and values atthe local level would mesh with those atthe state and national levels, but oftenthis is not the case. Cooperation in thecollection, sharing, and analysis of en-vironmental data is a good place to be-gin to build a shared concept of whatsustainability means to a communityand to the nation. Ecosystem health andmanagement are other useful conceptsfor defining and guiding sustainabilityat the community level. Respect forcommunity values is important in de-veloping a concept of what sustainabil-ity means at the local and national level.

Spatial scale was a cross-cutting fac-tor for all the issues discussed in thisworking group. Delegates spent a greatdeal of time trying to come to terms withhow concepts of community and sus-tainability might differ at variousscales–local, regional, national and glo-bal. Data needed for effective resourcemanagement and indicators of sustain-ability and ecosystem health also differby scale. Again, cooperation in the col-lection, sharing, and analysis of envi-ronmental data is a good place to beginto resolve problems of scale and to de-velop shared concepts of sustainabilityand ecosystem health.

Delegates agreed that data needs de-fine themselves on a problem or issuebasis (i.e., data needs are locally de-fined), but there is a clear need for good


baseline and inventory data on the con-dition of natural resources and thehealth of the environment at all scales.Despite the wealth of data that alreadyexists, we still do not have a good un-derstanding of the condition of ournatural resources. We need baselinedata sets that can be meshed or inte-grated, but because there are few stan-dards that guide data collection, often itis difficult to combine two or more datasets. We need better and standardizedmetadata (background informationabout data) that addresses the problemof data integration and informs usersabout appropriate applications of a dataset. We also need to be collecting goodsocial and economic data along withnatural resources data. Finally, del-egates in one session noted that infor-mation about ecosystem processes is asimportant as spatial pattern data, andthat not all natural resources and dataare equal–some factors are better indi-cators or stronger causative agents ofwhat is happening in a given environ-ment.

In the discussion about indicators ofecosystem health, delegates notedmany of the same issues (e.g., scale,standardization of data) raised duringthe discussion of data needs. Most del-egates agreed that indicators of re-source sustainability need to be bot-tom-up; that is, they need to haverelevance at the local community level.These local indicators also need to bedeveloped in the context of national in-dicators of sustainability. There waslittle agreement on what are the impor-tant local indicators. Most delegatesbelieved that these indicators would de-fine themselves based on the particularissues and problems. There was agree-ment that the report of the President’sCouncil on Sustainable Developmentwas a good starting point for developingnational indicators of sustainable devel-opment, but that much more work wasneeded. We need more research toidentify the proper indicators, and weneed to better understand the relation-

ship between indicators and ecologicalconcepts such as thresholds and carry-ing capacity.

Environmental data does little goodif local communities do not utilize it.Indeed, promoting the use of environ-mental data is a good way to start localcommunities thinking about issues ofsustainability and how their natural re-source management goals can meshwith state and national goals. Access toGIS technology and to data are barriersto incorporating environmental infor-mation into local decision-making.Cost is a factor limiting access to tech-nology and data. More significant lim-iting factors are the lack of knowledgeabout the applications of GIS and train-ing in how to use this technology. Inaddition, we need to teach more aboutecosystem management and spatialanalysis. Providing technology anddata are not enough, local resourcemanagers need to know how to makeuse of the information that these tech-nologies and data are unearthing. Nev-ertheless, there was agreement that lo-cal communities would benefit greatlyfrom better access to GIS technology,the Internet, and environmental data.

Delegates agreed that it was impor-tant for local communities to be part ofthe decision-making process. For GISto be an effective tool for local resourcemanagers, these managers need to bepartners in the application of GIS to en-vironmental management issues in theircommunities. It is too often the case thatstate or federal governments own thetechnology and data, and that there islittle participation from, and consulta-tion with, local communities. State andfederal agencies need to be more sensi-tive to the needs of local communities.Delegates also noted a need for moreand better efforts at conflict resolution.Indeed, the ability of GIS to help inte-grate and visualize complex sets of en-vironmental data make it a very usefultool for conflict resolution, but all thestakeholders need to believe that theprocess for using this GIS is legitimate.

Finally, two suggestions wheremade that seemed to cut across many ofthe issues discussed by the delegates inthis working group. The first is the needfor a handbook to help communitiesunderstand the concepts of natural re-source inventories and assessments,and the use of information technologyto support ecosystem management andresource sustainability. This handbookwould contain information about howto collect data and establish indicatorsfor community sustainability, as wellas information about where to find andhow to use GIS and other informationtechnologies for resource planning anddecision making.

The second suggestion concernedthe value of case studies as a learningtool. There is a wealth of good case-study material available. We need tomake better use of this material, and weneed to improve methods for integrat-ing case studies and drawing general-ized conclusions that are applicable toother problems.

This working group grappled withmany far reaching and difficult issuesregarding communities and sustainabil-ity, not the least of which was trying tocome to terms with what communityand sustainability mean. Delegatesagreed that meaningful concepts ofcommunity and sustainability musthave local roots, but that these localplaces also were part of larger state, na-tional, and global communities. Re-source managers at all administrativelevels need to make a better effort atunderstanding each other’s values andneeds. Cooperating in the developmentand use of baseline data sets, indicatorsof resource health, and applications ofGIS technology can help resource man-agers address issues of resource sustain-ability in a manner that cuts acrossscales. We need to bring local commu-nities more fully into the process of de-veloping data sets and using GIS tech-nology.«


GIS technology is a powerful tool forassembling, integrating, and visualiz-ing natural resources data, and can con-tribute in significant ways to the devel-opment and implementation ofsustainable resource managementstrategies. However, for GIS to make auseful contribution, resource managersand policy makers must have access tothe technology. This working group ex-amined how to improve access to GIStechnology, particularly by local re-source managers and the public. Del-egates participating in this workinggroup considered five questions:1. Are there limitations that sig-

nificantly restrict theaccessibility and usefulness ofGIS and tele-communicationstechnologies to communities thatwant to be involved in decision-making processes pertaining tomanagement of renewable naturalresources? What are theselimitations?

2. Are there adequate industrystandards in place to supportuniversal and open access to datathrough common formats andcommand languages?

3. Is more research anddevelopment needed, and if so, inwhat areas?

4. Are the costs involved in usingtechnologies reasonable toprovide adequate public andcommunity access?

5. What actions can be taken to in-crease general use andaccessibility?

GIS and Telecommunications Technology

Delegates participating in the foursessions of this working group tackledthese five questions in order. The dis-cussions for each question certainlyoverlapped; however, the delegatesreached some very specific conclusionsand suggestions for each questionwhich are summarized below.

LIMITATIONS TOACCESSIBILITY ANDUSEFULNESS OF GIS

A wide-ranging discussion occurredin all four sessions regarding the ques-tion of limitations to the accessibility ofGIS technology. Access to both tech-nology and data is a limiting factor foreveryone working with GIS, whetherthey are at a university or work for afederal agency. However, access is aparticularly acute problem for local re-source managers. Cost is a big part ofthe problem, but lack of training andknowledge about the applications ofGIS and where to find data are also verysignificant limiting factors.

Delegates saw a pressing need formore and better education about GIS.Many local resource managers andmuch of the public do not know aboutGIS. Efforts at improving awareness ofGIS applications and improving educa-tion and training in the use of the tech-nology will lead to better access to thetechnology. People need to know aboutthe technology before they can use it.Many delegates believed that whenmore resource managers and the publicare exposed to GIS and understand its

benefits, they will demand better ac-cess. Several delegates noted that edu-cation and training must focus on howto use the information that GIS makesavailable, and not just on how to ma-nipulate GIS technology.

Making GIS technology easier to useor more “user friendly” was anothercommon suggestion. Many people shyaway from GIS technology because it isperceived to be too complicated. Newtechnologies that embed GIS into othersoftware applications, and the availabil-ity of GIS tools over the Internet, al-ready are increasing access to the tech-nology. Also, many users may not needlarge datasets and the software tohandle them. Representing basic dataon a map is all that many local plannersneed. The Internet is a powerful tool forproviding access to GIS applicationsand to data. It is an easy-to-use andcost-efficient delivery system, butsome delegates noted that the Internetalso has limitations. Access to theInternet in rural areas still is a problem,and it is slow and often not reliable.Delegates agreed, however, that better,easier-to-use GIS tools that utilize theInternet and other new technologieswill attract more users.

