APPLICATIONS

Building on GAP Land Stewardship Analysis: A Partnership Application with Local Government

Patricia Iolavera¹, Katherine Rose Brooks², Christian Grue³, and Frank Westerlund⁴

¹ Formerly University of Washington, now National Park Service, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

²Pierce County Planning and Land Services, Tacoma, Washington

³Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle

⁴Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington, Seattle

Introduction

In order to assist county governments in Washington State that are conducting wildlife protection planning as required by the state Growth Management Act (GMA), the Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, in collaboration with the University of Washington’s Department of Urban Design and Planning (UW-UDP), has implemented a series of pilot projects that explore the utility of Gap Analysis at the local level.    The second project in this series was conducted in cooperation with Pierce County, Washington, and included the mapping of biodiversity resources, an analysis of the levels of protection being provided under existing policies and regulations, and a strategy for increasing that protection.  This article specifically discusses how the land stewardship analysis and mapping methods developed by GAP weresubstantially modified to form the basis of a new stewardship analysis and to inform the development of a stewardship strategy applicable to local governments. 

The GAP Handbook, in its introduction to Mapping and Categorizing Land Stewardship states:

Two primary goals of GAP are to provide an assessment of the management status for certain elements of biodiversity (vegetation communities and animal species) throughout their U.S. range, and to provide land stewards with information on the representation of these elements on their land so they can make informed decisions about their management practices regarding biodiversity.  To accomplish this, the mapped distribution of vegetation communities … is compared to a map of land stewardship.  In GAP, the land stewardship map combines attributes of ownership, management, and a measure of intent to maintain biodiversity.  As explained in the Analysis chapter … these comparisons do not consider viability, but are a start to assessing the likelihood of future threat to a biotic element from habitat conversion—the most obvious cause of biodiversity decline (Noss et al. 1995) (emphasis added).

Collectively, local governments regulate vast areas of land, predominantly privately owned, that include immense biodiversity resources.  Gap Analysis can make a significant contribution toward protecting such resources, but in order for local governments to utilize Gap Analysis data to help better manage lands for biodiversity protection, significant modifications to the standard Gap Analysis for stewardship are necessary. 

First, we hypothesized that the concept of habitat conversion normally would remain meaningful, though less than ideal, if analyzed for “degrees of habitat conversion” rather than the preferred condition of “no conversion”.  We then discarded the premise that all private lands be considered homogeneously in a single protection class, such as Gap Stewardship Analysis currently considers the private lands over which counties and cities exercise their regulatory prerogatives.  Instead consider that such lands have highly varied levels of protection, development, and use, including the degree to which they are protective of habitat.   Moreover, the minimum 40-hectare mapping unit (100 ha land cover, 40 ha for wetlands) was discarded in favor of the significantly smaller-scaled parcels common to the fragmented ownership of rural and urban private lands. 

We also identified a number of issues that were critical for bringing the benefits of these methods to local governments.  First, there is a need for the inclusion of land use planners on teams performing this type of Gap Analysis, because they have the skills necessary to analyze the complex and diverse regulatory structures, which vary on a county-by-county and state-by-state basis.  They are also well suited to bridging the “communication gap” between biologists, scientists, and local government.  While it may seem trivial, it is essential that plain English be used in presenting the Gap Analysis methodology to local governments, as highly technical terminology tends to obscure the process for the citizens and politicians whose partnership is being solicited.  Opportunities for partnerships utilizing these methods are thus lost.  

Goals

A high priority was placed on designing a project that would provide a practical planning document useful to Pierce County for regulatory purposes.  Additional goals were (1) to develop a repeatable Gap Analysis stewardship methodology for private land governed by counties in Washington State, (2) to assess the management status of private lands governed by the county's regulations, and (3) to develop a long-range implementation plan that integrates biodiversity stewardship values into the county's policies and land use regulations.  The work described in this article explains the stewardship analysis aspects of the Pierce County project and its outcomes in relation to the above goals.  (Mapping of high priority habitat was accomplished in an earlier phase by other team members).²

Methods

The project began with a review of the available GAP literature, with particular attention given to the criteria and assumptions underlying the GAP protection status classification scheme using Status 1-4.   These assumptions included an assessment of the permanence of protection for natural vegetation, the amount of land managed specifically for such vegetation, the inclusiveness of the management for all species, type of management for natural factors, and relative strength of legal and institutional framework.  The research team also reviewed the best available scientific research regarding habitat protection planning, conservation biology, biodiversity, landscape ecology, as well as contemporary innovations in conservation land use planning.  Every effort was made to incorporate principles of conservation biology as a foundation of the stewardship analysis, as well as the principles incorporated into methods used in the GAP stewardship categorization scheme.

In order to understand the land management options available to local government, statewide policies and laws that create the legal foundation for Pierce County's environmental and land use regulations were identified and analyzed.  These included the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).  The Pierce County Comprehensive Plan policies and associated development regulations (e.g., zoning, critical areas, shorelines, etc.) were also analyzed for their ability to provide protection to identified biodiversity management areas.

