4.1 Introduction

To fulfill the analytical mission of GAP, it is necessary to compare the mapped distribution of elements of biodiversity with their representation in different categories of land ownership and management. As will be explained in the Analysis section, these comparisons do not measure viability, but are a start to assessing the likelihood of future threat to a biotic element through habitat conversion – the primary cause of biodiversity decline. We use the term “stewardship” in place of “ownership” in recognition that legal ownership does not necessarily equate to the entity charged with management of the resource, and that the mix of ownership and managing entities is a complex and rapidly changing condition not suitably mapped by GAP. At the same time, it is necessary to distinguish between stewardship and management status in that a single category of land stewardship such as a national forest may contain several degrees of management for biodiversity.

The purpose of comparing biotic distribution with stewardship is to provide a method by which land stewards can assess their relative amount of responsibility for the management of a species or plant community, and identify other stewards sharing that responsibility. This information can reveal opportunities for cooperative management of that resource, which directly supports the primary mission of GAP to provide objective, scientific information to decision makers and managers to make informed decisions regarding biodiversity. It also is not unlikely that a steward that has previously borne the major responsibility for managing a species may, through such analyses, identify a more equitable distribution of that responsibility. We emphasize, however, that GAP only identifies private land as a homogeneous category and does not differentiate individual tracts or owners, unless the information was provided voluntarily to recognize a long-term commitment to biodiversity maintenance.

After comparison to stewardship, it is also necessary to compare biotic occurrence to categories of management status. The purpose of this comparison is to identify the need for change in management status for the distribution of individual elements or areas containing high degrees of diversity. Such changes can be accomplished in many ways that do not affect the stewardship status. While it will eventually be desirable to identify specific management practices for each tract, and whether they are beneficial or harmful to each element, GAP currently uses a scale of 1 to 4 to denote relative degree of maintenance of biodiversity for each tract. A status of “1” denotes the highest, most permanent level of maintenance, and “4” represents the lowest level of biodiversity management, or unknown status. This is a highly subjective area, and we recognize a variety of limitations in our approach, although we maintain certain principles in assigning the status level. Our first principle is that land ownership is not the primary determinant in assigning status. The second principle is that while data are imperfect, and all land is subject to changes in ownership and management, we can use the intent of a land steward as evidenced by legal and institutional factors to assign status. In other words, if a land steward institutes a program backed by legal and institutional arrangements that are intended for permanent biodiversity maintenance, we use that as the guide for assigning status.

The characteristics used to determine status are as follows:

• Permanence of protection from conversion of natural land cover to unnatural (human-induced barren, exotic-dominated, arrested succession).
• Relative amount of the tract managed for natural cover.
• Inclusiveness of the management, i.e., single feature or species versus all biota.
• Type of management and degree that it is mandated through legal and institutional arrangements.

The four status categories can generally be defined as follows (after Scott et al. 1993, Edwards et al. 1995, Crist et al. 1995):

Status 1: An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a mandated management plan in operation to maintain a natural state within which disturbance events (of natural type, frequency, and intensity) are allowed to proceed without interference or are mimicked through management.

Status 2: An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a mandated management plan in operation to maintain a primarily natural state, but which may receive use or management practices that degrade the quality of existing natural communities.

Status 3: An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover for the majority of the area, but subject to extractive uses of either a broad, low-intensity type or localized intense type. It also confers protection to federally listed endangered and threatened species throughout the area.

Status 4: Lack of irrevocable easement or mandate to prevent conversion of natural habitat types to anthropogenic habitat types. Allows for intensive use throughout the tract. Also includes those tracts for which the existence of such restrictions or sufficient information to establish a higher status is unknown (see below for Pennsylvania exception to National GAP default for unknown).

4.2 Mapping Standards

Tracts were included in the Pennsylvania stewardship mapping if a) location could be made publicly available, b) boundary delineation had an associated georeference, and c) there existed a management planning process that addressed habitat. No specific minimum size criterion was imposed. Determination of appropriateness for publication was the purview of the land steward, but a negative finding in this regard was cause for exclusion from the database. Ability to georeference directly from information provided was crucial in the Pennsylvania context because land records were originally established on a “metes and bounds” basis. Funds and personnel for the Pennsylvania GAP Project were insufficient to allow fieldwork for this purpose. Since funding and facilities were inadequate for reproduction and archiving of management plans, it was only required that nature of the management planning process be a matter of record. It should be noted that lands of unknown status were not explicitly mapped as status 4 in Pennsylvania, but instead are external to the mapped stewardship/status polygons. Thus, the ‘rest of the state’ would be included in the National GAP view of status 4.

