GAP Implementation

So where are the gaps, and what should be done about them? When is a Gap Analysis finished, and what constitutes completion? Who are the users of GAP data, and what products do they need to apply the information? These fundamental questions cut to the heart of the Gap Analysis Program as many of the states begin moving from the data gathering and research phase of the program toward implementation.

What is GAP implementation? For the purposes of this discussion, it means application of Gap Analysis results to wildlife and habitat management and land allocation decisions. In the Draft Recommendations for Implementing Gap Analysis: A Report to the National Biological Service (Vickerman and Smith 1995), the authors identify three different ways for GAP to be implemented. It can be used in situation-specific applications, in which the data are used to help guide decisions about particular sites or species. It can be integrated into existing land use planning processes already in place and used by local governments and resource agencies. Finally, the information can be used for cross-boundary, ecosystem-oriented landscape-level planning. The authors suggest that this last application potentially makes the greatest contribution to the advancement of biodiversity conservation planning.

Unfortunately, there are few established programs with the responsibility to facilitate cross-boundary planning, although there is increasing interest in ecosystem management, and a number of pilot projects are under way that attempt to consider the broad distribution of ecological resources relative to human activities on the landscape. For example, President Clinton's Forest Plan (FEMAT) addressed all forest lands in the western Cascade Mountains of the Pacific Northwest. The Great Plains Initiative is another multistate effort to restore the biodiversity of the region.

Because of its stated goals, widespread geographic distribution, visibility, broad scale, and impressive list of cooperators from the public and private sectors, GAP is widely seen as an important tool in long-range planning for biodiversity conservation. Wildlife and land managers, policy-makers, private conservation and industry organizations are anxiously awaiting Gap Analysis results to help guide the new, innovative approaches to resource management. Several of these initiatives are described below. The list is not exhaustive, but it provides a few examples of potential applications for GAP data.

Initiated by Defenders of Wildlife, the Oregon Biodiversity Project is a public/private partnership working to develop a biodiversity strategy for the state. More than forty cooperators from academia, state and federal agencies, private industry, and conservation groups are involved. Project staff are compiling GAP and other data sets in GIS format to characterize the ecological and socioeconomic landscape and make specific recommendations concerning areas that should receive high priority attention. Emphasis is on the places where there are potential opportunities to accomplish conservation goals in a reasonable period of time and to avoid future "train wrecks." The strategy will be published in atlas format with full-color maps and a poster showing the priority areas in the state. The information will also be produced electronically on a user-friendly CD-ROM.

The Tennessee Biodiversity Program was also initiated by the private sector and involves a diverse group of government, academic, and private partners. Given the amount of private land in the state, a strong emphasis is placed on getting information on biodiversity to local land use planners. GAP has helped fund the development of county-level planning guides. The program has also sponsored a series of training workshops for educators and resource professionals.

The Lower Mississippi Conservation proposal was initiated by the director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency, whose vision is to integrate existing conservation efforts focused on species groups (i.e., fish, neotropical migratory birds, bears, and waterfowl) into a conservation plan for the entire lower Mississippi River Valley. Gap Analysis data could be used to evaluate the distribution of vegetation and habitat types, to address endangered species issues, and to help design the overall strategy. The challenge for this program will be reconciling the different approaches and completion times for nine state GAP data sets.

Another program anxiously awaiting GAP data is the Klamath Basin Ecosystem Office. The office supports an interagency effort addressing a broad range of conservation issues in the Klamath province, which straddles the Oregon and California border. GIS data are being compiled at Humboldt State University. The Klamath Project is a high priority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because of the large number of endangered species and ecological problems in the region. It has a high political profile and could potentially serve as a model for interagency planning at the federal level.

One of the most democratic projects is the Maine Forest Biodiversity Project. A large and diverse group of interested parties meets regularly, and has agreed on a mission "to maintain viable representatives of existing native species and communities in Maine." The forest products industry is involved, in addition to academics, conservationists, and public officials. The group is working to identify principles to better maintain biodiversity on managed forest lands and to develop goals and techniques that might be used to achieve them. The focus is on the managed landscape, since most forest land in Maine is used for timber production. Although the project has completed its own biodiversity assessment, GAP data may be used at a later stage.

There are a number of issues common to most of the GAP implementation pilot projects that need to be addressed before Gap Analysis is fully integrated into resource allocation and management decision making. The "completion" timeline is critical. Does GAP provide a snapshot in time, or is it a process that accommodates new and finer-scale information as it becomes available, thereby helping managers implement adaptive management goals? If it is a one-time shot, what constitutes a final product? If it is seen more as a long-term process, then who is responsible for its continued funding and management? Missouri has a unique solution in MoRAP (Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership), designed to collect and update ecological data (including GAP) and socioeconomic information relevant to coordinated resource management planning.

Another important issue concerns the dissemination of information generated by GAP. Who are the target audiences, and what kind of information do they need? Many scientists and resource agencies have the capability to use and analyze electronic GIS data sets. However, most policy-makers, land-use planners, conservation organizations, and the media are more interested in hardcopy map products with spatially explicit recommendations about what areas are most important and why. There has been some understandable reluctance on the part of some principal investigators to provide these recommendations, but decisions are made with or without GAP, so users can become frustrated when the bottom line is so elusive. Utah GAP has produced the most elaborate "products" to date, but the report, CD-ROM, and four maps stop short of identifying specific areas that could be managed to conserve biodiversity.

What socioeconomic information is needed in Gap Analysis, and whose responsibility is it to compile it and integrate it into policy recommendations? Forester et al. (in press) have proposed a process in which "gap locations" are identified first as part of an ecological assessment, then a series of human activities on the landscape are evaluated to help policy-makers establish conservation priorities. Davis (1995) has incorporated a number of socioeconomic factors into an analysis of the Sierra Nevada bioregion. Cogan (1995) is working on models that link county planning and biodiversity indices. Vickerman (1996) describes the Oregon Biodiversity Project, which has collected data on a number of social, economic, and political factors in GIS format to help develop a pragmatic statewide conservation strategy. It is clear, however, that there is no standard approach to the integration of ecological and socioeconomic information in broad-scale conservation planning, and it is not at all obvious who should be responsible for the task.

GAP has gone a long way toward building a national framework for broad-scale analysis of wildlife and habitat conservation needs. It has made great strides in bringing together different disciplines, agencies, and interest groups. But the biggest challenges lie in making sure that the powerful information GAP can provide is ultimately both used and useful. The time to start dealing with implementation issues is now.

Literature Cited

Cogan, C. 1995. California Biodiversity Project: Predicting biodiversity conflicts in California. Unpublished executive summary, 1 pp.

Davis, F.W. 1995. (Personal communication.) Integrating ecological and socioeconomic information in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. Presentation in Portland, Oregon, June 28, 1995.

Forester, D.J., G.E. Machlis, and J.E. McKendry. In press. Extending Gap Analysis to include socioeconomic factors. In J.M. Scott, T.H. Tear, and F. Davis, editors. Gap Analysis: A landscape approach to biodiversity planning. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, Maryland.

Vickerman, S. 1996. Oregon Biodiversity Project: A cooperative effort to develop a statewide biodiversity management strategy. Unpublished project summary, 30 pp. Defenders of Wildlife, Lake Oswego, Oregon.

Vickerman, S. and K.A. Smith. 1995. Draft recommendations for implementing Gap Analysis. A Report to the National Biological Service. March 1995. 141 pp.

Sara Vickerman
Defenders of Wildlife
Portland, Oregon

GAP Implementation Scorecard