Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies (CAST)

THE ARKANSAS GAP ANALYSIS PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

DATA USE AND AVAILABILITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. LANDCOVER CLASSIFICATION AND MAPPING

3. PREDICTED ANIMAL DISTRIBUTIONS AND SPECIES RICHNESS

4. LAND STEWARDSHIP

5. ANALYSIS BASED ON STEWARDSHIP AND MANAGEMENT STATUS

6. CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

7. DATA USE AND AVAILABILITY

7.1. How To Obtain the Data

7.1.1. Minimum GIS Required For Data Use

7.2. Disclaimer

7.3. Metadata

7.4. Appropriate and Inappropriate Use of These Data

8. LITERATURE CITED

9. GLOSSARY

10. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

11. APPENDICES AND MAPS

7.1. How To Obtain the Data

All standard AR-GAP data may be obtained on the second CD-ROM included with this 2 CD-ROM set. Included are AR-GAP Landcover, AR-GAP Land Stewardship/Management Status. Data may also be obtained over the world wide web: http://www.cast.uark.edu

7.1.1. Minimum GIS Required For Data Use

AR-GAP GIS data have been packaged into a single directory which comprised a standard Arc/Info workspace. All available Arc/Info coverages may be found within that directory. Data may be viewed directly from the CD-ROM in a GIS which recognizes Arc/Info workspace (coverage) structure. GIS including ArcView, Arc/Info, GeoMedia all recognize this format. AR-GAP Landcover is available as state-wide file and 30 x 60 minute series USGS quadrangle tiles.

7.2. Disclaimer

Two data disclaimers are referenced below. This first is from the Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies and the second is from the National Gap Analysis Program. Both disclaimers are also cited in the metadata entries for the AR-GAP data sets.

CAST Disclaimer: The digital data described by this metadata report were prepared by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies of the University of Arkansas. Neither the University of

Arkansas nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report or media or represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the University of Arkansas. Any views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the University of Arkansas. Data on this media may have been derived from federal agencies or from other external sources or from data developed by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies. In those cases where data has been translated from one format to another or initially developed from map or other sources the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies has made all reasonable efforts to preserve the data quality as originally developed, however no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies as to the completeness or accuracy of the data and related materials. The act of distribution does not constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility is assumed by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies in the use of this data, or related materials.

Following is the official NBS disclaimer as of 29 January, 1996, followed by additional disclaimers from GAP. Prior to using the data you should consult the GAP home page (see How to Obtain the Data, above) for the current disclaimer.

Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the National Biological Service, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the accuracy or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other data. It is strongly recommended that these data are directly acquired from a National Biological Service server [see above for approved data providers] and not indirectly through other sources which may have changed the data in some way. It is also strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the content of the metadata file associated with these data. The National Biological Service shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein.

These data were compiled with regard to the following standards. Please be aware of the limitations of the data. These data are meant to be used at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller (such as 1:250,000 or 1:500,000) for the purpose of assessing the conservation status of vertebrate species and vegetation cover types over large geographic regions. The data may or may not have been assessed for statistical accuracy. Data evaluation and improvement may be ongoing. The National Biological Service makes no claim as to the data's suitability for other purposes. This is writable data which may have been altered from the original product if not obtained from a designated data distributor identified above.

7.3. Metadata

Proper documentation of all information sources used to assemble Gap Analysis data layers is central to the scientific defensibility of the Gap Analysis Program. The information used to describe Gap Analysis data is called metadata. Metadata are information about data. Metadata contain information about the source(s), lineage, content, structure, and availability of a data set. Metadata also describe intentions, limitations, and potential uses, allowing for the informed and appropriate application of the data. Descriptions of metadata function have recently been published by the Federal Geographic

Data Committee (FGDC 1994, 1995).

The Gap Analysis metadata standards have been closely matched to the FGDC standards to ensure current and future compatibility. As the FGDC standards evolve beyond the current publication, we anticipate corresponding refinements in GAP documentation. The format of the GAP metadata consists of ten major documentation sections (Table 7.1.) containing one or more metadata elements. Each element is named (e.g. Map Projection Name), and the "Type" of entry (text, integer, date, time) and "Domain" of the entry (i.e. x > 0) are also defined.

