| GAP
Bulletin Number 5 June 1996 |
 |
| GAP
Bulletin Number 5 June 1996 |
|
Land Management Status Categorization in Gap Analysis: A Potential Enhancement Gap Analysis as described by Scott et al. (Wildlife Monograph No. 123) and by A Handbook for Gap Analysis (National Biological Service and University of Idaho) requires that land tracts be categorized according to four status levels describing management for conservation of biodiversity. This component of Gap Analysis has been discussed and evaluated very little because, until recently, few projects had reached this point in the process. As we worked with the land management categories in New Mexico, we found the suggested methods and premises of the four categories to be somewhat inadequate to ensure repeatable results when there were several people involved, especially cooperators in our land categorization work group. This was particularly important in our project because we had spent much time seeking ways to better represent and categorize private lands managed for biodiversity. Thus, we wanted to enhance our categorization of lands of specific note to private interests. Inconsistency Revealed In New Mexico, we had 20 cooperators (representing private land holders, state and federal land management agencies, environmental organizations, and Native American tribes) assign land parcels to management categories. These individuals categorized 23 types of tracts by management status (e.g., status 2 - an area generally managed for natural values, but which may receive use that degrades the quality of existing natural communities) and 22 tracts by a name designation (e.g., national park) according to the published Gap Analysis category codes that we provided. While this quick assessment was not conducted as a controlled scientific survey, it did illustrate in general terms that land management categories may not be interpreted and applied similarly by all individuals. From the responses that we received, it was clear that the process of land management categorization was not a simple application of the four categories when attempted by a large group of cooperators. As important, we found that when we (the authors) attempted to settle on specific category assignments for distinct land tracts, we also sometimes made variable assignments. We found that we quickly sought a common way to identify information about tracts and to apply a repeatable process for category assignment. A Different Approach Ultimately, we developed a dichotomous key approach to meet this need (see below). This approach has two basic considerations. First, it requires the user to obtain simple information about each tract to be categorized (the revocability of protection; the existence of a specific management plan, policy, or regulation; the relative proportion of area subject to management; and the type of management). Second, it is structured to lead the user through relatively few decision steps that enhance consistent application by multiple users and, as importantly, by the same user if repeat categorization is attempted or requested for a previously categorized tract. This key approach was described in a poster displayed at the National Gap Analysis meeting in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in August 1995. There was substantial interest in the approach, and discussion on the last day of the meeting indicated that the approach should have more extensive consideration among Gap Analysis projects. An Opportunity to Participate A small ad hoc working group of GAP principal investigators (coordinated by Bruce Thompson) was formed to examine this approach and other considerations in developing potential enhanced procedures for incorporation in the handbook. In advance of that group completing its review, there seemed to be a need for broader dissemination of this procedure and stimulation of evaluation and response by project personnel. So, take some time to apply the included dichotomous key to your individual GAP project. Does this key produce repeatability in addressing your land categorization challenge? Another issue seems to be whether there need to be more categories, or perhaps subcategories, such that individual projects can subdivide for their purposes while supporting consolidation to the basic categories nationally. Nonetheless, give this key a go and provide feedback to Bruce Thompson at (505) 646-6093 (office), (505) 646-1281 (FAX), or by e-mail at bthompso@nmsu.edu. Comments will be most helpful to the working group if received before May 15, 1996. A Dichotomous Key (Draft) This key is designed to be applied to any
land tract, regardless of ownership, assuming that any
management status category can apply to land parcels
without consideration of public, tribal, private, or
other ownership. Other assumptions are that the methods
of protection listed are equal, regardless of ownership,
and that written management plans are equivalent,
regardless of who implements them. When categorizing a
tract, recognize that mixed uses will occur; for
instance, a natural area may have a visitor center and
trails. Such uses need not influence the categorization
if they represent 5% or less of the area of the tract.
Also recognize that every type of management, ownership,
or regulation can potentially be changed, but for this
purpose, consider whether the intent infers permanence.
When using the key, you may go back to a previous choice
if the pathway has led you to an unsatisfactory option.
Patrick J. Crist, Julie S.
Prior-Magee, and Bruce C. Thompson |