1 Biodiversity and Spatial Information Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
2 New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.
3 Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Auburn University, Auburn.

Introduction

One of the most important and often misunderstood datasets developed by the Gap Analysis Program (GAP) is the Land Stewardship layer. It is commonly recognized that in order to accurately assess the conservation network a current detailed land stewardship dataset is required, but the level of effort and sources of error are often underestimated. For many states, the first generation GAP land stewardship data was the first state-wide dataset with a specific focus on land management. Similar to our experiences with land cover mapping and vertebrate modeling, developing stewardship data on a state-by-state basis for first generation GAP projects led to inconsistencies in datasets across state boundaries. Adoption of national standards (Crist 2000, Edwards et al. 1994) including a common coding scheme and use of a dichotomous key for assigning Status Codes central to the gap analysis process reduced some of the potential inconsistencies. In addition to consistent assignment of ownership, management and status codes, currency, completeness, and transparency of the process are important issues that needed to be addressed for second generation GAP efforts. For those reasons the National Gap Program has adopted a regional approach to updating the land stewardship data for both the Southwest Regional Project (USGS National GAP 2005) and the soon to be completed Southeast Regional Project.

Approach

Work towards a regionally consistent land stewardship database for the Southeast Regional Gap Project was initiated in spring 2006. For this effort we are building on the experience and expertise of the Southwest Regional Gap Project. Specifically, Andrea Ernst from the Southwest Project is coordinating the development of the Southeast database. In Alabama, where state level Gap efforts are being conducted in parallel with regional work, Amy Silvano is working with her state cooperators to ensure maximum utility of the database for their applications. The initial phase of work has involved compiling a detailed list of federal and state management entities throughout the Southeast Region. Once the list is complete, management plans are acquired for each land unit. If management plans are not available an interview is conducted to determine management practices and the appropriate management status code for attribution in the database. Spatial data for the land stewardship layer will be compiled in a Geodatabase model within ESRI’s ArcGIS 9.1 platform. An example subset of core attributes included in the final geodatabase is detailed in Table 1.

During the design phase of the Southeast prototype, several technical issues were identified. In order to increase functionality of the database we have decided to include a “parent parcel” attribute that will allow end users to identify which parcel each managed area belongs to. For example, in many of the national forests there are multiple management units, without maintaining a specific link, or relationship to the broader forest unit, queries become more complicated. A second technical issue is the inclusion of an owner code that is in addition to the traditional list of manager/owner codes. In this case we are proposing inclusion of an attribute that identifies a global owner id (state fips, federal, private, regional, local), a state specific agency name, and a sequential parcel id. This added attribute allows for the structure of the management code to be explicit at the regional and national level, while allowing for independent information detailing the true owner within each state.

In the Southeast a general list of state agencies (coastal management, state parks, state wildlife) has been identified. This agency list was then used as the basis for developing categories used in the management coding scheme at the state level ( Table 2). The list of ownership and management detail within each state is commonly a complicated array of associated relationships. For state level Gap efforts those relationships were simply accounted for in state-specific management codes. However, at a regional level where multiple states are being accounted for, there is an inherent disparity with owner and management responsibility. This disparity is due to the simple nature that each state within the region haa a different organizational division of their agencies and associated responsibilities. The Southeast Regional Project encompasses a nine state area, which in terms of coding could lend to a large, complex, and reticulate management coding scheme. To address this issue, we decided that the inclusion of a thematically based state management category and an information rich owner code would allow for more detailed information to be organized in a concise manner as well as allow for meaningful and less complex queries of data across state lines.

A draft of the Southeast Regional Stewardship layer complete with federal and state lands will be ready for review in September 2006. Upon completion of the federal and state lands we will identify additional regional, local and private management categories and focus our efforts on gathering additional data.

Future Directions

The ultimate goal will be to have a national database of land stewardship data, maintained through cooperation with the long list of agencies who actively manage land ownership and management data. Land ownership changes daily and it will be impossible for any one program to maintain a current database until a consortium of agencies is formed to work on integrating data from a large network of partners. It is realistic to believe that the framework could be constructed that would allow the exchange of data in a timely and efficient manner, thereby allowing the partners to focus on improving the data they provide as opposed to having to acquire and code other agencies stewardship information. The introduction of our thematic based coding scheme with a relation based structured geodatabase model will afford agencies the functionality to relate coding schemes and/or add data specific to their organizations needs. This approach could be viewed as one of many possible precursory steps towards a unified national stewardship framework.

Table 2. Proposed Management Codes for the State Level Stewardship for Southeast Regional Gap Stewardship Database.

Literature Cited

Crist, P. J. 2000. Mapping and Categorizing Land Stewardship. A Handbook for Gap Analysis. Version 2.1.0.

Crist, P.J., B. Thompson, and J. Prior-Magee. 1996. Land management status categorization for Gap Analysis: A potential enhancement. Gap Analysis Bulletin 5:20-22.

Edwards, T.C, C. Homer, and S. Bassett. 1994. Land management categorization: A users' guide. A Handbook for Gap Analysis, Version 1, Gap Analysis Program.

USGS National Gap Analysis Program. 2005. Provisional Digital Land Stewardship Map for the Southwestern United States. Version 1.0. New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, New Mexico State University.

Return to Table of Contents