Issues concerning privacy of data,data security, proprietary ownership ofdata, and liability from the use of dataare other important factors that limit theuse of GIS technology. These factorsoften are not well understood by users.Cost, of course, is a key factor limitingcommunity access to GIS (this issue iscovered in greater detail in the section


on Education and Awareness). Limita-tions in the telecommunications infra-structure, particularly available band-width, also curtail access.

ADEQUACY OF INDUSTRYSTANDARDS

Many delegates thought that lack ofstandardized metadata (informationthat explains the origins and uses of thedata) is a problem, but numerous agen-cies, professional organizations, and in-dustries are trying to address this issue.There was some concern that the cur-rent FGDC metadata standards areoverly complex and should be refined.In addition, metadata standards need tobetter address issues of scale and layer-ing so that different data sets can be in-tegrated. There also was discussionover how open the process of standardsetting should be. Delegates agreed thatGIS hardware, software, and telecom-munications standards will likely comefrom industry, and data standards fromthe professions. Delegates further notedthe need for coordination among fed-eral, state, and local agencies in estab-lishing data standards.

Finally, there was much discussionabout the different roles of public agen-cies and the private sector in establish-ing metadata standards and developingdata. This discussion centered on theissue of who pays for and should haveaccess to data. Most delegates agreedthat data collected by public agenciesshould be available to the public, andthat private industry has a proprietaryright to data that it has developed.

NEED FOR RESEARCH ANDDEVELOPMENT

Most delegates noted a need for moredata, particularly baseline or inventorydata that are useful to a wide audience.

The need for improvements in data ac-curacy and the development of methodsfor addressing problems of data inaccu-racy were noted by several participants.The trend away from public data devel-opment and toward private data devel-opment concerned some delegates. Ac-cess to data could be a problem. Otherdelegates noted a need for better dataarchiving methods. They were con-cerned that changes in technology andstandards might make data archived to-day obsolete in five or ten years.

Technological change was a majortopic of discussion. There was discus-sion but no agreement over whetherneeds and uses were outpacing devel-opments in GIS technology, or whetherthe technology was beingunderutilized. There was agreement,however, that the Internet and WorldWide Web will be an important part offuture technological developments.Many delegates noted the need for im-provement in getting reliable, useableinformation into the hands of usersquickly. The development of moreuser-friendly GIS applications and ex-panded use of the Internet as a deliverysystem are potentially powerful toolsfor accomplishing this goal.

Finally, there is a need for researchinto the effect that GIS is having on re-source management decision making.We need to understand how GIS haschanged the way resource managementdecisions are being made, and the im-pacts of those changes on landscapesand people.

COSTS OF USING GISTECHNOLOGIES

Delegates agreed that cost is a keyfactor limiting the use of GIS by localgovernments, schools, and libraries.These costs involve not only hardwareand software, but also data, training,

and salaries. Indeed, data and personnelcosts often are much greater than hard-ware and software costs. We need todevelop low-cost and easy-to-use GISproducts, and we need to demonstratethe cost effectiveness of using GIS. Inaddition, the public, not just local gov-ernments, needs to be made aware ofthe usefulness and cost effectiveness ofGIS.

Demonstrating cost effectiveness iscritical. Local governments are con-cerned about whether they will get theirmoney’s worth out of GIS. These con-cerns are based not only on issues ofdirect costs such as software and hard-ware, but also on whether the technol-ogy is useful and accurate. Usingcounty extension agents was suggestedas one means of demonstrating the use-fulness and cost effectiveness of GIS tolocal governments. Delegates also dis-cussed whether it was appropriate forlocal governments to charge the publicfor data and GIS services. Cost recoveryis an important issue that needs to beconsidered by local governments.

ACTIONS NEEDED TO INCREASEACCESSIBILITY

Better efforts at building awarenessof GIS and educating people about howto use the technology are importantsteps to improving access and use. GISeducation at the K-12 level was stressedby many delegates. Education needs tofocus both on how to use GIS and howto think spatially. Teachers need to betrained about GIS and spatial analysisand how they can be used in the class-room. We also need to place more em-phasis on natural resources and envi-ronmental education so that peopleknow how to interpret and understandthe information that is produced usingGIS. Delegates agreed that once peopleknow what GIS can do for them, theywill want to use it.«


Data collection and management arekey elements in developing a GIS sys-tem for managing natural resources.GIS technology is not of much use ifthere are no available data. Do we havegood data, particularly at the commu-nity level, for managing natural re-sources in a sustainable manner? Thisquestion was the focus of discussion forthis working group. Delegates exam-ined a wide range of issues concerningthe availability and quality of data, theadequacy of metadata standards, andproblems of privacy, accuracy, and li-ability. Discussions in this group ad-dressed eight specific questions:1. Are there adequate means of

knowing what data exist andwhether the data are useful forpurposes of community efforts tosustain natural resources?

2. Are there certain fundamentaldatabases that are most importantand that should receive highestpriority for development?

3. Are there adequate standards inplace for renewable natural re-sources data and related data sothat integrated use and datasharing can occur?

4. Do we have adequateunderstanding of the relationshipbetween natural resources andenvironmental-health indicatorsand the inventories of dataholdings in these areas that arecurrently available?

5. What is the best way toaccomplish data integration forproject-level use?

Data and Data Management

6. Who should maintain currencyand accuracy of data?

7. How should concerns of privacyof information be handled in acommunity-based project?

8. Are there legal liabilities likely toresult from using data that are inerror or inaccurate?Each session of this working group

focused its discussion on a different setof these questions, and none of theworking groups had enough time to ad-dress all eight questions. For example,metadata standards and indicators werethe focus of one session, while anothersession spent more time with the prob-lem of data integration. Privacy was anissue that all four sessions addressed.The summary below is organizedaround five topics: data and metadata,fundamental databases, indicators, dataintegration, and privacy, accuracy, andliability.

DATA AND METADATASTANDARDS

Most delegates agreed that currentmetadata standards need to be simpli-fied and refined. Metadata is the infor-mation that explains what a specificdata set is, how the data were collected,and how the data should be used. Somedelegates felt that quality of metadatawas not as much of a problem as the factthat users seem to ignore metadata.Others argued that metadata was toocomplex or not easily available, andthat is why users tend to ignore it. Re-gardless of these differences, delegates

agreed that current metadata standardsare inadequate.

Delegates agreed that there is a needfor a common, minimum standard formetadata that everyone follows. De-veloping a common, minimum stan-dard will not be easy. Clearly there areimportant roles here for the federalagencies and other data organizations,but the process must also include localcommunities and users. One sugges-tion was to develop a certification pro-cess for metadata. This process wouldcertify that a specific data set containsmetadata information in accordancewith at least the minimum standard.There is also a need for better educationof users about the role and importanceof metadata. Users need to know whatmetadata is and how to use it. In addi-tion, it is important that metadata is de-livered as part of the package that con-tains the data.

Access to data and metadata was an-other issue discussed by delegates. Ev-eryone agreed that there are importantroles here for the Internet, data cata-logs, and data clearinghouses. We needto improve our ability to let users knowwhat data and metadata are available,even if the information being providedis incomplete. Libraries and librariansshould be a part of the process. Severaldelegates cited examples (from Mon-tana and Pennsylvania) of the valuablerole of libraries in providing access to,and information about, data. There alsois a need for better metadata browsersthat incorporate improved search ser-vices and pathways for locating data.


FUNDAMENTAL DATABASES

There was a wide-ranging discussionover the issue of what constitutes com-plete, fundamental resource-inventorydata sets. Some key types of data werecited as essential (e.g., soils and demo-graphic data), but delegates agreed thatdata needs vary based on the needs of acommunity and the issue being ad-dressed. Still there was agreement onthe need for complete, baseline or in-ventory data sets. In addition, standardsneed to address issues related to scale,layering, and integration. Problemswith matching, overlaying, and inte-grating data are a barrier to developingbaseline data sets. Digital orthophotoquads (DOQs) were cited as a good baseto work from to develop baseline datasets.

