One item that came up in the October 20 Delaware GIS Strategic Planning Workshop (notes [PDF]) was that of adding “out of play” lands to the Delaware Spatial Data Framework. This refers to lands that are not developable, from a regulatory standpoint, such as publicly-owned lands and lands, such as tidal wetlands, that are simply out of bounds.
Dode Gladders, of the Delaware Department of Agriculture, shared some thoughts on that by e-mail:
In addition to State Parks … we also have State Forests (DDAFS), DNREC Fish and Wildlife lands, US Fish and Wildlife Lands, and the Stockley Center in Sussex County. Together, these “natural” areas cover more than 123,000 acres, which is about ten percent of Delaware’s land area.
Additional “out of play” areas could include Dover AFB, County Parks, and ag/forest lands under conservation easements held by DDA or DNREC.
These are all existing datasets, so it should be a simple matter to make them available from a central clearinghouse-type server, such as the DataMIL.
It is an interesting thought. Parks, state forests, and the air base could fit under the general heading of “boundaries” in the framework schema. Lands under easements or regulatory constraints may be a different matter.
There’s no question that these are important data sets for many uses. The questions is, do they belong in “framework?”
Tags: forests, out of play, parks
The layers are not “Framework” but should be available. From a land use perspective, they limit the area a developer could covet. At some point, they will be the only lands left and they’ll be the subject of legal actions…
Would you not also include Cemeteries, Tax Ditch easements, utility easements, highway right of way, and landfills?
Data layers makes since not sure it would need to be framework. We are getting closer to having our first national park too. How do they do it on the federal maps?
If we want to pursue this out of play idea we really need to nail down the definition of out of play. What exactly does “out of play – Not developable from a regulatory standpoint” mean anyway? And to whom? What might be out of play for one entity may be in for another. For instance the Air Base may have, because it is federal lands, a much different set of constraints in terms of development than does John Q. public. Additionally there are connotations to out of play. Remember the issues associated with the now infamous “lands identified for designation as Natural and State Resource Areas” and the subsequent Chancery Court decision voiding the maps. Furthermore, if all the data sets exist then it may be better have each user or agency define and collate their own out of play coverage. While I see the utility of such a data set I think it best, because of the possible perception of taking of regulatory authority, that the DGDC not be involved in the definition or publication of it.
I would like to echo some of the comments from above: 1) strickly speaking, OutofPlay should not be a Framework layer 2) because it is so open to interpretation and will vary on the perspective of the person asking the question, however, 3) as many potential “component layers” of OutofPlay should be made easily available.
This is also not the first time that OutofPlay has been discussed. In the Strategies for State Spending document (see Mike M. for link) each State agency determined an “outofplay” area in its analysis. Again, these varied by agency. They had lots of warts and imperfections. Even combined they were not an end-all, be-all answer. But it was a start. And I also think that it may have been the first time we tried to specifically use GIS to allocate Statewide resources. A good first try, but lots of lessons to learn.