A Regional Approach to Stewardship Mapping for the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project

1. A Regional Approach to Stewardship Mapping for the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project Andrea E. Ernst* Julie Prior-Magee Kenneth G. Boykin New Mexico Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit New Mexico State University Southwest Regional GAP Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah US-IALE 2004, Las Vegas, Nevada: Transdisciplinary Challenges in Landscape Ecology

2. Acknowledgments Nate Peterson, Research Associate Natural Resource Ecology Lab Colorado State University Jennifer Puttere, Research Specialist New Mexico Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit New Mexico State University Chris Godlewski, GIS Technician New Mexico Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit New Mexico State University Many Individuals at the Federal, State, and NGO Agencies Who have provided GIS Data, Invaluable Knowledge, and Time!

3. Stewardship: (n.) Map which Combines Attributes of Land Ownership, Management, and a Measure of Intent to Maintain Biodiversity (a.) Language Spoken Only in Acronyms

4. Why the term Stewardship? • Because Legal Ownership of a Land Tract does not Necessarily Equate to the Entity Charged with Managing the Resource • Because a Single Steward may Subdivide Land into Units that may be Managed for Different Purposes that Affect Biodiversity

5. 2 Main Objectives 1.) Develop a Digital Map of Land Ownership Boundaries Describing Ownership with Internal Management Areas & Entities Responsible for Management 2.) Attribute Individual Land Units with GAP Management Status Categories for Purpose of Describing Management Status of Elements of Biodiversity and Identifying Potential Gaps

6. Methods Used For Land Ownership Data Layer

7. Step 1 Collect Updated Base Data

8. Separate Individual Management Categories From Base Data i.e. BLM, State Trust Step 2

9. Step 3 Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains Geodatabase= Better Tool Attribute Domains Based on GAP Management Coding System GAP_Status Only allow 1-4 Class_Desc 1000 = Federal Lands Owner_Desc 1100 = Bureau of Land Management Manager_Desc 1101 = Area of Critical Environmental Concern Division Parcel_Name River Mountains Parcel_Desc Text = Reason for ACEC =Bighorn Sheep Habitat Source_New Nevada State BLM Office Updated 01/03 PROS: Change in Attribute Domain automatically changes Data Table Helps Eliminate Misspellings i.e. Bureau of Land Manageent Saves Time from Typing Individual Attribute; Creates Uniformity

10. Collect Updated Base Data Step 1 Separate Individual/Detailed Management Categories From Base Data i.e. BLM, State Trust Step 2 Step 3 Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains Collect Spatial Data from Local Source i.e. NPS GIS Data Set, Utah Division of State Parks Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10

11. Collect Updated Base Data Step 1 Separate Individual/Detailed Management Categories From Base Data i.e. BLM, State Trust Step 2 Step 3 Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains Collect Spatial Data from Local Source i.e. NPS GIS Data Set, Utah Division of State Parks Step 4 Step 5 Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10

12. Step 6 Merge Datasets Together

13. Validate Geodatabase Topology, Using Topology Rules such as ‘Must Not Overlap’ & ‘No Gaps’ Step 7

14. Step 8 Fix Topological Errors, Address Slivers

15. Collect Updated Base Data Step 1 Separate Individual/Detailed Management Categories From Base Data i.e. BLM, State Trust Step 2 Step 3 Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains Collect Spatial Data from Local Source i.e. NPS GIS Data Set, Utah Division of State Parks Step 4 Step 5 Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains Step 6 Merge Datasets Together Validate Geodatabase Topology, Using Topology Rules such as ‘Must Not Overlap’ & ‘No Gaps’ Step 7 Step 8 Fix Topological Errors, Address Slivers Step 9 Cross Check with Original GIS Data, Spreadsheet Step 10

16. Collect Updated Base Data Step 1 Separate Individual/Detailed Management Categories From Base Data i.e. BLM, State Trust Step 2 Step 3 Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains Collect Spatial Data from Local Source i.e. NPS GIS Data Set, Utah Division of State Parks Step 4 Step 5 Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains Step 6 Merge Datasets Together Validate Geodatabase Topology, Using Topology Rules such as ‘Must Not Overlap’ & ‘No Gaps’ Step 7 Step 8 Fix Topological Errors, Address Slivers Step 9 Cross Check with Original GIS Data, Spreadsheet Step 10 Merge More Data, REPEAT

17. Methods Used For Management Status Data Layer

18. Criteria Used to Define Management Status Categories • Permanence of Protection from Conversion of Natural Land Cover to Unnatural. • Relative Amount of the Land Unit Managed for Natural Cover (5% Maximum Amount Managed in Unnatural State). • Inclusiveness of the Management, i.e., Single Species vs. Ecosystem. • Type of Management (i.e., Suppresses or Allows Natural Disturbance) and Degree that it is Mandated Through Legal and Institutional Arrangements.

19. Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4 Permanent Protection from Conversion of Natural Land Cover, Mandated Management Plan, Disturbance Events are Allowed to Proceed. Permanent Protection from Conversion of Natural Land Cover, Mandated Management Plan, May Receive Uses that Degrade Quality of Natural Communities, i.e. Disturbance Suppression. Permanent Protection from Conversion of Natural Land Cover for the Majority of the Area but Subject to Extractive Uses (i.e. logging, mining), Recognizes T&E Species Protection. No Known Institutional Mandates to Prevent Conversion of Natural Land Cover to Anthropogenic Habitat Types, Generally Allows Conversion to Unnatural Land Cover Throughout.

20. Collection of Management Plans • Currently Collect Resource Management Plans (RMPs) from the BLM • Individual Plans for the National Parks, Forests, and National Wildlife Refuges • If No Plan is Available, can Conduct Interviews with Knowledgeable Personnel

21. Protection Legally/ Institutionally Binding? LAND TRACT Total System Protected? Status 2 Disturbance Allowed? Status 2 Managed for Intensive Use? Status 3 Dichotomous Key for Management Status Categorization YES YES YES Status 1 NO NO YES Disturbance Suppressed? NO Partial System Protected & Managed for Natural Values? YES NO YES Subject to Institutional Management Plan? YES Status 3 NO Not Subject to Institutional Management Plan? YES Status 4

22. Stewardship Layer

23. Analysis • Comparing Relative Amount of Managing Entity Responsibility in Relation to Other Managing Entities • Indicate a Potential Need for Change in Management Strategies for Areas Important to Biodiversity Maintenance

24. Importance of Stewardship Map in GAP Process • Help Reveal Opportunities for Cooperative Management, More Equitable Distribution of Responsibility • Spatial Documentation of the Existing Network of Conservation Lands • Base Map from which future Designs for Conservation Networks Can be Built Upon

25. QUESTIONS?