1994 - 1995 GAP Status Report - Status of GAP Components

Status of GAP Components

This section reviews the status of the constituent parts, or components needed, to conduct Gap Analysis. Gap Analysis was begun with a focus on the terrestrial environment, however, the development of information and analyses must logically be extended to the aquatic environment; the aquatic component of Gap Analysis is also treated in this section. The status of analyses of the GAP data layers is discussed in the "Products" section of this report.

The Aquatic Component

The opportunity to advance the state of the information, as well as the practice of holistic systems-based conservation, by including the aquatic component of GAP was recognized in the GAP FY 1994 and FY 1995 budgets. In FY 1994, $500,000 was allocated to develop the aquatic component of GAP, and in FY 1995, $361,000 was allocated for this purpose. In FY 1994, the funding was re-directed to meet the administrative needs of the NBS, and in FY 1995 all but $90,000 for a pilot project was rescinded. Within these constraints, however, substantial progress has been made in developing the conceptual basis for the aquatic component, and one pilot project is currently under way.

On September 7 and 8, 1994, scientists, planners, and administrators with expertise in aquatic ecology, biogeography, and project implementation met to "brainstorm" an approach to developing an integrated aquatic GAP data layer. This meeting covered the topics of:

establishing goals and objectives
spatial framework
geographic scale
thematic coverage (taxa)
resource management classification and categories
standard attributes
integration with terrestrial data
pilot project design

The goal identified for aquatic GAP by the group is: To characterize aquatic biodiversity in the U.S. on a landscape scale in a way that will allow for effective management of land and water resources so as to maintain this biodiversity, preserving the widest variety of management options for the future.

In January 1995, Dr. Patricia Heglund, aquatic ecologist of the University of Idaho and formally with the NBS in Alaska, was hired to assist with the development of the aquatic GAP concept. Working with the outcome from the earlier planning session, Heglund and Jennings developed the following framework:

Basic Questions:

1. How well are all aquatic species and their habitat types represented within places managed for their long-term persistence?

2. Which species and habitat types are under-represented in aquatic biodiversity management areas or management activities?

3. Which species and habitat types are at risk for becoming threatened with extinction?

4. What is the landscape context for species and habitat types which are at risk?

Objectives:

1. Determine where the overall gaps are in our present-day mix of efforts to conserve native aquatic biological diversity nationwide by:

a. geographic location;

b. management application;

c. ecosystem context.

2. Incorporate regular use of this information with ongoing resource management activities.

Strategic Tasks:

1. Adopt/develop a spatial reference system (spatial framework).

Option: The EPA River Reach File can be used for locational definition. It can be imbedded in the GAP terrestrial data.

2. Adopt/develop a habitat classification system (thematic framework).

Option: The Cowardin system can be used for categorical definition in the short term (Cowardin et al. 1979). A classification system needs to be developed and/or adopted in the longer term, similar to the development of the natural terrestrial land cover classification system. This will require involvement with both a professional society (such as the American Fisheries Society) and the FGDC.

3. Establish a database for the geographic distribution of native aquatic species. (This is the single most important task.)

Option: The geographic occurrence of all species in each water body for which there is contemporary information should be mapped. This step will require a major cooperative effort, especially with state agencies.

4. Establish a data layer of the present known geographic distribution of aquatic habitat types.

Option: The existing National Wetland Inventory data provides the best available information, where available.

5. Develop a data layer of the present management programs relevant to the persistence of native species in each water body.

Option: An extensive review and synthesis of existing management practices and programs for each water body will be required.

6. Establish the landscape context for each water body.

Option: GAP terrestrial data sets can provide the landscape context for each water body.

7. Access water quality data for each water body.

Option: Existing water quality data can be accessed through the River Reach File and state databases.

8. Show the land management patterns surrounding any given water body.

Option: GAP terrestrial data sets can provide this information.

9. Provide the aquatic data to users as an integrated GAP data layer.

In the FY 1995 budget, three pilot aquatic GAP projects were planned. Prospective researchers designed the projects, which were provisionally accepted by GAP staff. Research Work Orders were drafted and submitted to headquarters. However, before the funding process was completed, two of the projects were terminated due to a recision of those funds. The project that remained was maintained only because that Research Work Order had been processed through the NBS contracting office, and funds were considered to have been officially obligated.

The remaining project is located in western New York State, in the Allegheny River basin, and was begun in June 1995. This project is being conducted through the New York Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at Cornell University. The principal investigator is Dr. Mark Bain (voice: (607) 255-2840, e-mail: mbb1@cornell.edu). This project is in the process of:

1. Acquiring the EPA River Reach File III for New York and incorporating it with the New York terrestrial land cover GAP map, including a quality check on spatial registration.

2. Enhancing the river reach base map with distributional data and catalog labeling for lakes, ponds, and wetlands as well as for human alteration to lotic waterways.

3. Developing GIS data layers on the distributions of species of fish, amphibians, and those taxa of macroinvertebrates which are indicative of water quality, such as mollusks.

4. Developing a GIS data layer on the distributions of aquatic habitats.

5. Developing a GIS data layer for aquatic resource management status on a reach-by-reach format, including, for example, fishery management programs, water quality classifications, permitted pollution discharge points, public fishing accesses, special purpose designations (e.g., scenic, historic), flood control projects, etc.

6. Generating reach-by-reach maps of species and habitat distributions.

7. Comparing the aquatic GAP 1:100,000-scale distributions to 1:24,000-scale known distributions for a geographic subset (e.g., French Creek Watershed) where the finer scale data already exist.

8. Analyzing the distributions of resource management activities and the biotic components within the basin to identify areas of biotic conservation effectiveness and need.

9. Analyzing the patterns of biodiversity on a subwatershed basis.

10. Identifying opportunities for long-term conservation of aquatic biodiversity within the context of a human-dominated river basin.

11. Documenting a protocol for developing a large watershed-scale Gap Analysis for aquatic environments.

At the 1994 and 1995 GAP annual meetings, break-out sessions were held on the aquatic component of GAP. Attendance exceeded room capacity each time. Interest in the aquatic component of GAP is very high, with the highest level of interest coming from the state agency community. In spite of the loss of funds, GAP has managed to move forward with concept development and a pilot project. It is anticipated that interest and need will continue to drive the development of aquatic GAP data.