INDICATORS OFENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Delegates noted that we do not havean adequate understanding of the rela-tionship between natural resources dataand environmental-health indicators.Indeed, we do not know much about en-vironmental-health indicators, or whatconstitutes a healthy ecosystem. Del-egates agreed that environmental-health indicators will vary among com-munities, and that developing standardsfor indicators will be very difficult. His-

torical data, such as data on land-use/cover change, were cited as valuableinformation for developing indicatorsof environmental health.

DATA INTEGRATION

Data integration is essential but of-ten very difficult because of lack ofstandards, lack of a common base mapssuch as digital orthophoto quads, andproblems with scale and layering. Dif-ferent data sets do not match up well.Delegates noted the need for coordina-tion and collaboration among users anddevelopers so that issues of data inte-gration can be resolved. Some del-egates believed that the only way to re-solve the integration of naturalresources data such as soils, land cover,hydrology, and geology is to conductintegrated, multi-agency collaborativefield resource-inventory and mappingprojects using the same base map at thesame time interval and scale.

ACCURACY, LIABILITY, ANDPRIVACY

The issues of accuracy, liability, andprivacy sparked a lively discussionamong the delegates. Everyone agreedthat these are very important issues.Many delegates were concerned aboutlegal liabilities resulting from issues ofdata accuracy. Developing accuracy

standards might help address this issue,but users still need to take responsibil-ity for using data correctly. Misuse ofdata will be a problem regardless of ac-curacy; therefore, the issue of liabilityis not likely to go away any time soon.Delegates did agree that the best way toavoid legal liabilities is to fully de-scribe the data uses and limitations inthe metadata record. Regarding the pri-vacy issue, delegates agreed that somedata should remain private. Delegatesalso felt that as more data becomesavailable, and the use of GIS technol-ogy becomes more widespread, pri-vacy will increasingly be raised as anissue. We need to be able to address theprivacy question when it is raised.

SYNTHESIS

The need for establishing minimumstandards was a common theme in thediscussions throughout this workinggroup. There is a need for standards foraddressing issues of accuracy, privacy,data integration, environmental-healthindicators, data development, andmetadata. The process of developingstandards needs to involve agencies, lo-cal communities, data users and devel-opers, and the public. Many delegatessuggested the need for a database certi-fication process for adherence tometadata and data content standards.«


One of the cross-cutting themesthroughout the meeting was how to im-prove education and awareness aboutGIS. All the working groups touchedon this issue in one form or another.Many of the recommendations thatcame from the working groups address-ing data, technology, and resourcesustainability issues called for moreand better efforts at educating students,professionals, and the public aboutGIS. Foreseeing the importance of ef-forts to improve education and aware-ness of GIS, the congress organizersspecifically set up a working group toexplore this critical issue. Delegatesparticipating in the working group con-sidered five questions:1. How does GIS technology relate

to renewable natural resourcessus-tainability?

2. What steps need to be taken tofoster increased use andawareness of GIS technology?

3. What specific user groups needto be better informed about thetechnology and its relationship toresource sustainability?

4. What are the practicalapplications and uses of GIStechnology related to decisionsthat address resourcemanagement issues inconjunction with economic andquality of life concerns?

5. What are the various roles of K-12 schools, community colleges,uni-versities, adult education,extension and the private sector inproviding education to potentialGIS tech-nology users andincreasing aware-ness in thebroader community?

Education and Awareness

Discussions in this working groupcovered all five questions but tended tofocus on the first two, which for mostdelegates seemed to encompass the keyissues. The summary below attempts tocapture the breadth of ideas discussedby the delegates, and is organizedaround two themes: the relationship be-tween GIS and natural resource sus-tainability, and the steps needed to im-prove education and awareness of GIS.

GIS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Most delegates agreed that there isan important relationship between GIStechnology and efforts at developingstrategies for the sustainable manage-ment of natural resources, but they un-derscored the need for caution and carein using GIS as a decision-making tool.GIS is an excellent tool for organizing,integrating, and displaying environ-mental data, and therefore, it can con-tribute to better informed decisionsabout resource management. Further-more, because GIS can integrate anddisplay data in ways that were previ-ously not possible, it can also fosternew and innovative approaches to sus-tainable resource management.

Many delegates noted that one of thestrengths of GIS as a decision-makingtool is its contribution to fostering com-promise among competing interests.GIS is a powerful tool that can help de-cision makers better understand eco-system patterns, and the specific rela-tionship between uses and impacts. Theability of GIS to integrate and displaydata provides decision makers with anew way to assess the implications of

specific resource uses and associatedimpacts, and for identifying solutions.Interests on different sides of a resourceissue can use GIS to reach a consensusabout how to manage and minimizeimpacts on that resource.

The ability of GIS to display infor-mation makes it a very persuasive tool,but it is imperative that it be used in acareful and informed manner. GIS isonly a visualization tool; it does notproduce solutions on its own. GIS us-age must be rooted in a thoroughknowledge and understanding of spe-cific problems and the inherent limitsof the data available to assess thoseproblems.

Quality data is a critical need. Theinformation produced by a GIS appli-cation is only as good (or accurate) asthe data used to derive that information.In addition, users of GIS must under-stand how to ask the right questions–that is, they must understand the typesof problems and issues that GIS is anappropriate technology for addressing.Delegates were very concerned aboutproblems that emerge from inaccuratedata and the misuse of GIS technology.Resource managers, decision makers,and other users of GIS must be respon-sible and informed about the natural re-source problem being studied to be in-telligent users of the technology.

Some delegates also felt that GIS canmake a valuable contribution to partici-patory democracy (particularly at thelocal level), by providing the publicwith more and better information aboutenvironmental issues. The public cannow use GIS tools provided over theInternet and embedded in CD ROM


technology to access and manipulateenvironmental data and informationthat was previously unavailable. Del-egates noted examples of public par-ticipation illustrated in the GreaterYellowstone Ecosystem and New Jer-sey case studies presented during thecongress plenary session. However,there was concern among some del-egates that the decision-making pro-cess could be overwhelmed by all thenew information that GIS technologywill make available.

STEPS FOR IMPROVING GISEDUCATION AND AWARENESS

Information by itself does not equalunderstanding. Delegates agreed thatthere is a pressing need to improveawareness of GIS, but this must becoupled with efforts to improve envi-ronmental and geographic education.The world of GIS users is broad–it in-cludes professional resource managersand planners, researchers, NGOs, andthe public. All of these users need to beeducated about how to use GIS technol-ogy and the information that it pro-duces. Delegates in all four sessionsunderscored the need for more and bet-ter efforts at teaching spatial analysisand critical thinking skills to studentsand professionals at all levels. Underly-ing this recommendation was a beliefthat just teaching people how to useGIS was not enough, and would be irre-sponsible. Individuals trained in GISalso need to be trained in how to inter-pret and judge the information that GISproduces.

Increasing awareness of the benefitsof using GIS technology among plan-ning and resource management profes-sionals and the public is another criticalneed. Many professionals in resourcemanagement and planning still do notunderstand how GIS can benefit them,and the public has little or no under-standing of the technology. Delegatessuggested continuing education pro-grams and university extension ser-

vices as a way to reach professionalsand the media as a means to introducethe public to GIS. However, before thiscan be accomplished, educators and themedia need to be made aware of GIS aswell. Delegates felt that there is a rolehere for RNRF and the professional re-source management societies. The pro-fessional societies need to take a leadrole in educating their members, themedia, and the public about GIS.

Some delegates felt that GIS tech-nology is still too complex and needs tobe more user-friendly before it willgain widespread use. Delegates also feltthat the products need to be simplified.Users are still overwhelmed by the tech-nology and the intricacies of the infor-mation that it produces. There was afeeling, however, that this was an itera-tive process–increased exposure to anduse of GIS will lead to a higher comfortlevel among users and a better under-standing of GIS applications. In addi-tion, the emergence of simple GIS ap-plications on the World Wide Web isindicative of a move toward more user-friendly products.

There was substantial discussion inthis working group on the role of K-12schools, community colleges and uni-versities, and other forms of formaleducation and training as a means of in-creasing awareness about GIS. Del-egates underscored the need for educa-tion in spatial analysis, geography, andecology in addition to teaching GISskills. Few high school students are re-quired to take a geography class, anduniversity programs in resource man-agement are weak in spatial analysis.Math and science requirements shouldalso be increased for both K-12 and un-dergraduate college students.

