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

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

Geodatabase= Better Tool Attribute Domains Based on GAP Management Coding System GAP_StatusOnly allow 1-4 Class_Desc1000 = Federal Lands Owner_Desc1100 = Bureau of Land Management Manager_Desc1101 = Area of Critical Environmental Concern Division Parcel_NameRiver Mountains Parcel_DescText = Reason for ACEC =Bighorn Sheep Habitat Source_NewNevada 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 3 Convert to Geodatabase, Attribute with Domains

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

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

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

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

Status 2 Status 3Status 4 Status 1 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.

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

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

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?