southwest regional gap analysis project stewardship andrea e. ernst scott schrader veronica lopez...

Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project Stewardship

Andrea E. Ernst

Scott SchraderVeronica LopezJulie Prior-MageeKenneth BoykinBruce ThompsonDon SchruppLee O’BrienWilliam Kepner

Kathryn Thomas

John Lowry.

SWReGAP

Statistics

BLM lands: 31% of area USFS lands: 14% of area State lands: 7% of area Tribal lands: 9% of area

Gap Objectives

1) Map the distributions of natural communities.

2) Map predicted habitat of native animal species.

3) Map the degree of management for biodiversity maintenance of land tracts and water bodies focusing on intent.

4) Analyze the representation of biotic elements in the conservation network to identify “gaps” in long-term security.

5) Provide this information to the public and those entities charged with land use research, policy, planning, and management.

Stewardship

Categorizes lands:• Public land ownership and voluntarily provided

private conservation lands.• According to four levels of commitment to

biodiversity maintenance.• Based on expressed long-term intent.

2 Main Products

SWReGAP Stewardship Data LayerDevelop a digital map depicting land ownership boundaries & internal management areas combined with attributes of entities responsible for management

SWReGAP Conservation Status Data LayerAttribute individual land units with GAP management status categories for purpose of describing biodiversity conservation and identification of potential ‘gaps’

Zion National Park

Management Plans

Collected over 300 plans for the entire region

USFS = Forest Plans and Amendments

BLM = Resource Management Plans, Record of

DecisionDoD = Integrated Natural

Resource Management Plans

NPS = General Management Plans/Statement of Management

If No Plan is Available, Conducted Interviews with Knowledgeable Personnel

Stewardship

GAP Management Categories:

Status 1: Highest level of management intent for biodiversity, e.g., Research Natural Areas.

Status 2: High level of intent but allows some use, e.g., Wilderness Areas that allow grazing.

Status 3: Intent to conserve special features or endangered species in context of human use, i.e., public multiple use lands.

Status 4: No known intent to maintain biodiversity.

A dichotomous key for categorizing land management status for biodiversity

YesLandTract

Protection legally/ institutionally binding?

YesYes Status 1Disturbance

allowed?Total system protected?

No

YesPartial System protected and managed for natural values?

Disturbance suppressed?

No

Status 2

Status 2

Not Subject to a management plan

No

Status 4

No

No

Managed for intensive use

Yes

Subject to institutional management plan?

Status 3

Status 3

Generally protectedGenerally unprotected

Categorizing Land Management Status

Stewardship from Land Ownership

Management Status

Level of Detail in SWReGAP

Rio Grande National Forest

Weminuche WildernessPristine = GAP Status 1

Primitive = GAP Status 2

Management Status Statistics

Status KM2 %

Water 10,706.81 0.77

1 36,689.99 2.65

2 123,493.00 8.91

3 688,816.41 49.70

4 526,365.73 37.98

Total 1,386,071.93 100.00

Ownership StatisticsCode Owner KM2 %

1100 BLM 423,008.78 30.52

1200 BOR 1,767.06 0.13

1300 FWS 18,363.31 1.32

1400 USFS 197,518.57 14.25

1500 DOD/DOE 44,413.33 3.20

1600 NPS 24,181.11 1.74

1750 ARS 951.93 0.07

1950 DOC 6.80 0.00

2200 Tribal 131,046.66 9.45

3100 State Parks & Rec 2,223.41 0.16

3200 State Land Board 98,045.02 7.07

3300 State Wildlife Reserves 5,215.95 0.38

3400 Other State Land 529.06 0.04

4100 Regional Gover. Land 533.73 0.04

5100 City Land 508.74 0.04

5200 County Land 655.38 0.05

6100 Audubon 4.91 0.00

6200 Local Land Trust 1,267.58 0.09

6300 TNC 2,305.85 0.17

7200 Private/Biodiversity 4,604.43 0.33

7300 Private/Unrestricted 418,213.49 30.17

8100 Water 10,706.81 0.77

  TOTAL 1,386,071.93 100.00

Database Preview

The Database