Several delegates noted examplesfrom their home states (e.g., Utah,North Carolina, and Florida) of howGIS, spatial analysis, and environmen-tal studies are being incorporated intothe K-12 curriculum. Governmentagencies, non-profit organizations, andprivate businesses are working with

schools across the country to incorpo-rate GIS into school curriculums. Edu-cating teachers about GIS and makingthe technology available to schools arekey factors in introducing GIS to K-12education. The Geographic Alliancesponsored by the National GeographicSociety, and Vice President AlbertGore’s Globe Project are good modelsof how to work with schools, teachers,and students at the K-12 level to in-crease awareness of GIS and geogra-phy. The effort by Environmental Sys-tems Research Institute to bring GISsoftware into K-12 classrooms is an-other model program.

GIS and spatial analysis also need tobe an integral part of the resource man-agement and environmental planningcurriculums at universities. Delegatesnoted that this already is the case inmany university programs, but there isroom for improvement. Lack of fundingand a crowded curriculum are barriersto adding additional courses in GIS.Several delegates who were membersof university faculties noted that in re-source management programs studentshave few electives and little flexibilityin their curriculum requirements. Add-ing more GIS training would meandropping something else. They ex-plained, however, that GIS can be, andis, taught within existing courses (e.g.,resource planning or field methods).Delegates agreed that better GIS train-ing in universities was needed. How-ever, delegates also stressed the need toteach core classes in science, math, eth-ics, and critical thinking. We need toteach students of resource managementand planning how to be good profes-sionals, as well as skilled users of GIStechnology.

Delegates agreed that there is a criti-cal need for GIS training among mid-career professionals. Many of theseprofessionals graduated from collegebefore GIS training was widely avail-able within universities. Continuingeducation programs are needed to trainmid-career professionals about GIS.


State and federal resource managementagencies need to develop programs totrain their employees in GIS applica-tions. An example was provided of howone Forest Service office already is re-training many of its employees in theuse of GIS technology. Small commu-nities, however, often cannot afford thecost of training. Delegates suggestedusing university extension services as away to reach small communities. Del-egates also believed that the profes-sional societies should play a major role

in promoting efforts at retraining mid-career professionals.

Delegates also noted the need fortrained technicians to perform the im-portant data entry requirements of GIS.Currently, there are not enough skilledpeople available for data entry. Low payis one reason for the lack of skilledworkers, but lack of proper training indata entry is a consistent problem. Del-egates thought that community collegeswere good places to develop trainingprograms in data entry. A good data

entry training program should includespatial analysis, in addition to GIS anddata entry skills.

Finally, delegates agreed that themember organizations of RNRF need tobecome more involved in supportingGIS education. Suggested actions forRNRF and its member organizationsincluded promoting awareness of GISamong the resource management pro-fessions and the public, and developingguidelines and standards for GIS train-ing and education programs.«


Roles and Responsibilities of theFederal, State, Local Government Sectors,Non-governmental Organizations, andPrivate and Academic Sectors

What are the roles and responsibili-ties of the different actors and sectorswho have an interest in or benefit fromGIS technology? Who should bear thecost of developing data? Who shoulddevelop professional standards? Arethere different roles and responsibilitiesfor the public and private sectors? Howcan cooperation and coordination beimproved? These questions and otherissues concerning professional rolesand responsibilities were the focus ofdiscussion in this working group. Be-cause the issue of roles and responsibili-ties is so broad, delegates were asked toconsider six specific questions:1. How can federal, state, and local

government sectors best worktogether to enhance theapplications of GIS technology toresource sustainability?

2. What roles can individual organ-izations of the RenewableNatural Resources Foundationplay in efforts to enhance theapplications of GIS technologyto resource sustainability?

3. What role should the privatesector play in databasemanagement and proprietaryownership of data-bases?

4. What role should the publicsector have in databasemanagement and proprietaryownership?

5. Which organizations or sectorsshould assume financial re-sponsibility for development andmaintenance of databases?

6. Are the coordinationmechanisms that currently existadequate for the futurecoordination of geospatial data,GIS technology, telecommun-ications, etc. among the variousorganizations and sectors that arelikely to be involved incommunity-based sustainabledevelopment initiatives?These six questions stimulated a

wide-ranging discussion in the fourworking group sessions. Each sessionapproached these questions from differ-ent premises, and sometimes came toconflicting conclusions. Nevertheless,several key conclusions resulted fromworking group discussions. All foursessions devoted a great deal of timediscussing the first question, and tendedto combine questions three, four, andfive into a single question about the dif-ferent roles and responsibilities of the

public and private sectors. The sum-mary presented below is organizedaround four themes: 1) federal, state,and local cooperation, 2) the role ofRNRF member organizations, 3) therole of the public and private sectors,and 4) mechanisms for coordination.

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCALCOOPERATION

Delegates agreed that cooperationamong federal, state, and local agenciesis the key to improving the applicationof GIS technology to problems of re-source sustainability. They also agreedthat there are many barriers to effectivecooperation among the governmentsectors. There was much discussionamong delegates on who should initiateefforts at coordination and the specificroles and functions of different agenciesand organizations. Delegates stressedthat no single approach or model willwork for everyone, and they warnedagainst becoming totally committed toany single formula. Approaches to co-operation and coordination will varyamong communities and problems.

In general delegates thought that theinitiative or motivation for coordina-


tion needs to start at the local level–itneeds to be bottom up rather than topdown. Federal agencies should have inplace appropriate structures for re-sponding to the needs of local commu-nities. Delegates stressed the need forfederal agencies to be sensitive to localissues and concerns. State agenciesneed to play the role of coordinator be-tween federal programs and local ac-tivities. The state agencies are in thebest position, it was believed, to bringlocal governments and federal agenciestogether to address common needs andproblems. Communicating needs andbuilding partnerships are key elementsto effective cooperation among agen-cies.

How do you develop local initiativesfor using GIS technology? Many del-egates believe that the local initiativeoften comes from visionary leadership.Some individual or local organizationperceives a need for GIS technologyand starts the process of communica-tion with state and federal agencies.Delegates stressed the idea that theremust be a local “felt need” for GIS tech-nology, and that efforts at cooperationamong local, state, and federal agenciesmust be mutually supported. Delegatesalso noted that grassroots NGOs canplay an important role by identifying aneed for GIS technology, and coordi-nating efforts among local, state, andfederal agencies.

Many delegates perceived a lead rolefor state agencies in facilitating coordi-nation and cooperation. The state agen-cies often are in a better position tocommunicate with local governmentsthan are federal agencies. In addition,federal funding for local activities of-ten is channeled through state agencies.The states also are in a better position toidentify needs and provide local train-ing than are federal agencies.

Federal agencies should be in a posi-tion to support state and local technicaland data needs, and to provide appro-priate funding. Delegates also thought

that universities could serve as clear-inghouses for data and information.They noted that universities often havea good relationship with federal, state,and local agencies.

Delegates also agreed that federalagencies need to improve coordinationand cooperation among themselves. Inparticular, federal agencies need to im-prove efforts at sharing data. Agenciesoften do not always recognize that theirdata may have wide applications be-yond the specific purposes for whichthey were collected. Delegates agreedthat the recently established FederalGeographic Data Committee (FGDC)was a positive step toward fosteringmore inter-agency cooperation. Del-egates also agreed that federal agenciesalong with the FGDC should take thelead in establishing metadata standardsand developing base-line data sets.Federal agencies are in a better positionto undertake these tasks than are stateand local agencies.

Finally, delegates warned againstplacing too much emphasis on technol-ogy and losing sight of the main issue,which is promoting sustainable man-agement of natural resources. Sustain-ability is a value-based concept that isrooted in place. GIS is merely a tool forassessing spatial/temporal changes inthe environment. The goal of coordina-tion is to promote and develop sustain-able resource management policies thathave strong community support. GIScan be a very useful tool for achievingthat goal.