Table 7.1. Metadata Data Element Categories.

Demands for metadata will increase as electronic networks expand across the national and international scene and more requests are made for distribution of information. As the number of users and the diversity of disciplines and programs sharing the data expand, the information carried by metadata will become increasingly important. One of the goals in defining today's metadata standards is to anticipate these future needs.

For additional information via Internet:

Gap home page address: http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/g ap/

Cogan, C.B. and T.C. Edwards. 1994. Metadata standards for Gap Analysis. Gap Analysis Technical Bulletin 3. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 28 pp. (A postscript file is available from the Gap web page listed above.)

For a postscript version of the current FGDC Metadata Standards (8 June 1994): waisqvarsa.er.usgs.gov (anonymous ftp, cd to wais/docs, get FGDCmeta6894.ps)

Federal Geographic Data Committee. 1995. Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata workbook (March 24). FGDC. Washington D.C. (Describes the FGDC metadata standards.)

http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/pub/tools/metadata/stan dard/metadata.html

7.3.1. AR-GAP Landcover Metadata

Data Set Identity: argap100 Identification Code:

Originator: Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies Native Data Set Environment:

Vector File Format: ARCE7 OS: SunOS 5.5 Generic

Publication Date: 19980201 103093-03 April 1996

On-line linkage: http://www.cast.uark.edu Host: cast.uark.edu;

Architecture: sun4 Arc/Info 7.1

Data Set Citation: Dzur, R. S., M. E. Garner, Bounding coordinates:

D. G. Catanzaro, K. G. Smith, and W. F. West: -94.79348227 (UTM: 339995) Limp. 1997. Landcover of Arkansas: East: -89.39982717 (UTM: 821405)

GAP Analysis. North: 36.80014573 (UTM: 4074000)

South: 32.78970734 (UTM: 3633000)

Data Set Description:

Abstract: AR-GAP Landcover depicts 38 UNESCO/TNC based landcover categories for the State of Arkansas. The database was compiled from a digital classification of Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery aggregated to a minimum mapping unit of 100 hectares with allowable 40 Hectare inclusions (e.g. water).

Access Constraints: None

Use Restrictions: This database is not intended for site-specific analyzes. Interpretations derived from its use are suited for regional and planning purposes only. Acknowledgments of UA-CAST and Gap Analysis appreciated.

Browse Graphic File Description: AR-GAP Landcover; Little Rock, 30 x 60 minute quadrangle.

7.3.1. AR-GAP Landcover Metadata

Title: AR-GAP Landcover

Theme Keyword: Landcover, Landuse, Natural Vegetation, UNESCO/TNC, GAP ANALYSIS

I Identification Information

Data Set Identity: argap100 Identification Code:

Originator: Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies Native Data Set Environment:

Vector File Format: ARCE7 OS: SunOS 5.5 Generic

Publication Date: 19980201 103093-03 April 1996

On-line linkage: http://www.cast.uark.edu Host: cast.uark.edu;

Architecture: sun4 Arc/Info 7.1

Data Set Citation: Dzur, R. S., M. E. Garner, Bounding coordinates:

D. G. Catanzaro, K. G. Smith, and W. F. West: -94.79348227 (UTM: 339995) Limp. 1997. Landcover of Arkansas: East: -89.39982717 (UTM: 821405)

GAP Analysis. North: 36.80014573 (UTM: 4074000)

South: 32.78970734 (UTM: 3633000)

Data Set Description:

Abstract: AR-GAP Landcover depicts 38 UNESCO/TNC based landcover categories for the State of Arkansas. The database was compiled from a digital classification of Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery aggregated to a minimum mapping unit of 100 hectares with allowable 40 Hectare inclusions (e.g. water).

Access Constraints: None

Use Restrictions: This database is not intended for site-specific analyzes. Interpretations derived from its use are suited for regional and planning purposes only. Acknowledgments of UA-CAST and Gap Analysis appreciated.

Browse Graphic File Description: AR-GAP Landcover; Little Rock, 30 x 60 minute quadrangle.