4.3 Methods

The backdrop for land stewardship mapping in gap analysis was a large publicly funded study for preliminary siting of a low-level nuclear waste disposal facility. Several types of conservation lands constituted rejection criteria relative to consideration as potential sites for such a facility. The cognizant state agencies made information assembled for that study available for use in gap analysis. The steward compilation task then became one of refining and extending this initial database.

4.3.1 Stewardship Mapping:

In addition to procurement of the aforementioned digital database, preparatory work consisted of assembling a list of prospective contacts. The contacts were then made, yielding various combinations of digital and cartographic information. Cartographic information was converted to computer readable format via a digitizing table and puck-style cursor. There were numerous instances of adjoining tracts having different stewards and inconsistent boundary data. Such inconsistencies were harmonized interpretively in a computer-assisted mode via geographic information systems. In some cases, stewards initially provided cartographic information and later submitted digital versions. In these latter cases, our internally created digital files were replaced by those from the steward and then again harmonized.

4.3.2 Management Status Categorization:

A dichotomous key was developed for purposes of assigning tracts in Pennsylvania to GAP categories of conservation management. The specifications embodied in this key are reported in Appendix 9.

Designations representing GAP status 1 include Congressionally-designated wilderness areas, state forest natural areas, state forest wild areas, and fee-simple holdings of conservancies. Designations representing GAP status 2 include National Wildlife Refuges, state parks, state forests, state gamelands, state scenic rivers, and conservancy easements. Designations representing GAP status 3 include National Forest, National Parks (cultural and/or historic focus), National Recreation Areas, National Scenic and Recreational River segments. Designations representing GAP status 4 include National Natural Landmarks, county and municipal parks, private industrial forestlands, and utility corporation lands. A second digit of coding was also added for Pennsylvania purposes to distinguish, for example, whether or not lands were subject to animal harvest by hunting.

4.4 Results

Figure 4.1 provides an overview of stewardship for conservation lands in Pennsylvania. It can be seen from this map that conservation lands are disproportionately concentrated in the northcentral portion of the state. Figure 4.2 shows the distribution of GAP land status in the Commonwealth. Status 1 lands account for only 0.73% of the state. Status 2 lands, however, account for a respectable 12.2%. Status 3 lands comprise 2.11% of Pennsylvania. Lands specifically identified as status 4 represent only 0.25% of the state, although the majority of forested lands in Pennsylvania are privately owned.

Public ownerships account for most of the land area in Pennsylvania where conservation is explicitly among the management priorities. The major public landholdings in this regard are state forests, state parks, state gamelands, national forest, and national parks. The Allegheny National Forest and state forests constitute the largest coherent management units in this respect.

There are four ecoregions in northcentral Pennsylvania where major portions of the land area is in such public ownerships, and these four ecoregions account for much of the area in conservation stewardship lands statewide. The Allegheny National Forest is a prominent part of the Appalachian High Plateau region. State lands, and particularly state forests, occupy the majority of the Deep Valleys section of the Appalachian Plateau. State lands likewise account for a substantial fraction of the central Allegheny Mountains section of the Appalachian Plateau, and are also well represented in the Glaciated High Plateau. Accordingly, the bulk of Pennsylvania’s conservation stewardship lands are concentrated in four northcentral sections of the Appalachian Plateaus.

Appreciable state landholdings are also present in the Glaciated Pocono Plateau section located in northeastern Pennsylvania. The Ridge & Valley ecoregion has extensive tracts of state lands stretching along the ridges, but these do not account for so much of that ecoregion as a whole. The situation is similar for the smaller Western Allegheny Mountains section of the Appalachian Plateau. South Mountain is largely in state ownership, which represents the small Blue Ridge area protruding into Pennsylvania from the south.

Listings of status 1 and status 2 land units are given in Appendix 10. Detailed tabulations of area by stewardship and management status for land cover and animal species are provided in Appendices 17-22 so that land stewards can see to what degree their lands generally contribute to biodiversity maintenance. Table 4.1 presents supplemental summary statistics of area representation for major stewardship categories and management status in the state.

Table 4.1. Land status by major stewardship.

4.5 Limitations and Discussion

The stewardship and status maps are compilations of ownership maps provided by a variety of sources that are individually responsible for their accuracy. Our maps were compiled solely for the purpose of conducting the analyses described in this report and are not suitable for locating boundaries on the ground or determining precise area measurements of individual tracts.

For the most part, Pennsylvania conservation interests have not expressed strong concern about making locations of tracts public. They have, however, expressed considerable concern about revealing which biotic elements are being targeted on smaller tracts.