The current stewardship chapter of the GAP handbook contains two objectives: (1) to develop a complete digital map of public land ownership categories and biodiversity management boundaries, and (2) to attribute each mapped land unit with categories of management Status 1 through 4.  This model identifies private land (Status 4) as a single homogeneous category and then drops these lands out of further analysis or consideration (i.e., by assuming no level of protection).  Unfortunately, those assumptions do not work well for a local government whose area of influence is primarily over private lands.  For example, in the Pierce County pilot project 59% of lands in the biodiversity network proposed fall within Status 4 categorized lands.  In order to develop a methodology more relevant for stewardship at the county level, the first step was to expand objective one to include all private lands.  The second GAP objective was then refined to recognize different categories of private lands.  This was achieved by breaking the Status 4 (private lands) category into meaningful subcategories of lands that are regulated in various ways by a local government. 

Four different subcategories of private land ownership were established: 4a - most highly protected, 4b - moderately protected, 4c - slightly protected, and “inconsequential” - where little or no effective protection is offered.  Status 1, 2 and 3 lands were discussed in terms of representing partnership opportunities with other governing land managers, e.g., partnering with the Washington Department of Natural Resources on permit conditions for forest practice activities within identified biodiversity management areas.

The research team borrowed GAP’s four criteria for determining levels of biodiversity protection (permanence, land unit size, inclusiveness of management, and degree of protection) to inform the analysis of local Pierce County policies and regulations.  The general concept of land unit size had to be reinterpreted as a function of relative size and degree of density allowed.  For example, a Rural 40 zoning designation―one dwelling unit per 40 acres―would be considered relatively protected.  Inclusiveness of management referred to the practice of managing for multiple species (proactive management vs. the reactive management of managing only for threatened and endangered species).  Relative permanence was considered as a function of long-range planning policies. 

The ability to map these attributes was also a key factor in their selection.  A typical Gap Analysis requires three primary pieces of information for the stewardship layer: (1) geographic boundaries of land ownership, (2) the manager/owner attributes of each mapped unit, and (3) the biodiversity management status of each mapped unit.  In Pierce County, GIS parcel data provided both boundary and ownership information.  Since there are tens of thousands of parcel owners, these data were discarded in favor of an analysis of the regulatory authority of the local government that was the client.  Maps that detailed a nexus between physical features and political boundaries, such as zoning, provided a logical substitution for parcel ownership.   

Earlier literature reviews had identified positive and negative habitat characteristics as well as a palette of land use planning implementation tools.  For example, zoning densities, setbacks, clustering, construction methods and best management practices, levels of impervious surface allowed, vegetation protection requirements and so forth have specific impacts upon wildlife.  Similarly, shoreline designations regulate the types of activities permissible at a certain distance from the water.  This affects shoreline habitat and access for wildlife.  Critical areas rely heavily on buffer requirements, particularly for riparian features, wetlands, and documented point locations for certain biological and natural features. 

From this it was determined that certain types of land use regulations provide the best opportunity to protect identified biodiversity management areas.  Three regulations provided the primary foundation for protection: zoning regulations (govern allowable uses and densities); critical area regulations (regulate uses within wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas); and shoreline regulations (establish land uses and densities in designated shoreline environments).  

Within each set of regulations, matrices were developed that juxtaposed habitat values against regulatory classifications.  Thus zoning regulations were reviewed for the relative amounts of corridor potential, buffering potential, impervious surface, resistance to conversion, roadedness, and size of units.  Shoreline management regulations were reviewed for the numbers of specific activities allowed in each of the classified zones.  These activities were not weighted for the degree of relative impact on the environment, though that is certainly suggested in future work.  However, even this simple analysis revealed that the shoreline classification “Conservancy,” which implied a fair degree of protection, in fact allowed 18.5 of the 24 possible uses and included such high-impact uses as dredging and mining.  Critical-area buffers were also reviewed against the actual buffers recommended by Washington State’s Departments of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Ecology (WDOE), the frequency and basis for “variances” from the requirement, the standards for allowed activities, the presence of clauses protecting threatened and endangered species, and the strength of any enforcement mechanisms present.  These matrices provided scoring systems against which certain geographic areas could be evaluated for degree of protection.

Certain regulations that provide protection for habitat and its natural functions were not able to be mapped as they dealt with permitted activities that could take place in a variety of locations.  Regulations and policies of that nature were reviewed for impacts on habitat.  Ultimately, strategies for improving protection were identified for both broad policies and specific regulations, whether or not they could be geographically mapped.   These included the adoption of adaptive management principles, adoption of policies that support water-based zoning, creation of an open space/wildlife protection overlay zone, increases for buffers, reduction in allowed uses, elimination of inconsistencies and conflicts, and much more. 

