The Indiana Gap Analysis Metaproject Approach

Introduction

Gap Analysis offers a science-based approach for evaluating biodiversity at regional and continental scales and for providing data necessary for the development and application of biodiversity management strategies (Scott et al. 1993). From the inception of the Indiana project, we recognized a design need for applications at a scale finer than continental. We have begun to address the challenges of implementing Gap Analysis by initiating cooperation with the principal Indiana natural resource agencies and key Indiana nongovernmental conservation organizations through the metaproject approach.

In part because of the importance of wetlands within the Indiana landscape, many of our initial metaproject proposals include a wetlands component. Whatever the focus (wetlands, forests, contaminants, agricultural land), an important consideration in implementing metaprojects is the evaluation of the utility of the Gap Analysis methodology. Particularly, its application to development and implementation of a landscape-scale conservation and restoration framework in Indiana has to be considered.

Indiana Landscape

In Indiana, nearly 80% of the nonfederal land (about 98% of the total) is used for cropland, pasture, and development. In Ohio, cropland, pasture, and developed land accounts for nearly 70% of the nonfederal land (about 99% of the total) and in Illinois nearly 88% of the nonfederal land (99% of the total). The figures for Kentucky and Michigan are approximately 54% and 46%, respectively (U.S. Bureau of Census 1993). Modification of the landscape on this scale produces some clearly identifiable problems related to biodiversity: 1) a human-dominated landscape, 2) habitat fragmentation and pollution (Steadman 1991), and 3) isolated populations of naturally occurring plant and animal species with many species depauperate of genetic diversity (Soulé and Wilcox 1980).

Wetlands (but also savannas and prairies) in the Midwest have been especially impacted by anthropogenic changes. Estimates of pre-settlement wetlands and information from the FWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) suggest that Indiana has lost approximately 1.4 million ha or 86% of pre-settlement wetlands (IDNR 1989). The FWS compiled the following wetland loss estimates for the states surrounding Indiana: Illinois - 85%, Ohio - 90%, Kentucky - 81%, Michigan - 50% (Dahl 1990). Wetlands, moreover, have particular significance for biodiversity. A strong relationship exists between wetland loss and species listed as threatened or endangered. A 1991 National Wildlife Federation report indicates that 43% of the 595 plant and animal species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as threatened or endangered in 1991 depend on wetlands (Hair et al. 1992).

Wetlands in Indiana and in the Midwest in general have been and still are key components for biodiversity in both the pre-settlement and modern landscapes. Approximately 2.3 million ha (5.6 million acres) of wetlands covered nearly 25% of Indiana before European settlement in the early part of the 19th century (IDNR 1989). Our experience has been that wetlands protection efforts, as an example of ecosystem level management, have proved to be expensive, difficult, and of questionable success.

Indiana Gap Analysis Metaprojects

Metaprojects are applications of Gap Analysis methodology or data in conjunction with data developed for a specific conservation project or group of projects. Metaprojects are sponsored by cooperating organizations that benefit from the infrastructure and data that exist as part of Indiana Gap Analysis. The fundamental concept is one of synergy among the Indiana GAP Project and partners interested in addressing landscape-scale problems of conservation or restoration.

The metaproject approach has some defined goals. These include establishing cooperative efforts to:

1. "jump-start" the application of the Indiana Gap Analysis methodology and data;
2. serve as pilot projects to evaluate Gap Analysis methodology and data in Indiana;
3. produce products useful in the conservation and restoration of Indiana's biodiversity;
4. solidify partnerships within and outside the Indiana conservation community.

Numerous Indiana Gap Analysis metaprojects are under way or in planning stages. Three metaprojects that reflect the Indiana landscape and the Indiana Gap Analysis approach to biodiversity problems are presented below.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Bioreserve Metaproject involves a cooperative effort to provide a landscape analysis of two of TNC's "Hoosier Landscapes." The Blue River in southern Indiana and the Pigeon River in northeastern Indiana are associated with important wetland habitat. Both are areas preliminarily identified by TNC as important for preserving biodiversity in Indiana. Indiana Gap Analysis will provide data through this metaproject to further evaluate TNC's assumption and to enable TNC land managers to approach management on a landscape scale. Cooperative analysis of data with TNC and other partners will function as a pilot for future statewide analysis.