II. Data Quality Information

Thematic Accuracy: 36% Overall Accuracy at Alliance level

Thematic Accuracy Explanation: Thematic accuracy of the database was tested and presented, in the form of an error matrix, for each level in the UNESCO hierarchy and may be obtained in the final report.

Horizontal Positional Accuracy: 50 meters.

Horizontal Positional Accuracy Explanation: Positional accuracy of AR-GAP Landcover is based upon USGS source 30 x 60 minute series DLG roads which are compiled to meet National Map Accuracy Standards for 1:100,000 scale. Utilizing those data all TM scenes were georegistered to a UTM projection. Allowable RMS errors in georegistration of source (TM) data were minimized below a pixel (30 m).

Vertical Positional Accuracy: Unknown

Logical Consistency Report: Unknown

Completeness Report:

I. Discrimination between Agriculture Crops vs. Pasture was conducted on a general basis utilizing STATSGO Soil Units. The purpose of this distinction was to allow better Avian distribution models.

II. Forest regeneration areas were difficult to separate from pasture on a state-wide level. As a result, forest regeneration has been omitted from the classification despite the fact that many areas classified as pasture are actually forest regeneration.

III. US Census Tiger water was used to improve the delineation of water in the database especially in areas where overhanging streamside vegetation may obscure the true course of a stream as seen by Landsat TM. The incorporation of this water layer may also have unintended consequences that incorporate some peculiarities in the interpretation of TIGER surface water. One such occurrence may be seen on the Bayou Meto WMA in Arkansas County where a large impoundment area that is coded in the database as water is also forested.

IV. Urban areas were added to the database through the use of US Census Tiger roads and incorporated boundaries correlated to spectral response. Some urban areas may be poorly depicted in the database if the areas are/were not incorporated towns. Bella Vista Village in Benton County is one such example.

III. Spatial Data Organization Information

Native Data Structure: spatial Direct Spatial Reference Method: vector

• IV. Spatial Reference Information

Map Projection Name: UTM

Map Projection Description:

Ellipsoid: clark66

Semi-major Axis: 6378206.4000000004

Eccentricity Squared: 0.0067686580

Zone: 15

Horizontal Datum Name: NAD27

V. Status Information

Data Set Status: Available Maintenance & Update Frequency: None planned at this time

Release Date: 19971231

VI. Lineage:

Source Identity: Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM)Source Raster File Format: BSQ

Source Dates: See Table 2.2. Source Distance Resolution: 30 meter resolution.

• Process Description: For a full description of the procedures involved in constructing this database please refer to AR-GAP Final report - Chapter 2, Landcover Classification and Mapping.

VII. Entity/Attribute Information

The following attribute names and descriptions are included in the AR-GAP Landcover database.

Attribute_Label:

1:T.1.A.9.b.I Pinus echinata

2:T.1.A.9.b.II Pinus taeda

3:T.1.A.9.c.I Juniperus virginiana

4:T.1.B.2.b.II Quercus spp. - Pinus echinata - Carya spp.

5:T.1.B.2.b.III Pinus taeda - Pinus echinata - Quercus spp.

6:T.1.B.2.b.IV Juniperus virginiana

7:T.1.B.3.a.I Fagus grandifolia

8:T.1.B.3.a.II Quercus alba

9:T.1.B.3.a.III Quercus rubra - Quercus spp.

10:T.1.B.3.a.IV Quercus falcata - Quercus spp.

11:T.1.B.3.a.V Quercus stellata

12:T.2.A.2.b.I Juniperus virginiana - Quercus spp.

13:T.2.B.3.a.I Pinus echinata - Quercus spp.

14:T.2.B.3.a.II Juniperus ashei - Quercus spp.

15:T.2.B.4.a.I Quercus spp. - Carya texana

16:T.4.B.3.a.II Mixed shrub species

17:T.5.A.1.a.I Mesic Prairie

18:P.1.B.3.c.I Quercus lyrata

19:P.1.B.3.c.II Carya aquatica

20:P.1.B.3.c.III Quercus falcata var. pagodifolia

21:P.1.B.3.c.IV Celtis laevigata

22:P.1.B.3.c.V Quercus nuttallii

23:P.1.B.3.c.VII Quercus phellos

24:P.1.B.3.c.VIII Liquidambar styraciflua

25:P.1.B.3.d.I Taxodium distichum

26:P.1.B.3.d.I.1.a. Taxodium distichum

27:P.1.B.3.d.II Nyssa

28:P.5.A.4.a.I Tall grass

29:P.5.A.4.b.III Arundinaria gigantea

30:R.1.B.3.c.I Salix - Populus

31:R.1.B.3.c.II Betula - Platanus - Acer

32:R.6.A.1.a.I Bare

33:Water

34:Agriculture (wet crops)