The work of the stewardship and biodiversity mapping teams were then merged into a single volume and presented to Pierce County.²  As a result of the biodiversity richness mapping process done earlier in the project, Pierce County established a Biodiversity Management Network, identifying the areas important for the protection of fish and wildlife within the county.  This biodiversity network was adopted into the Comprehensive Open Space Plan in 1999.  However, the county is still working at incorporating the biodiversity network into its critical area regulations.  It is also conducting an even finer resolution mapping and habitat verification of the core Biodiversity Management Areas (BMA), and refining the BMA analysis to establish a long-term strategy for monitoring, priorities for conservation and acquisition efforts, and an education and public outreach process.  These future efforts (Phase III) again involve partnerships with the UW's WA-GAP and NatureMapping programs and the WDFW’s Priority Habitat Species (PHS) Program, as well as a new partnership with Metro Parks Tacoma/NW Trek/Pt. Defiance Zoo.  Pierce County also envisions potential partnerships with other federal and state agencies, tribal entities, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to accomplish these goals.  More details on this may be provided in a subsequent article.

On a larger scale, Washington State passed legislation in 2002 (ESSB 6400) that authorizes a comprehensive review to identify the state's needs for biodiversity data and to establish the framework for the development and implementation of a statewide biodiversity conservation strategy.  This legislation is intended to augment the single-species or single-resource protection programs and regulatory mechanisms currently being utilized throughout the state.  The Gap Analysis methods, as modified for county government in the Pierce County pilot project described in this article, could potentially be adopted for use by local governments statewide.

Conclusions

The current stewardship chapter of the GAP handbook states that “…the process of categorizing (land) management can be confusing and daunting.”  That complexity is even more pronounced at the local level, where numerous land units and a myriad of regulations must be considered.  No less confusing and daunting to local governments who may be considering biodiversity planning are the Gap Analysis concepts.  These must be presented to local governments and citizens in language that is meaningful with respect to the tools (policy, regulatory, programmatic) they have available and are familiar with.  Researchers helping local governments implement the GAP data and concepts to identify biodiversity management areas and develop a long-term protection strategy may look to the Pierce County pilot project for ideas on how to overcome barriers currently impeding implementation at the local level. 

This research effort brought a number of issues into sharper focus and also identified areas for refinement and improvement in future research.  The following areas are of particular concern:

• GAP identifies the importance of the stewardship map as the base map from which future―and hopefully rational―designs for the conservation network will come.  This indicates the need for an iterative interaction between the biological and stewardship analyses.  However, in this project, particularly as the local planning stewardship analysis method was in the process of being developed, such iteration presented a timing problem.  Future projects could develop an iterative process that would help co-locate biodiversity management areas where greater protections already exist.

• The national Gap Analysis Program has a goal of standardizing descriptors of land management at the national level based on public ownership such as 1501 - Dept. of Energy - Ecological Reserve.  Because of the variability of local planning environments, conducting a similar effort at the local level would not be practical.  However, a state-by-state effort that takes state law into consideration could facilitate standardization for local governments and their consultants.

• Creation of a stewardship map is central to GAP’s analysis method.  However, this project revealed that there may be a need to further accommodate the diversity and complexity of management influences.  In particular those environmental laws that pertain to actions rather than places are difficult to map.   Some unanswered questions include:  What is the appropriate degree of mapping at the local level?  Cumulative effects were not adequately analyzed in this effort.

• Because county governments are fairly dynamic political environments, GAP's concept of “permanence of protection” presents difficulties.  GAP defines permanence as “permanence of protection from conversion of natural land cover to unnatural … human-induced barren, cultivated exotic-dominated, or arrested future succession.”  This is an important concept to carry over to local government planning.  However, in the privately owned, highly fragmented, human-populated lands typical of county jurisdictions, such permanence might perhaps be redefined.  Certainly, large-scale zoning or other protections offer some degree of permanence but are not identical to the GAP concept.  This project bore in mind the general concept, but the authors feel this issue is ripe for further discussion.  Future research may more closely examine the meaning of “permanence” in this context.

• Based on the nature of the “Urban-Rural Continuum,” it may prove useful to develop a concurrent method for identifying opportunities for strategic restoration in addition to protection.

Literature Cited

Duerksen, C.J., D.L. Elliot, E. Johnson, J.R. Miller, and N.T. Hobbs.  1997.  Habitat protection planning: Where the wild things are.  PAS Report No. 470/471.

Iolavera, P.R.  1999.  Pierce County, Washington, GAP application pilot project: Expanding the GAP land stewardship categorization for use at the county planning level.  M.S. thesis, Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Stevenson, M.  1998.  Applying Gap Analysis to county land use planning in Washington State. Gap Analysis Bulletin 7:30-32.

UDP.  2000.  Pierce County GAP application project: A biodiversity plan for Pierce County, Washington.  Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.  196 pp.

Washington State Gap Analysis Project.  1997.  Final Report.  Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle.  Volumes 1-5.  1,450 pp.