ROLE OF RNRF MEMBERORGANIZATIONS

Delegates agreed that the profes-sional, scientific and educational orga-nizations that comprise the RenewableNatural Resources Foundation can playa very important role in promoting edu-cation and awareness about GIS. Del-egates suggested eleven specific ac-tions that RNRF member organizations

should consider. These include:• Develop guidelines for incorporat-

ing GIS into undergraduate andgraduate curriculums for their re-spective professions.

• Develop and promote programs forretraining mid-career profession-als about GIS. This could includesponsoring workshops and devel-oping short courses.

• Promote interdisciplinary work onthe development and application ofGIS technology.

• Promote public awareness aboutthe uses of GIS.

• Develop an Internet website forproviding information about GISand its applications to resource sus-tainability.

• Establish professional and ethicalstandards for using GIS technol-ogy.

• Work with other organizations toestablish metadata standards.

• Publish more GIS articles in pro-fessional journals and sponsormore sessions on GIS at profes-sional meetings.

• Develop an online GIS journal.• Emphasize the need for quality

peer review as a means to ensureaccuracy and responsibility in theuse of GIS technology.

• Become an advocate for the use ofGIS technology.

ROLE OF THE PUBLIC ANDPRIVATE SECTORS

Exploring the roles and responsibili-ties of the public sector versus the pri-vate sector led to a wide-ranging discus-sion, and the expression of manydiverse views. Everyone had an opinionon this topic, but the breadth of this dis-cussion also reflects the fact that the pri-vate sector is playing an increasinglyimportant role in developing key natu-ral resource data sets. In addition, ef-forts at cost cutting by federal agencieslikely will lead to an even larger role in


data development for the private sectorin the future. Much of the discussion onthis topic focused on the issue of whohas proprietary rights to data.

Delegates were quick to distinguishbetween data developed under a gov-ernment contract and data developed bya company using its own money. Thereis no question that a company has a pro-prietary right to data that it developedwith its own money, but data developedby the private sector with public funds isin the public domain. A company cansell data that is in the public domain if ithas added to the value of that data insome way. Several delegates noted thatwhile public agencies are good at devel-oping data, the private sector is oftenmuch more efficient at making useableproducts out of those data. They furthernoted that this is a good and useful rela-tionship. Most delegates also agreedthat the public sector could charge fordata in the public domain to recovercosts, but there was no agreementamong delegates on whether the publicsector should make a profit from its

data. Some delegates believed that allpublic data should be available free ofcost.

Delegates expressed concern aboutthe assurances of quality data devel-oped by the private sector. They notedthe need for shared metadata standardsbetween the public and private sector,and for some type of peer-review sys-tem for assessing data available fromthe private sector. The concern here isthat the consumer needs to have someway to judge the quality of data that isavailable from the private sector. Del-egates also noted that there are goodopportunities for public-private part-nerships in data development, but regu-lations and conflict-of-interest issuesoften make it difficult to pursue theseopportunities.

Finally, there was discussion aboutthe role that the market should play indriving data development. Clearly, theprivate sector will respond to the marketby developing data products that areprofitable. The role of the public sectoris to develop data that meet a public

need–even if the private sector is devel-oping data in this area as well. For ex-ample, weather data or data on air andwater quality should be developed bythe public sector. The role of govern-ment in data development is to serve thepublic interest.

COORDINATION

Most delegates agreed that existingmechanisms for coordinating GIS ac-tivities were not adequate, but there waslittle consensus on how one establishesadequate mechanisms for coordination.Numerous efforts and activities aimedat improving coordination already ex-ist, and it is not clear what new actionswill add. More can be gained by work-ing with and improving mechanismsthat already are in place such as the Fed-eral Geographic Data Committee. Inthis light, a suggestion was made thatthe member organizations of the Re-newable Natural Resources Foundationconsider adopting a resolution support-ing the coordination efforts of the Fed-eral Geographic Data Committee.«


Examples of how GIS has been usedby state and federal agencies, localcommunities, and non-governmentalorganizations to support sustainable re-source management were the focus ofthis working group. Delegates broughta diversity of backgrounds and experi-ences to bear on this issue, and offeredan array of case studies and models ofhow GIS is being used by communities.Five questions were provided to del-egates for discussion:1. What examples can you point to of

approaches and projects sponsoredby a federal or state program thatcan serve as role models for otheragencies or organizationsattempting to pursue sustainabledevelopment initiatives at thewatershed and/or communitylevel?

2. What examples can you point toof approaches and projects thatare working at variouscommunity (watershed, county,township, etc.) levels that canserve as role models for otheragencies or organizationsattempting to pursue sustainabledevelopment initiatives at thewatershed and/or communitylevel?

3. What are the examples ofimproved decision making andprotection of resources that haveoccurred as a result of thesemodels?

Case Studies, Applications andWorking Models

4. What lessons have been learnedfrom these examples?

5. What are the steps that should betaken to initiate broad-basedcommunity support for projects?Delegates did not focus on indi-

vidual questions; rather, they ap-proached these five questions as asingle problem–what are successful(and unsuccessful) examples of usingGIS, and what constitutes a successfulproject or program. Each session beganwith delegates relating stories and ex-amples from their experiences. Theseexamples came from every region ofthe United States, and underscored thepoint that there is no single approach ormodel that agencies and communitiesare following, and no single pathway tosuccess. Several of these examples arehighlighted in the list below:

• Two examples of successful state-wide programs were provided fromWisconsin. The Wisconsin Initia-tive for Statewide Cooperation onLandscape Analysis and Data(WISCLAND) is a voluntary part-nership among federal and stateagencies, local communities, andprivate landowners to develop da-tabases. The Wisconsin Land Infor-mation Program is a program thatprovides grants to counties and mu-nicipalities for modernizing landinformation programs. The statecollects a fee from every land trans-action and passes the money on to

local communities.• Two examples of local community

initiatives were provided from Or-egon. The first involves theClackamas River Basin Project inPortland. This project is funded bythe Environmental ProtectionAgency, and is under the coordina-tion of a multi-county land-usecouncil. It also includes participa-tion from the USDA Forest Serviceand U.S. Bureau of Land Manage-ment. The project uses high schoolstudents to monitor river condi-tions. In the second project, theUmpqua River Land Exchange, in-dustry and university researchersare using GIS to develop a processfor making decisions regarding po-tential private/public land ex-changes that would promote pres-ervation of fragile lands.

• In another example from Oregon,advisory councils established un-der the Northwest Forest Planbring together representativesfrom federal agencies, industry,NGOs, state agencies, and localgovernments to discuss land man-agement options. GIS is used to in-crease awareness about, and op-portunities for, holisticmanagement approaches for pro-tecting and restoring water qualityand wildlife habitat.

• An example of a community-basedconservation project was provided


in which The Nature Conservancy(a private, non-profit conservationorganization) is working with localfarmers in the Mackinaw Riverwatershed in Illinois to protectfragile aquatic ecosystems. Theproject uses GIS to map non-point-source water pollution and erosion.Maps that are produced are used tohelp make decisions about how toreduce agricultural impacts onaquatic ecosystems.

Working from these examples andmany others that were described duringthe four working group sessions, del-egates identified a set of factors that arecommon to most successful applica-tions of GIS to community-based re-source sustainability projects. Thesefactors are:

• Strong and visionary leadership isimportant for keeping a project fo-cused. In some cases, a benevolentdictator is necessary to get a projectstarted and to keep people andagencies working together.

• Building an effective partnershipamong all the agencies and organi-zations that are involved in theproject is essential. This partner-ship must be based on open andongoing communications. All in-terested parties must be involved inthe project from the start. The pro-

cess is as important as the out-come–if the process is not seen aslegitimate, the results will not beaccepted.

• Open access to data is critical. Datamust be easily and equally avail-able to all parties involved in theproject. Proper metadata also is es-sential. Project personnel need tounderstand appropriate uses andlimitations of the data that are avail-able.

• Long-term data management is akey issue. Projects need to developprocedures and structures for thelong-term maintenance of data-bases.

• Adequate, long-term funding is es-sential. Participants need to knowthat funds will be available to sup-port the project in the long run be-fore they will make long-term com-mitments. Long-term funding alsois necessary to insure proper main-tenance of databases.