35:Agriculture (dry crops)

36:Agriculture (pasture)

37:Urban Commercial-Industrial

38:Urban Residential

Attribute Definition Source:

• Foti, T., X. Li, M. Blaney, and K.G. Smith. 1994. A classification system for the natural vegetation of Arkansas. Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Sciences, 48: 50-62.
• Related Documents:
• Catanzaro, D. G. and K. G. Smith. 1996. Moving towards a Species Information System in Arkansas: building bridges over pitfalls. Pages 43-56 In Proceedings of the Third Annual Organization of Fish and Wildlife Information Managers Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, August 4 - 6, 1995.
• Dzur, R. S., M. E. Garner, K. G. Smith, W. F. Limp, D. G. Catanzaro, and R. L. Thompson. 1996a. Cooperative Accuracy Assessment Strategies for Sampling a Natural Landcover Map of Arkansas. Pages. 517 - 526. In: Mowrer, H. T., R. L. Czaplewski, and R. H. Hamre, (eds.), Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences: Second International Symposium. RM-GTR-277, Fort Collins, CO.
• Dzur, R.S., M.E. Garner, K.G. Smith, and W.F. Limp. 1996b. Gap Analysis partnerships for mapping the vegetation of Arkansas. Pages 179-186 In J.M. Scott, T.H. Tear, and F. Davis, eds. Gap Analysis: A landscape approach to biodiversity planning. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, Maryland.
• Dzur, R. S. 1996. Expanding roles for gap analysis data in Arkansas. Gap Analysis Bulletin No. 5. ht tp://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap/bulletins/5/ERfGADiA.html
• Dzur, R. S., M. E. Garner, K. G. Smith, W. F. Limp, X. Li, and W. Song. 1995. Arkansas Gap Analysis: State-wide Biodiversity Mapping Research. Pages 74-83 In: Proceedings of URISA `95, San Antonio, TX.
• Smith, K. G. and D. G. Catanzaro. 1996. Predicting Vertebrate Distributions for Gap Analysis: Potential Problems in Constructing the Models. Pages 163-169 In J.M. Scott, T.H. Tear, and F. Davis, eds. Gap Analysis: A landscape approach to biodiversity planning. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, Maryland.

VIII. Distribution Information

Distribution Contact: CAST Transfer Options: ARC/INFO coverage

File Compression Technique: none Transfer Size (megabytes): approx. 80 MB

Distribution Liability:

GAP Disclaimer: Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the BRD, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the accuracy or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other data. It is strongly recommended that these data are directly acquired from a BRD server [see above for approved data providers and not indirectly through other sources which may have changed the data in some way. It is also strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the content of the metadata file associated with these data. The Biological Resources Division shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein.

These data were compiled with regard to the following standards. Please be aware of the limitations of the data. These data are meant to be used at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller (such as 1:250,000 or 1:500,000) for the purpose of assessing the conservation status of vertebrate species and vegetation types over large geographic regions. The data may or may not have been assessed for statistical accuracy. Data evaluation and improvement may be ongoing. The Biological Resources Division makes no claim as to the data's suitability for other purposes. This is writable data which may have been altered from the original product if not obtained from a designated data distributor identified

above.

CAST Disclaimer: The digital data described by this metadata report were prepared by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies of the University of Arkansas. Neither the University of Arkansas nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report or media or represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the University of Arkansas. Any views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the University of Arkansas. Data on this media may have been derived from federal agencies or from other external sources or from data developed by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies. In those cases where data has been translated from one format to another or initially developed from map or other sources the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies has made all reasonable efforts to preserve the data quality as originally developed, however no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies as to the completeness or accuracy of the data and related materials. The act of distribution does not constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility is assumed by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies in the use of this data, or related materials.

