Transcript Stewardship: (Stew .ard .ship)

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
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!
Stewardship:
(n.) Map which Combines
Attributes of Land Ownership,
Management, and a Measure of
Intent to Maintain Biodiversity
(a.) Language Spoken Only in
Acronyms
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
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
Methods Used For
Land Ownership
Data Layer
Step 1
Collect Updated Base Data
Step 2
Separate Individual Management
Categories From Base Data i.e. BLM, State Trust
Step 3
Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains
Geodatabase= Better Tool
Attribute Domains Based on GAP Management Coding System
GAP_Status
Class_Desc
Owner_Desc
Manager_Desc
Division
Parcel_Name
Parcel_Desc
Source_New
Only allow 1-4
1000 = Federal Lands
1100 = Bureau of Land Management
1101 = Area of Critical Environmental Concern
River Mountains
Text = Reason for ACEC =Bighorn Sheep Habitat
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
Step 2
Collect Updated Base Data
Separate Individual/Detailed Management
Categories From Base Data i.e. BLM, State Trust
Step 3
Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains
Step 4
Collect Spatial Data from Local Source
i.e. NPS GIS Data Set, Utah Division of State Parks
Step 1
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7
Step 8
Step 9
Step 10
Step 2
Collect Updated Base Data
Separate Individual/Detailed Management
Categories From Base Data i.e. BLM, State Trust
Step 3
Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains
Step 4
Collect Spatial Data from Local Source
i.e. NPS GIS Data Set, Utah Division of State Parks
Step 5
Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains
Step 1
Step 6
Step 7
Step 8
Step 9
Step 10
Step 6
Merge Datasets Together
Step 7
Validate Geodatabase Topology, Using Topology
Rules such as ‘Must Not Overlap’ & ‘No Gaps’
Step 8
Fix Topological Errors, Address Slivers
Step 2
Collect Updated Base Data
Separate Individual/Detailed Management
Categories From Base Data i.e. BLM, State Trust
Step 3
Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains
Step 4
Collect Spatial Data from Local Source
i.e. NPS GIS Data Set, Utah Division of State Parks
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 1
Step 7
Step 8
Fix Topological Errors, Address Slivers
Step 9
Cross Check with Original GIS Data, Spreadsheet
Step 10
Step 2
Collect Updated Base Data
Separate Individual/Detailed Management
Categories From Base Data i.e. BLM, State Trust
Step 3
Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains
Step 4
Collect Spatial Data from Local Source
i.e. NPS GIS Data Set, Utah Division of State Parks
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 1
Step 7
Step 8
Fix Topological Errors, Address Slivers
Step 9
Cross Check with Original GIS Data, Spreadsheet
Step 10 Merge More Data, REPEAT
Methods Used For
Management Status
Data Layer
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.
Permanent Protection from Conversion of Natural
Status 1
Land Cover, Mandated Management Plan, Disturbance
Events are Allowed to Proceed.
Status 2
Status 3
Status 4
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.
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
Dichotomous Key for Management Status Categorization
LAND
TRACT
Protection
Legally/
Institutionally
Binding?
YES
Total
System
Protected?
YES
Disturbance
Allowed?
NO
NO
Disturbance
Suppressed?
NO
YES Status 1
Partial System
Protected &
Managed for
Natural Values?
YES
Status 2
YES
Status 2
YES
Status 3
NO
Managed for
Intensive Use?
Subject to
Institutional
Management Plan?
YES
Status 3
NO
Not Subject to
Institutional
Management Plan?
YES
Status 4
Stewardship Layer
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
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
QUESTIONS?