Projects often fail when some combi-nation of these factors is not present. Inparticular, delegates noted that failure iscommon when working partnershipsare not in place, or there is little or nolocal commitment to a project. All par-ties need to “buy in” to a project in orderfor it to be successful. Failure also re-sults from a lack of adequate funding.

Sometimes projects are poorly plannedor implemented. If there is no obviouslink between the data that are being col-lected and efforts at promoting sustain-able development, the project is likelyto fail.

Even if all components for a success-ful project are in place, success is notguaranteed. There still will be problemsto resolve. For example, lack of gooddata is frequently a problem. Some-times the data may be available butthere are proprietary, or scale, resolu-tion, or accuracy problems. Lack ofcommon standards regarding scale andintegration is a reoccurring problemthat must be addressed. Finally, thepublic may not understand the project,or they may misuse the maps and othermaterials that are produced.

The examples and models discussedin this working group are strong evi-dence that much good work is beingdone by communities using GIS as atool in sustainable resource manage-ment. But these examples are only thebeginning. There are thousands ofcounties and municipalities in theUnited States, and many of them havehad little exposure to GIS. The task fornatural-resource and GIS professionalsis to build on these successful examplesso that other communities can learnhow to use GIS technology.«


Synthesis: GIS Technologyand Sustainable Resource Management

Delegates attending the RNRF Con-gress on Applications of GIS to theSustainability of Renewable NaturalResources participated in a remarkablethree-day discussion. They exploredhow GIS can be used to facilitate andpromote community-based sustainabledevelopment of renewable natural re-sources.

Many of the nation’s leading expertson GIS and resource management at-tended the congress. This report re-flects their ideas and recommenda-tions. The heart of the congress was theday-and-a-half that delegates met in sixworking groups to discuss many of thekey issues and problems that resourcemanagers, community planners, andeducators confront everyday.

Delegates addressed many difficultissues such as how to define sustain-ability, what is a community, what con-stitutes a baseline data set for naturalresource management, what are indica-tors of environmental health, whatstandards need to be developed to guidedata development, what are the roles ofthe private and public sectors in datadevelopment, how to improve educa-tion and awareness about GIS, and howto improve coordination and coopera-tion among federal, state, and localagencies.

Many ideas, opinions, and recom-mendations were expressed by del-egates attending the working group ses-sions. In this report we have captured

and distilled those ideas and recommen-dations as accurately as possible. Takentogether, these ideas represent an infor-mal consensus of the resource manage-ment and GIS professions on what ac-tions are needed to improve theapplications of GIS to community-based resource management efforts.Four general themes emerged out of theworking group discussions, and are re-viewed below.

SUSTAINABILITY IS ACOMMUNITY-BASED CONCEPT

Delegates in all six working groupsessions agreed that meaningful con-cepts of sustainability must be rooted inlocal communities. Sustainability istied to values of place, and these valueswill vary from community to commu-nity. Local communities, however, donot exist in isolation. Local values arepart of a national culture that binds com-munities together. Delegates recog-nized that local community values willnot always mesh with the goals of non-local institutions such as state or federalagencies, or national environmental or-ganizations. Nevertheless, it is criticalto recognize and appreciate local valuesand needs when implementing commu-nity-based sustainable developmentprograms.

Delegates agreed that there is an im-portant relationship between GIS tech-nology and efforts at developing com-

munity-based sustainable resourcemanagement strategies. However, del-egates also were very careful to under-score the fact that GIS is only a tool, andincapable, by itself, of providing an-swers or solutions. The use of GIS mustbe rooted in a thorough understandingof specific problems and the limits ofavailable data. Delegates agreed that astrength of GIS—as a decision-makingtool—is its ability to foster compro-mise. Because GIS can integrate anddisplay data in ways that previouslywere not possible, it can shed light onnew and innovative approaches to sus-tainable resource management. How-ever, in order for GIS to be an effectivedecision-making tool, local communi-ties must know that they are partners inthe decision-making process, and stateand federal agencies need to be sensi-tive to local needs and values. Delegatesprovided many good examples andmodels of successful GIS programsfrom around the country.

Delegates noted that the cost of GIStechnology, and particularly the lack ofawareness about the benefits of GIS,were barriers to effectively using GISfor community-based resource sustain-ability projects. They recommendedimproved efforts by state and federalagencies, educational institutions, andthe member organizations of RNRF tobreakdown these barriers. Delegatesalso recommended developing a hand-book that could help communities un-


derstand the concept of sustainabilityand the potential applications of GIStechnology.

COOPERATION ANDCOORDINATION

Federal and state agencies, local gov-ernments, non-governmental organiza-tions, and the private sector must workto improve cooperation and coordina-tion in the use of GIS technology, and tolimit duplicative efforts. Delegates inall working groups stressed the prob-lems and frustrations that arise frompoor coordination and lack of coopera-tion in collecting data, establishingmetadata standards, and implementingGIS projects. Delegates agreed that theinitiative for coordination should comefrom local communities. State agenciesare in the best position to act as facilita-tors between local communities andfederal agencies. The federal roleshould be focused on coordinatingfunding and expanding technical assis-tance. Communicating needs and build-ing partnerships are key elements to ef-fective cooperation among all involved.In addition, delegates noted the needfor improved coordination and coop-eration among federal agencies, par-ticularly regarding data collection anddevelopment of metadata standards.Rather than establish new mechanismsfor coordination, delegates recom-mended that agencies and profession-als commit themselves to utilizing ex-isting mechanisms such as the FederalGeographic Data Committee. Finally,delegates also concluded that the roleof the private sector in data develop-ment and management will increase inthe future as data needs grow and fed-eral and state budgets shrink. Delegatesidentified a need for more public/pri-vate partnerships in data development,and a need for the private and publicsectors to cooperate in the developmentof shared metadata standards.

BASELINE DATA SETS, META-DATA STANDARDS, AND NEWTECHNOLOGIES

Delegates stressed the need for fun-damental baseline natural resourcesdata sets. Despite the wealth of datathat already exists, we still do not havea good understanding of the conditionof our natural resources. Delegatesagreed that federal agencies shouldtake the lead in developing baselinedata sets, but states and local communi-ties need to be full partners in the pro-cess. Standards need to be establishedto guide the development of baselinedata sets. These standards must addressthe issues of scale, layering, and dataintegration. Delegates were more con-cerned with establishing a process fordeveloping baseline data sets thanwith identifying what types of datashould be included. The underlyingreasoning was that once the processwas established, issues of content couldbe addressed. Delegates believed thatestablishing the process is the biggerchallenge. Similarly, delegates agreedon the need for a process to identify in-dicators of environmental health andsustainability.

The need for better metadata stan-dards was another common requestamong delegates. Delegates were con-cerned about the lack of commonguidelines governing development ofmetadata, poor access to metadata, andthe tendency of users to ignoremetadata. Delegates underscored theneed for improved and coordinated ef-forts at developing metadata amongdata developers in federal, state, andlocal agencies, and in the private sector.Educating users about the critical func-tion of metadata was strongly recom-mended. Delegates also stressed theneed to make better use of data clearing-houses and public libraries as accesspoints for data and metadata.

Delegates were both excited and con-cerned about the potential of new tech-nologies (e.g., the Internet and embed-

ded software applications) to simplifythe use of GIS applications and togreatly increase the number of GIS us-ers. Delegates recognized the potentialof the Internet as a delivery system fordata and for simplified GIS applica-tions. However, delegates also recog-nized that greater access to data and GISapplications only underscored the needfor better metadata and more educationabout the appropriate uses of GIS.

EDUCATION AND AWARENESS

Delegates agreed that there is an ur-gent need to increase awareness aboutGIS, and that this must be coupled withefforts to improve geographic and envi-ronmental education. Simply teachingGIS application skills is not enough.Users of GIS technology must under-stand how to interpret and judge the in-formation that GIS produces.

Teaching spatial analysis and criti-cal-thinking skills was strongly sup-ported by the delegates, who mademany specific recommendations re-garding K-12 and college-level cur-riculums. For example, delegates rec-ommended adding more GIS courses touniversity curriculums, and teachingspatial analysis skills to resource man-agement and environmental planningstudents. At the K-12 level, delegatesrecommended adding more geographyand environmental education courses,and placing a stronger emphasis on theteaching of math and science. Del-egates also recognized that there is acritical need for GIS training for mid-career professionals who were not intro-duced to GIS when they were in college.Agency supported training programsand university continuing educationprograms were suggested as the meansfor retraining mid-career professionals.