IX. Metadata Reference Information

Metadata Date: 19970821 Metadata Review Date: 19971001

Metadata Contact: Robert S. Dzur - rob@cast.uark.edu Metadata Standard Name: Metadata Metadata Standard Version: 199404 Standards for Gap Analysis

7.3.2. AR-GAP Stewardship Metadata

Data Set Identity: own Identification Code:

Originator: Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies Native Data Set Environment:

Vector File Format: ARCE7 OS: SunOS 5.5 Generic

Publication Date: 19980201 103093-03 April 1996

On-line linkage: http://www.cast.uark.edu Host: cast.uark.edu;

Architecture: sun4 Arc/Info 7.1

Data Set Citation: Garner, M. E., R. S. Dzur, Bounding coordinates:

K. G. Smith, W. F. Limp, and D. G. West: -94.79342625 (UTM: 340000)

Catanzaro. 1998. Land Ownership and Administration East: -89.39988308 (UTM: 821400)

of Arkansas. North: 36.80014658 (UTM: 4074000)

South: 32.51055419 (UTM: 3602000)

Data Set Description:

Abstract: Land Ownership is a compilation of numerous state and federal public ownership lands.

Access Constraints: None

Use Restrictions: None (See Section 7.4.)

Browse Graphic File Description: AR-GAP Ownership of Arkansas

7.3.2. AR-GAP Stewardship Metadata

Title: AR-GAP Ownership

Theme Keyword: Stewardship, Ownership, GAP ANALYSIS

I Identification Information

Data Set Identity: own Identification Code:

Originator: Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies Native Data Set Environment:

Vector File Format: ARCE7 OS: SunOS 5.5 Generic

Publication Date: 19980201 103093-03 April 1996

On-line linkage: http://www.cast.uark.edu Host: cast.uark.edu;

Architecture: sun4 Arc/Info 7.1

Data Set Citation: Garner, M. E., R. S. Dzur, Bounding coordinates:

K. G. Smith, W. F. Limp, and D. G. West: -94.79342625 (UTM: 340000)

Catanzaro. 1998. Land Ownership and Administration East: -89.39988308 (UTM: 821400)

of Arkansas. North: 36.80014658 (UTM: 4074000)

South: 32.51055419 (UTM: 3602000)

Data Set Description:

Abstract: Land Ownership is a compilation of numerous state and federal public ownership lands.

Access Constraints: None

Use Restrictions: None (See Section 7.4.)

Browse Graphic File Description: AR-GAP Ownership of Arkansas

II. Data Quality Information

Thematic Accuracy: 100%

Thematic Accuracy Explanation: Maps of each individual area were sent to the respective agency for verification and validation.

Horizontal Positional Accuracy: 50 meters.

Horizontal Positional Accuracy Explanation: Positional accuracy of AR-GAP Ownership were compiled to meet National Map Accuracy Standards for 1:100,000 scale data.

Vertical Positional Accuracy: Unknown

Logical Consistency Report: Unknown

Completeness Report:

I. Completeness of available data sets, digital or hard copy, varies among public agency depending on a number of factors. AR-GAP relied almost exclusively on data sets contributed from state and federal agencies.

A. July 1995 was cutoff date for accepting ancillary land ownership data sets.

B. Wide variety of temporal digital data sets (1984 - 1993).

C. Wide variety of spatial scaled digital data sets (1:24,000 - 1:100,000).

D. Wide variety of hardcopy maps.

II. Notable exceptions not included in existing land ownership data set:

A. U.S. Army COE data sets were almost nonexistent, except in (parcel) paper plat form. There are numerous COE lakes in Arkansas. One single lake might contain thousands of parcels that carried no geodetic information. Any COE lands contained within the GAP Ownership data set were from sources other than COE.

B. On-going land swap between USFS and Weyerhaeuser Co. will change the ownership and management status of large areas of land in southwestern Arkansas.

C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is developing a large reserve along the Cache River along with a corridor to White River Refuge.

D. Several areas owned by various timber companies are maintained by state agencies, e.g. Georgia Pacific Timber Co. - Lake Greeson Wildlife Management Area and Howard County Wildlife Management Area. Stability of management status and area boundary is in question.

