Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project Stewardship Andrea E. Ernst Scott Schrader Veronica Lopez Julie Prior-Magee Kenneth Boykin Bruce Thompson Don Schrupp Lee O’Brien William Kepner Kathryn Thomas John Lowry.

SWReGAP Statistics l BLM lands: 31% of area l USFS lands: 14% of area l State lands: 7% of area l 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 Layer Develop a digital m ap depicting land ownership boundaries & internal management areas combined with attributes of entities responsible for management SWReGAP Conservation Status Data Layer Attribute 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 Decision DoD = 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 Yes Land Tract Protection legally/ institutionally binding? Yes Status 1Disturbance allowed? Total system protected? No Yes Partial System protected and managed for natural values? Disturbance suppressed? No Status 2 Not Subject to a management plan No Status 4 No Managed for intensive use Yes Subject to institutional management plan? Status 3 Generally protected Generally unprotected Categorizing Land Management Status

Stewardship from Land Ownership

Management Status

Level of Detail in SWReGAP Rio Grande National Forest Weminuche Wilderness Pristine = GAP Status 1 Primitive = GAP Status 2

Management Status Statistics StatusKM 2 % Water10, , , , , Total1,386,

Ownership Statistics CodeOwner KM 2 % 1100BLM423, BOR1, FWS18, USFS197, DOD/DOE44, NPS24, ARS DOC Tribal131, State Parks & Rec2, State Land Board98, State Wildlife Reserves5, Other State Land Regional Gover. Land City Land County Land Audubon Local Land Trust1, TNC2, Private/Biodiversity4, Private/Unrestricted418, Water10, TOTAL1,386,

Database Preview n The Database The Database