Delegates also thought that the mem-ber organizations of RNRF take a leadrole in promoting GIS awareness andeducation. Delegates recommended thatRNRF and its member organizationsdevelop guidelines for incorporating


GIS in university curriculums, developprograms for retraining mid-careerprofessionals, and promote profes-sional and public awareness about theuses of GIS and the concept of sustain-able development.

THE NEXT STEP

In the months following this con-gress, RNRF will undertake two formalactions to build on and expand the workaccomplished at the congress. First,RNRF will sponsor a congressional fo-

rum. Lawmakers, their staff members,and representatives of NGOs will beinvited to a meeting that RNRF will or-ganize on Capitol Hill. The recommen-dations and conclusions of this meetingalong with copies of this report will bepresented to those attending this forum.

Second, RNRF will hold a meeting ofrepresentatives of its 20 member orga-nizations. The purpose of this meetingwill be to review the findings and rec-ommendation of the RNRF congress,and to determine what future actions themember organizations of RNRF can

implement to further the goals and rec-ommendations outlined in this report.

These actions by RNRF and its mem-ber organizations are only one outcomeof the congress. The more than 100 del-egates who attended the congress willtake the knowledge and experiencesthat they gained at this meeting back totheir organizations and institutions. It isthe delegates, working within their pro-fessions and disciplines, who can makethe greatest contribution to advancingthe goals and recommendations out-lined in this report.«


Appendix: List of Delegates

John AntenucciPresidentPlan Graphics, Inc.Frankfort, Kentucky

Hugh N. ArcherExecutive DirectorKentucky River AuthorityFrankfort, Kentucky

Doran J. BakerProfessor of Electrical and Computer Engineer-ingCollege of Engineering & College of NaturalResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Robert F. BarnesExecutive Vice PresidentAmerican Society of AgronomyMadison, Wisconsin

Anthony BarnoskyMontain Research CenterMontana State UniversityBozeman, Montana

Scott Basett *College of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Clifford A. BehrensResearch ScientistBellcoreMorristown, New Jersey

Tracy L. BenningAssistant ProfessorDept. of Environmental Science,Policy and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, California

Stephen S. BirdsallProfessor of Geography and DeanCollege of Arts and ScienceUniversity of North CarolinaChapel Hill, North Carolina

Peter E. BlackProfessor of Water & Related Land ResourcesSUNY College of Environmental Science &ForestrySyracuse, New York

Michael BlairGIS Project ManagerDutchess County EnvironmentalManagement CouncilMillbrook, New York

Michael F. BohnGeographic Information ManagerGeographic Services SectionWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesMadison, Wisconsin

Jereck BossLandscape ArchitectGillies Stransky Brems Smith ArchitectsSalt Lake City, Utah

Mark BuccowichAfrican Branch ChiefUSDA Forest Service/IFWashington, DC

Amelia M. BudgeManagerGeographic Data ServicesEarth Data Analysis CenterUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerque, New Mexico

William S. BurgessDirectorGeographic Informmation Services DivisionMaryland Department of Natural ResourcesAnnapolis, Maryland

Robin CarrollManagerGeometronics Service CenterUSDA-Forest ServiceSalt Lake City, Utah

Roger R. “Sky” ChamardManagement Group-GeomaticsAmerican Society of Civil EngineersEugene, Oregon

Allan CoxDirectorMontana State LibraryNatural Resource Information SystemHelena, Montana

Steve CrabtreeGIS and Resource Information ManagerUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceBurlington, Kentucky

Donald L. CrewsAssociate ProfessorCollege of Natural ResourcesColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

Roger E. CrystalDirector, Information ResourcesUSDA Forest ServicePortland, Oregon

Jack DangermondChief Executive OfficerEnvironmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.Redlands, California

Randy L. DavisForest Soil ScientistUSDA Forest ServiceBridger-Teton National ForestJackson, Wyoming

Robert D. DayExecutive DirectorRenewable Natural Resources FoundationBethesda, Maryland

Susan J. DeLostGIS Coordinator/CartographerUSDA Forest ServiceMorgantown, West Virginia

Duane R. DipponGIS/ARO SpecialistUSDI Bureau of Land ManagementPortland, Oregon

Richard L. DuesterhausDeputy ChiefUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWashington, DC


Jay GogueProvost, Utah State UniversityProfessor of Forest ResourcesCollege of Natural ResourcesLogan, Utah

Galen F. HartMathematical StatisicianUSDA Agricultural Research ServiceBeltsville, Maryland

David HeiligAssistant State ConservationUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceBozemen, Montana

Don HinrichsenDistrict ManagerUSDI Bureau of Land ManagementCasper, Wyoming

Marjorie M. HollandDirector, Biological Field StationUniversity of MississippiUniversity, Mississippi

Michael D. JawsonNational Program StaffUSDA Agricultural Research ServiceBeltsville, Maryland

Randy JohnsonPresident-ElectNational Association of CountiesCommissionerHennepin CountyMinneapolis, Minneapolis

Russ JohnsonDeputy Forest Fire Management OfficerSan Bernardino National ForestSan Bernardino, California

Gary E. JohnsonDirectorInformation Resources and TechnologiesDivisionCIESINUniversity Center, Michigan

Bruce B. KeatingSenior Technical Specialist in MappingWyoming State OfficeUSDI Bureau of Land ManagementCheyenne, Wyoming

Brian D. KellerExecutive DirectorThe Ecological Society of AmericaWashington, DC

Sid KellerComputer SpecialistTargee National ForestSt. Anthony, Idaho

John J. KinemanPhysical Scientist/EcologistGlobal Ecosytsems Database ProjectNational Geophysical Data CenterBoulder, Colorado

David E. KisselProfessor and Department HeadDepartment of Crop and Soil ScienceUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia

Christopher M. KosterDirector of ProgramsRenewable Natural Resources FoundationBethesda, Maryland

Kenneth J. LanfearNetwork Information ProductsU.S. Geological SurveyReston, Virginia

Ellen C. LindquistChief Deputy DirectorWayne County Department of the EnvironmentDetroit, Michigan

Bill LockwoodLandscape Architect/Vice PresidentBarge Waggoner Sumner and Cannon Inc.Nashville, Tennessee

Nikita LopoukhineEcologistParks CanadaHull, Quebec, Canada

Winifred M. LydayDirectorInformation Technology ServicesNational Association of CountiesWashington, DC

Duane LyonPresidentSociety of Wood Science & TechnologyMSU, Forest Products LabMissisippi State, Mississippi

Tom Edwards *DirectorTimberlands Strategic PlanningWeyerhaeuserTacoma, Washington

Robert EwingDirector, Timberlands Strategic PlanningWeyerhaeuserTacoma, Washington

Allan FalconerDepartment HeadDepartment of Geography and Earth SciencesCollege of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Shari FeltnerWater Rights SpecialistWyoming State Engineer’s OfficeCheyenne, Wyoming

Ernest B. FishProfessorDept. of Range, Wildlife & FisheriesTexas Tech UniversityLubbock, Texas

Dick FolscheDirector, National Cartography &Geospatial CenterUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceFort Worth, Texas

John E. FossProfessorDepartment of Plant & Soil ScienceUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville, Tennessee

Sissi P. FosterCADD Applications ManagerDaft, McCune, & Walsh Inc.Towson, Maryland

Henry GarieAssistant DirectorNJ Department of Environmental ProtectionTrenton, New Jersey

Charles W. Gay *Assistant to the Dean for Administration &Extension Program LeaderCollege of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah


Dennis LytleDirectorNational Soil Survey CenterUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceLincoln, Nebraska

Marshall MayerChief Executive OfficerDesk Top AssistanceHelena, Montana

Nancy McCannWater Rights SupervisorWyoming State Engineer’s OfficeCheyenne, Wyoming

Gail McGarry MacAulayResearch AdministratorFlorida Marine Research InstituteSt. Petersburg, Florida

Jerry McNeilDirector of Environmental ProgramsNational Association of CountiesWashington, DC