E. A number of private entities are know to practice conversation stewardship, e.g. duck hunting clubs, foundations, and deer hunting clubs. A number of different problems existed with this group: unknown contacts, nonexistent maps, questionable conservation management goals, and no clear stability of either land ownership or management status.

III. Spatial Data Organization Information

Native Data Structure: spatial Direct Spatial Reference Method: vector

• ---

• IV. Spatial Reference Information

Map Projection Name: UTM

Map Projection Description:

Ellipsoid: clark66

Semi-major Axis: 6378206.4000000004

Eccentricity Squared: 0.0067686580

Zone: 15

Horizontal Datum Name: NAD27

V. Status Information

Data Set Status: Available Maintenance & Update Frequency: None Release Date: 19980101 planned at this time

VI. Lineage:

Source Identity: None

Source Dates: 19951101

Source Distance Resolution: 50 meter resolution.

• Process Description: Ownership boundaries were contributed from 14 state and federal agencies in Arkansas. Source boundary information, digital, hard copy maps, and ancillary data sets were compiled by agency into a single GIS digital data set. Area ownership maps were returned to participating agencies for assessment of accuracy and completeness during the accuracy assessment phase.

VII. Entity/Attribute Information

The following attribute names and descriptions are included in the AR-GAP Ownership database.

Attribute Label:

1:USFS NATIONAL FOREST

5:PRIVATE OWNERSHIP

6:MILITARY RESERVATIONS

7:US NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

8:ARKANSAS STATE PARKS

9:ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION

11:US FISH AND WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

12:US FOREST SERVICE WILDERNESS AREAS

39:WATER

49:THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

50:US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

51:ARKANSAS NATURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION NATURAL AREAS

52:ARKANSAS STATE FOREST

53:UNIVERSITY FOREST

71:USNPS WILDERNESS AREAS

Attribute Definition Source: National GAP Handbook

• Related Documents: None

VIII. Distribution Information

Distribution Contact: CAST Transfer Options: ARC/INFO coverage

File Compression Technique: none Transfer Size (megabytes): approx. 3 MB

Distribution Liability:

GAP Disclaimer: Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the BRD, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the accuracy or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other data. It is strongly recommended that these data are directly acquired from a BRD server [see

above for approved data providers and not indirectly through other sources which may have changed the data in some way. It is also strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the content of the metadata file associated with these data. The Biological Resources Division shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein.

These data were compiled with regard to the following standards. Please be aware of the limitations of the data. These data are meant to be used at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller (such as 1:250,000 or 1:500,000) for the purpose of assessing the conservation status of vertebrate species and vegetation types over large geographic regions. The data may or may not have been assessed for statistical

accuracy. Data evaluation and improvement may be ongoing. The Biological Resources Division makes no claim as to the data's suitability for other purposes. This is writable data which may have been altered from the original product if not obtained from a designated data distributor identified above.

CAST Disclaimer: The digital data described by this metadata report were prepared by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies of the University of Arkansas. Neither the University of Arkansas nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report or media or represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the University of Arkansas. Any views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the University of Arkansas. Data on this media may have been derived from federal agencies or from other external sources or from data developed by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies. In those cases where data has been translated from one format to another or initially developed from map or other sources the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies has made all reasonable efforts to preserve the data quality as originally developed, however no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies as to the completeness or accuracy of the data and related materials. The act of distribution does not constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility is assumed by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies in the use of this data, or related materials.

IX. Metadata Reference Information

Metadata Date: 19971112 Metadata Review Date: 19951101

Metadata Contact: Mike Garner - mike@cast.uark.edu Metadata Standard Name: Metadata Metadata Standard Version: 199404 Standards for Gap Analysis

Title: AR-GAP Management

Theme Keyword: Stewardship, Ownership, GAP ANALYSIS, Land Management, Public Land Management

Data Set Identity: mgmt Identification Code:

Originator: Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies Native Data Set Environment:

Vector File Format: ARCE7 OS: SunOS 5.5 Generic

Publication Date: 19980201 103093-03 April 1996

On-line linkage: http://www.cast.uark.edu Host: cast.uark.edu;

Architecture: sun4 Arc/Info 7.1

Data Set Citation: Garner, M. E., R. S. Dzur, Bounding coordinates:

K. G. Smith, W. F. Limp, and D. G. West: -94.79342625 (UTM: 340000)

Catanzaro. 1998. Land Management Status East: -89.39988308 (UTM: 821400)

of Arkansas. North: 36.80014658 (UTM: 4074000)

South: 32.51055419 (UTM: 3602000)

Data Set Description:

Abstract: Land Management Status of Public Lands in Arkansas.

