Back to Contents
1NC Gap Analysis Project, NCSU, Raleigh, North
Carolina
2 ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina
3USFWS Ecological Services, Raleigh, North
Carolina
More and more land management agencies and conservation organizations are focusing their efforts on ecosystem conservation. In doing so, they have turned to Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to provide the analytical tools to look at landscape issues. The biological data developed by the Gap Analysis Program (GAP) is an ideal data set for these efforts. It was designed as such. However, the steep learning curve of GIS software and the cumbersome nature of spatial data have severely limited utilization of GAP data, and GIS in general, by the vast majority of people involved with land management. If GAP is to realize its full potential, it must make its data readily available and applicable for use by biologists and land managers not trained in GIS, because that is where the largest impact can be made. In an effort to address that need, the University of Wyoming's Spatial Data and Visualization Center and the National GAP Program developed an ArcView-based decision support tool designed specifically for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge (FWS) managers, called Refuge-GAP (Herdendorf and Crist 1998). While scripting for the tool was not fully developed and was built around Wyoming data, the concept proved attractive to another group of FWS personnel halfway across the continent. Following a presentation of the North Carolina Gap Analysis Project (NC-GAP), biologists from the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear (RTNCF) Ecosystem Team quickly seized on the idea of implementing GAP data through the use of a decision support tool based on Refuge-GAP. They saw such a tool as not just beneficial to refuge personnel but also to other FWS offices, including Ecological Services and Realty as well as their Ecosystem Planning Office. As a result, the FWS and GAP provided funding to NC-GAP for further development of Refuge-GAP into the RTNCF GAP Ecosystem Data Explorer (GEDE) Tool.
Much like Refuge-GAP,
the GEDE Tool is a customized ArcView (ver. 3.2) project that
displays and manipulates GAP data through a series of dialog boxes
and avenue scripts.
The GEDE Tool allows users not savvy in GIS to
quickly view data and conduct advanced queries with a few simple
clicks. While the GEDE Tool has been designed to be
accessible to a broad audience, it is based on a full
implementation of ArcView with Spatial Analyst and, thereby,
provides an advanced GIS platform for those who wish to expand the
complexity of their queries and analyses.
The GEDE Tool begins
each session at a common starting point (Figure 1 - see Web version
of Bulletin at http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/Bulletins/10).
The user can then select an area of interest (AOI) by either importing a coverage or by creating one.
Several methods of creating an AOI are presented, including
selecting features from standard coverages (e.g., quadrangles,
counties, watersheds, refuges, etc.) or by direct on-screen
digitizing (Figure 2). Once a user has defined an AOI, the
Tool queries the known general ranges, tessellated by the EPA
hexagonal grid, of all species to show only those species having a
possibility of occurrence within the AOI. The user is then
presented with a series of choices designed to narrow the list of
species. For example, the user can choose to continue with
only federally or state-listed species, high-scoring
Partners-In-Flight species, priority species as defined by The
Nature Conservancy, species with a user-defined minimum percentage
of their predicted distribution on highly protected lands, or any
combination thereof. Following that choice, the user is
presented with a dialog box listing the selected species present,
which allows the user to display either their predicted
distribution, known range, or confirmed locations with a single
click (Figure 3)>.
The user can also display the ownership, management, or protection
status of a species' predicted distribution or view a species
report, which contains information on taxonomy, habitat
preferences, distribution modeling, literature citations as well as
a quantitative summary of the areal extent of the predicted
distribution by management agency throughout the ecosystem.
The user can also choose to calculate a similar summary within just
the selected AOI as well as select multiple species to create
customized diversity maps.

Figure 2. Select Area of Interest Dialog Box. Two methods to select an Area of Interest are presented, including selecting features from coverages and on-screen digitization.
Also built into the
GEDE Tool is a spatial representation of the Land Acquisition and
Prioritization System (LAPS) employed by the FWS to prioritize
lands for acquisition (http://realty.fws.gov/laps.htm).
LAPS is designed to be an impartial score of conservation value
based on four components: Aquatic and Wetland Resources, Landscape
Conservation, Bird Conservation, and Endangered and Threatened
Species. While not all scoring criteria used in LAPS are
readily transferred to a spatial framework, we identified and
created eleven spatial data layers representing various components
and subcomponents that can be used as a spatial surrogate for LAPS
(Table 1). Once a user selects a Project Area and Landscape
Effort polygon a twelfth layer is created based on areal extent and
is summed to the other eleven data layers to create the final LAPS
data layer, which is then displayed in the main view along with a
dialog box that allows the user to select any of the four component
or 10 subcomponent data layers for display as well (Figure 4).
Table 1. LAPS spatial data layers
|
Component |
|||
|
|
Sub-component |
Data Source |
Scoring |
|
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources |
|||
|
|
Aquatic Resources Population Information |
FWS1 |
Aquatic trust species and state species of concern presence were noted within subwatersheds. Diversity was weighted for a final score for each subwatershed. |
|
|
Affected Species Information |
NOAA2, FWS/LAPS3 |
Aquatic trust species presence was noted within each major estuary. Diversity was weighted for a final score in each estuary. |
|
|
Habitat |
FWS/LAPS3 |
Free-flowing river reaches > 125 miles and critical or hot-spot watersheds were scored according to LAPS criteria. |
|
|
Wetland Type |
FWS/NWI4, FWS/LAPS3 |
Wetland types were scored based on LAPS scoring criteria. |
|
|
Percent Wetland Loss Expressed by Acreage by State |
FWS/LAPS3 |
States were scored based on LAPS scoring criteria. |
|
Ecosystem Conservation |
|||
|
|
Ecosystem Decline |
FWS/LAPS3, NC-GAP/VA-GAP5 |
Habitat types forming identified ecosystems were scored according to LAPS criteria. |
|
|
Landscape Conservation |
FWS/LAPS2 |
Project polygon was scored based on the Project and Landscape Effort polygon areas (LAPS criteria). |
|
|
Contributions to National Designations |
FWS/LAPS3, NC-GAP/VA-GAP7, AUDUBON8, NAWMPJV9 |
National designations identified by LAPS were scored accordingly. |
|
Endangered and Threatened Species |
|||
|
|
|
FWS/LAPS3, NC-GAP/VA-GAP6 |
Scoring based on LAPS Factor A was assessed for each species on their predicted distributions. Other Factors were not scored. |
|
Bird Conservation |
|||
|
|
Importance to Specific Species or Populations |
FWS/LAPS3, NC-GAP/VA-GAP6 |
Diversity map of species for which the ecosystem contains 5-50% of their range |
|
|
Avian Diversity Score |
FWS/LAPS3, NC-GAP/VA-GAP6 |
Diversity map of species on the Regional lists; Nongame Species of Management Concern, NAWCA Priority Waterfowl Species and Species of Regional Concern |
Literature | About GAP | Projects and Products | Tools | Meetings | Search | Links | Bulletin Boards | Site Map
USGS ||Gap Analysis Program || NBII
||
Disclaimer || Privacy || Accessibility||
GAP Webmaster ||