John J. MoellerStaff DirectorFederal Geographic Data CommitteNational Mapping DivisionU.S. Geological SurveyReston, Virginia

Stanley A. MorainDirectorEarth Data Analysis CenterUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerque, New Mexico

Peter M. MorrisetteEnvironmental Research ConsultantVictor, Idaho

Mason MungleExecutive DirectorOklahoma Conservation CommissionOklahoma City, Oklahoma

Wayne L. MyersAssociate Professor-Forest BiometricsPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, Pennsylvania

Gerald A. NielsenProfessor of Soil ScienceDepartment of Plant, Soil andEnvironmental SciencesMontana State UniversityBozeman, Montana

Maurice O. NyquistChiefData & Applications BranchU.S. Geological SurveyDenver, Colorado

Edward S. OplingerProfessor of AgronomyUniversity of WisconsinMadison, Wisconsin

Kenneth E. PendletonLandscape ArchitectAlaska System Support OfficeNational Park ServiceAnchorage, Alaska

Gary W. PetersenProfessor of Soil and Land ResourcesPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, Pennsylvania

Karen A. PoianiLandscape EcologistThe Nature ConservancyMinneapolis, Minnesota

Donald F. PottsProfessor and Associate DeanSchool of ForestryUniversity of MontanaMissoula, Montana

Lane PriceNational Leader for Resources AnalysisUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWashington, DC

Lloyd Paul QueenAssociate ProfessorSchool of ForestryUniversity of MontanaMissoula, Montana

Jerry ReeseSupervisorTargee National ForestSt. Anthony, Idaho

James E. ReidDirector of Information SystemsUSDA Forest ServiceMissoula, Montana

Priscilla ReiningAmerican Anthropological AssociationWashington, DC

Carlos D. RodriquezEcologistInternational Institute of Tropical ForestryUSDA Forest ServiceRio Piedras, Puerto Rico

Carol L. SampsonBureau of Land Management LiaisonNational Association of CountiesWashington, DC

Jack Schmidt *Dept. of Geography and Earth ResourcesCollege of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Susan C. StonichAssociate Professor of Anthropology andEnvironmental ScienceDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta Barbara, California

Gale W. TeSelleGeospatial Natural Resources InformationCoordinatorUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWashington, DC

Nancy TostaDirector of Forecasting and Growth StrategyPuget Sound Regional CouncilSeattle, Washington

Richard E. TothProfessor and Department HeadDepartment of Landscape Architecture andEnvironmental PlanningUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Paul D. TryPresidentAmerican Meteorological SocietySenior Vice PresidentScience and Technology CorporationSilver Spring, Maryland

Thomas M. UsselmanNational Research CouncilWashington, DC

John D. VarleyDirectorYellowstone Center for ResourcesNational Park ServiceYellowstone National Park, Wyoming


Frederic H. Wagner *Director of Ecology Center, Associate DeanCollege of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Joshua F. WalterAssistant ProfessorNorth Dakota State UniversityDept. of Architecture and LandscapeArchitectureFargo, North Dakota

John R. WehleAssistant Executive DirectorSt. Johns River Water Management DistrictPalatka, Florida

Cynthia D. WestResearch Project LeaderUSDA Forest Service/NEFESPrinceton, West Virginia

Elaine M. WhiteheadGIS DirectorVolusia County Geographic Information ServiceDeland, Florida

Kevin WickeyProject ManagerUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceFort Collins, Colorado

Doug Wight *College of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Steven WolfPostdoctoral Researcher/Visiting ScholarDepartment of Agriculture and ResourceEconomicsUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, California

Dennis Hunter YankeeResearch GeographerTennessee Valley AuthorityNorris, Tennessee

Rapporteurs

Marti AitkenCollege of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Charles DixonCollege of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Rick KingCollege of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Sue MajorsCollege of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Laura McCarthyCollege of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Paxton McClureCollege of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Patsy PalachiosCollege of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

* Working Group Chair


About RNRFPURPOSES

The Renewable Natural Resources Foundation (RNRF) was incorporated in Washing-ton, D.C., in 1972 as a nonprofit, public, tax-exempt, operating foundation. It wasestablished to: advance sciences and public education in renewable natural resources;promote the application of sound scientific practices in managing and conserving renew-able natural resources; foster coordination and cooperation among professional, scientificand educational organizations having leadership responsibilities for renewable natural re-sources; and develop a Renewable Natural Resources Center.

The foundation represents a unique, united endeavor by outdoor scientists to cooper-ate in assessing our renewable resources requirements and formulating public policyalternatives.

MEMBERSHIP

RNRF’s members are professional, scientific and educational organizations that have,among their primary purposes, the advancement of sciences and public education in re-newable natural resources and/or the application of scientific knowledge to themanagement of renewable natural resources. Each member organization is represented onthe board of directors. Also, “public interest members” may be elected to the board.

Individuals who support the foundation’s purposes and programs may become “associ-ates.”

PROGRAMS

RNRF conducts conferences, symposia and congressional forums on renewable natu-ral resources issues, and roundtable sessions for public/government affairs staffers ofRNRF member organizations. RNRF also conducts annual summits of elected and ap-pointed leaders of its member organizations.

The foundation has two annual awards to recognize outstanding achievements in therenewable resources fields, with an emphasis on interdisciplinary aspects. The “Outstand-ing Achievement Award” recognizes a project, publication, legislation, or similaraccomplishment. The “Sustained Achievement Award” recognizes a long-term contribu-tion and commitment by an individual or small group.

The Renewable Resources Journal promotes communications among RNRF’s repre-sented disciplines, and is provided to all members of the governing bodies of RNRFmember organizations. Renewable Resources Journal also is provided to members of theU.S. Congress and staff members of congressional committees with jurisdiction overnatural resources.

CENTER DEVELOPMENT

The Renewable Natural Resources Center is being developed as an office park com-plex and environmental center for RNRF’s member organizations. The Center is locatedon a 35-acre site in Bethesda, Maryland, where lawns and forested buffer provide an ex-ceptional work environment.

The county-approved site plan authorizes the construction of six new office buildingsand a conference facility, with a combined area of 300,000 square feet.


Non-ProfitOrganizationU.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 92Bethesda, MD

RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNALRenewable Natural Resources Foundation5430 Grosvenor LaneBethesda, Maryland 20814 USA

POSTMASTER: Address Correction Requested

Printed on Recycled Paper

VOLUME 14 NUMBER 3 AUTUMN 1996

The Renewable Resources Journal (ISSN 0738-6532) is published quarterly by the Renewable Natural Resources Foundation,5430 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-2193 USA. Telephone: (301) 493-9101 © RNRF 1996.

Robert D. Day, editor; Christopher M. Koster, assistant editor; Elliott R. Teel, editorial assistant

Chairman: Richard L. Duesterhaus (Soil and Water Conservation Society); Vice-chairman: David W. Moody (American WaterResources Association); Executive Director: Robert D. Day; Directors: Ronald F. Abler (Association of American Geographers);Robert F Barnes (American Society of Agronomy); Kenneth M. Beam (American Society of Plant Physiologists); John C. Billing(American Society of Landscape Architects); Deen E. Boe (Society for Range Management); Paul Brouha (American FisheriesSociety); James E. Davis (American Society of Civil Engineers); Jonathan P. Deason (Public Interest Member of the Board);Charles H. Emely (American Society for Horticultural Science); William D. French (American Society for Photogrammetry andRemote Sensing); Hardin R. Glascock Jr. (Public Interest Member of the Board); Albert A. Grant (Public Interest Memberof the Board); Richard E. Hallgren (American Meteorological Society); Clare W. Hendee (Public Interest Member of theBoard); Harry E. Hodgdon (The Wildlife Society); Paul G. Irwin (The Humane Society of the United States); Brian D. Keller (TheEcological Society of America); John Lisack Jr. (American Congress on Surveying and Mapping); Priscilla Reining (AmericanAnthropological Association); Howard N. Rosen (Society of Wood Science and Technology); A.F. Spilhaus Jr. (AmericanGeophysical Union); Robert S. Unnasch (The Nature Conservancy).

RNRF Board of Directors

RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL

Date post:	21-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

CONGRESS ON APPLICATIONS OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION … · GIS and resource management...

Documents