Access Constraints: None

Use Restrictions: None (See Section 7.4.)

Browse Graphic File Description: AR-GAP Management of Arkansas

II. Data Quality Information

Thematic Accuracy: 100%

Thematic Accuracy Explanation: Source agency validation of Management Status of each area during accuracy assessment phase..

Horizontal Positional Accuracy: 50 meters.

Horizontal Positional Accuracy Explanation: Positional accuracy of AR-GAP Ownership were compiled to meet National Map Accuracy Standards for 1:100,000 scale data.

Vertical Positional Accuracy: Unknown

Logical Consistency Report: Source agency validation of polygon labeling

Completeness Report:

I. Land Management set was developed from the Land Ownership the land ownership data set. See Metadata for Land Ownership for information about source, omissions, etc.

III. Spatial Data Organization Information

Native Data Structure: spatial Direct Spatial Reference Method: vector

• ---

• IV. Spatial Reference Information

Map Projection Name: UTM

Map Projection Description:

Ellipsoid: clark66

Semi-major Axis: 6378206.4000000004

Eccentricity Squared: 0.0067686580

Zone: 15

Horizontal Datum Name: NAD27

V. Status Information

Data Set Status: Available Maintenance & Update Frequency: None Release Date: 19980101 planned at this time

VI. Lineage:

Source Identity: None

Source Dates: 19951101

Source Distance Resolution: 50 meter resolution.

• Process Description: Two step process:
• I. Generalized assessment of management status based upon ownership.
• II. Each agency provided validation of both ownership and management status for each area owned.

VII. Entity/Attribute Information

The following attribute names and descriptions are included in the AR-GAP Management database.

Attribute Label:

1:RESTRICTED NATURAL AREAS

2:NATURAL AREAS WITH SOME USES

3:NATURAL AREAS WITH EXTRACTIVE USES

4:PUBLIC & PRIVATE LANDS, NO RESTRICTIONS

Attribute Definition Source: National GAP Handbook

• Related Documents: None

VIII. Distribution Information

Distribution Contact: CAST Transfer Options: ARC/INFO coverage

File Compression Technique: none Transfer Size (megabytes): approx. 3 MB

Distribution Liability:

GAP Disclaimer: Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the BRD, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the accuracy or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other data. It is strongly recommended that these data are directly acquired from a BRD server [see above for approved data providers and not indirectly through other sources which may have changed the data in some way. It is also strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the content of the metadata file associated with these data. The Biological Resources Division shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein.

These data were compiled with regard to the following standards. Please be aware of the limitations of the data. These data are meant to be used at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller (such as 1:250,000 or 1:500,000) for the purpose of assessing the conservation status of vertebrate species and vegetation types over large geographic regions. The data may or may not have been assessed for statistical

accuracy. Data evaluation and improvement may be ongoing. The Biological Resources Division makes no claim as to the data's suitability for other purposes. This is writable data which may have been altered from the original product if not obtained from a designated data distributor identified above.

CAST Disclaimer: The digital data described by this metadata report were prepared by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies of the University of Arkansas. Neither the University of Arkansas nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report or media or represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the University of Arkansas. Any views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the University of Arkansas. Data on this media may have been derived from federal agencies or from other external sources or from data developed by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies. In those cases where data has been translated from one format to another or initially developed from map or other sources the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies has made all reasonable efforts to preserve the data quality as originally developed, however no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies as to the completeness or accuracy of the data and related materials. The act of distribution does not constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility is assumed by the Center For Advanced Spatial Technologies in the use of this data, or related materials.