A second metaproject applies a landscape approach to the FWS "Partners for Wildlife" wetland restoration program. The study area for this metaproject encompasses most of the Eel River watershed in north central Indiana. The goal of this pilot project is to identify restorable drained wetlands by watershed, using a combination of satellite imagery and ancillary data. This approach may improve efficiency and effectiveness of wetland restoration. Preliminary results of this project suggest that evaluation of satellite imagery in conjunction with ancillary data can identify poorly and very poorly drained sites. In addition, using the GIS, these data can be placed in context with important habitat features (Mausel et al. 1995).

The third Indiana Gap Analysis metaproject applies the Indiana Gap Analysis methodology and data to an environmental contaminants problem in southern Indiana. GIS is being used to plot the location of contaminants in the physical environment and to model their movement through the biota of several streams in five Indiana counties. Most of the data have been entered into the GIS, and preliminary analysis is under way. This project functions principally to evaluate the utility of the Gap Analysis Project vis-a-vis contaminants issues. Contaminants are ubiquitous in the environment, and the GAP methodology may be particularly useful in this area.

Conclusion

The natural landscape continues to change rapidly under the influence of human development. Biodiversity measured at both the species and ecosystem levels reflects a precipitous decline over the last 200 years (The Keystone Center 1991). Most existing efforts to protect species or even ecosystems lack sufficient breadth to protect and restore remaining biodiversity.

We propose to use Gap Analysis as an integral part of developing the requisite information to formulate the Indiana Landscape Protection and Restoration Framework (Indiana Biodiversity Vision Group's 1996 meeting to develop Phase I, Biodiversity Vision of an Indiana biodiversity protection framework; Bennett et al. 1995). What is more, the Indiana Gap Analysis Project has formalized an approach to implement restoration and protection efforts at a landscape scale. The metaprojects under way with various partners seem to be more efficient (cost effective) and efficacious than existing more traditional approaches.

Literature Cited

Bennett, J., J. McElfish, A. Bale, and R. Fischman. 1995. Indiana's biological diversity: Strategies and tools for conservation. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. 78 pp.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, FWS, Washington, D.C. 21 pp.

Hair, J.D., S.L. Newsome, and J.S. Feierabend. 1992. Endangered species, endangered wetlands: Life on the edge. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. 49 pp.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Outdoor Recreation. 1989. Wetlands . . . Indiana's endangered natural resource: An appendix to Indiana outdoor recreation. IDNR, Indianapolis, Indiana. 19 pp.

The Keystone Center. 1991. Final consensus report of the Keystone policy dialogue on biological diversity on federal lands. The Keystone Center, Keystone, Colorado, 96 pp.

Mausel, P., X. Yang, H. Guo, and Y. Sohn. 1995. Wetland reclamation in the Eel River watershed of NE Indiana. Unpublished Report. Indiana State University Remote Sensing Lab, Terre Haute, Indiana. 30 pp.

Scott, J.M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, S. Caicco, C. Groves, J. Ulliman, H. Anderson, F. D'Erchia, and R.G. Wright. 1993. Gap analysis: A geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123:1-41.

Soulé, M.E. and B.A. Wilcox, editors. 1980. Conservation biology: An evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. 395 pp.

Steadman, D.W. 1991. Extinction of species: Past, present, and future. Pages 156-169 in R.L. Wyman, editor. Global Climate Change and Life on Earth. Routledge, Chapman, and Hall, New York.

U.S. Bureau of Census. 1993. Statistical abstract of the United States: 1993 (113th edition). Washington, D.C. 1009 pp.

Forest Clark
Indiana Gap Analysis Project
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Indiana