IX. Metadata Reference Information

Metadata Date: 19971112 Metadata Review Date: 19951101

Metadata Contact: Mike Garner - mike@cast.uark.edu Metadata Standard Name: Metadata Metadata Standard Version: 199404 Standards for Gap Analysis

7.4. A ppropriate and Inappropriate Use of These Data

you may adapt this section freely to local conditions and the resolution and confidence in your data.

All information is created with a specific end use or uses in mind. This is especially true for GIS data, which is expensive to produce and must be directed to meet the immediate program needs. For Gap Analysis, minimum standards were set (see a Handbook for Gap Analysis, Scott et al. 1993) to meet program objectives. These standards include: scale or resolution (1:100,000 or 100 hectare minimum mapping unit), accuracy (80% accurate at 95% confidence), and format (ARC/INFO coverage tiled to the 30'x60' USGS quadrangle). For complete project standards, refer to Appendix 11.1.

Recognizing, however, that GAP would be the first, and for many years likely the only, source of statewide biological GIS maps, the data were created with the expectation that they would be used for other applications. Therefore, we list below both appropriate and inappropriate uses. This list is in no way exhaustive but should serve as a guide to assess whether a proposed use can or cannot be supported by GAP data. For most uses, it is unlikely that GAP will provide the only data needed, and for uses with a regulatory outcome, field surveys should verify the result. In the end it will be the responsibility of each data user to determine if GAP data can answer the question being asked, and if they are the best tool to answer that question.

Scale: First we must address the issue of appropriate scale to which these data may be applied. These data were produced with an intended application at the ecoregion level, that is geographic areas from several hundred thousand to millions of hectares in size. The data provide a coarse-filter approach to analyses, meaning that not every occurrence of every plant community or animal habitat is mapped, only larger, more generalized distributions. The data are also based on the USGS 1:100,000 scale of mapping in both detail and precision. When determining whether to apply GAP data to a particular use, there are two primary questions: do you want to use the data as a map for the particularly geographic area, or do you wish to use the data to provide context for a particular area? The distinction can be made with the following example: You could use GAP landcover to determine the approximate amount of oak woodland occurring in a county, or you could map oak woodland with aerial photography to determine the exact amount. You then could use GAP data to determine the approximate percentage of all oak woodland in the region or state that occurs in the county, and thus a sense of how important the county's distribution is to maintaining that plant community.

Appropriate Uses: The above example illustrates two appropriate uses of the data; as a coarse map for a large area such as a county, and to provide context for finer-level maps. Specific case-study examples are provided in Appendix 11.2., but following is a general list of applications:

• Statewide biodiversity planning
• Regional (Councils of Government) planning
• Regional habitat conservation planning
• County comprehensive planning
• Large area resource management planning
• Coarse-filter evaluation of potential impacts or benefits of major projects or plan initiatives on biodiversity, such as utility or transportation corridors, wilderness proposals, regional open space and recreation proposals, etc.

• Determining relative amounts of management responsibility for specific biological resources among land stewards to facilitate cooperative management and planning.
• Basic research on regional distributions of plants and animals and to help target both specific species and geographic areas for needed research.
• Environmental impact assessment for large projects or military activities.
• Estimation of potential economic impacts from loss of biological resource based activities.
• Education at all levels and for both students and citizens.

Inappropriate Uses: It is far easier to identify appropriate uses than inappropriate ones, however, there is a "fuzzy line" that is eventually crossed when the differences in resolution of the data, size of geographic area being analyzed, and precision of the answer required for the question are no longer compatible. Examples include:

• Use of the data to map small areas (less than thousands of hectares) typically requiring mapping resolution at 1:24,000 scale and using aerial photographs or ground surveys.
• Combining GAP data with other data finer than 1:100,000 scale to produce new hybrid maps or answer queries.
• Generating specific areal measurements from the data finer than the nearest thousand hectares (minimum mapping unit size and accuracy affect this precision).
• Establishing exact boundaries for regulation or acquisition.
• Establishing definite occurrence or non-occurrence of any feature for an exact geographic area (for landcover, the percent accuracy will provide a measure of probability).
• Determining abundance, health, or condition of any feature.
• Establishing a measure of accuracy of any other data by comparison with GAP data.
• Altering the data in any way and redistributing them as a GAP data product.
• Using the data without acquiring and reviewing the metadata and this report.