Land Stewardship and Management
All land management is biodiversity management,
whether intended or not.
- R. Noss and A. Cooperrider
4.1 Background
In gap analysis, distributions of land cover types and vertebrate species distributions are compared to land management status to provide a preliminary indication of protection status. We mapped lands into 4 categories of management status which reflect different levels of commitment to biodiversity protection. We used land ownership and administrative units as a basis for mapping management categories since they provide some indication of the kinds of activity that can occur on a given piece of land, and hence, provide an indication of the potential impact on the land's biodiversity. For example, federal mandates preclude the permanent conversion of natural habitats to anthropogenic habitats on most federal lands. In contrast, most private landowners are less constrained and can modify their land management for their individual goals. We recognize, however, that gap analysis procedures identify private land only as a homogenous category and do not differentiate individual tracts or owners unless there is information that indicates a permanent commitment to long-term biodiversity maintenance. At the same time, it is necessary to distinguish between ownership and management/administration because a tract of land may be under the jurisdiction of one landowner but under management for several different levels of biodiversity maintenance. We currently use the term "stewardship" to encompass both the ownership and administration of land areas, in recognition that legal ownership alone does not necessarily reflect the management objectives and policies in place for land areas.
The Gap Analysis Program uses a scale of 1 through 4 to denote the relative degree of management for biodiversity maintenance for each tract of land, with "1" being the highest, most permanent and comprehensive level of maintenance, and "4" being the lowest, or unknown status (Table 4.1). This is a highly subjective approach and we recognize a variety of limitations in this scheme (Scott et al. 1993). Two principles were used in assigning the status level to individual tracts of land. The first principle was that land stewardship was the primary determinant in assigning status rather than land ownership alone. The second principle was that despite incomplete information and changes in management objectives through time, we can use the intent of a land steward as evidenced by legal and institutional factors to assign management status. In Wyoming, we worked closely with local land managers to assign management status whenever possible.
Table 4.1 Description of codes used to designate management status to lands within Wyoming.
1) An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural
land cover and a mandated management plan in operation to maintain
a natural state within which disturbance events (of natural type,
frequency and intensity) are allowed to proceed without interference
or are mimicked through management.
2) An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural
land cover and a mandated management plan in operation to maintain
a primarily natural state, but which may receive use or management
practices that degrade the quality of existing natural communities.
3) An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural
land cover for the majority of the area, but is subject to extractive
uses of either a broad, low intensity type or localized intense
type.
It also confers protection to Federally listed endangered and
threatened species throughout the area.
4) Lack of irrevocable easement or mandate to prevent conversion
of natural habitat types to anthropogenic habitat types and allows
for intensive use throughout the tract, or existence of such restrictions
are unknown.
Management status designations are not meant to indicate the long-term viability of the elements of biodiversity. We recognize the management status designations do not necessarily reflect adequate management for all elements of biodiversity that may exist within a given area. For instance, a particular management practice or a specific natural disturbance may favor some cover types and species, while adversely affecting other species. Biodiversity is not an indivisible property that responds in a predictable and repeatable manner to management and/or natural events. The management status designations provide only a start to assessing the likelihood of future threats to the elements from land conversion - one of the primary causes of biodiversity decline (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). The immediate purpose of determining the management status of mapped elements of biodiversity is to identify for land stewards the degree to which they may want to consider themselves responsible for the management of a species or land cover type, and to identify other stewards sharing that responsibility. As a result, this information may identify opportunities for cooperative management of resources or may identify a more equitable distribution of that responsibility among stewards. This information directly supports the primary mission of GAP by providing objective, scientific information to decision makers and managers to make informed decisions regarding biodiversity.
4.2 Methods
The land stewardship and management status layer is one of the three central layers developed by WY-GAP. Stewardship is composed of two related themes: land ownership and administrative units. In Wyoming, major land owners include the federal government, the State of Wyoming, and private and native American land holders. Administrative units, such as state areas, national parks, and national recreation areas, are under the jurisdiction of a managing agency but often include a mosaic of federal, state, and private lands. Land management status was assigned to a parcel of land based on its stewardship and the management objectives of the land in accordance with GAP standards (Edwards et al. 1994).
Since different methods were used to compile information on the land ownership and administrative units in Wyoming, we describe their development in separate sections and summarize land areas by stewardships in this chapter. Analysis of biodiversity by management status categories is presented in Chapter 5.
4.2.1 Land Ownership
Information on Wyoming's land ownership was derived from two sources: (1) digital land ownership files provided by the BLM State Office in Wyoming, and (2) BLM surface management status maps. The BLM State Office provided the WY-GAP with digital copies of land ownership for approximately 35 % of Wyoming (Appendix 4.1). This data was digitized by BLM personnel from 1:24,000 scale mylar overlays drafted from master titles, survey plats, and supplemental index plats.
The remaining 65 % of the land ownership layer was digitized by WY-GAP using 1:100,000-scale Surface Management Status maps produced by the BLM. Mylar copies of the Surface Management Status maps were not accessible to us at the beginning of the project, so paper maps were used for digitizing. Despite efforts to digitize land ownership information from the most recently edited paper maps, maps ranged from recent versions edited in 1992 and in excellent condition to others edited in 1972 and folded (Appendix 4.2). Land ownership polygons digitized by WY-GAP were then edge-matched with the ownership polygons digitized by BLM. In most cases, there was a close match along the edges, requiring only minor shifts in lines. Larger discrepancies (usually the result of differences in scale of the data sources) were closed off without an attempt to force a match. The Surface Management Status Maps from which the ownership was digitized have an accuracy of plus or minus 120 feet according to USGS standards, and each 1:100,000-scale quadrangle was digitized with a maximum root mean square error (RMS) tolerance of 0.006 digitizing inches (15.24 meters). Because some of the ownership was digitized from folded maps, the accuracy is probably closer to plus or minus 300 feet.
Selected water features from U.S. Geological Survey 1:100,000-scale digital line graphs (DLGs) were included in the digital land ownership layer. Lakes and reservoirs 5 ha and major rivers were selected from the DLGs and edgematched to existing land ownership polygons. These water polygons do not reflect surface or subsurface ownership in this layer, and are not coded with any ownership designation. The digital files provided by the BLM also included some water features which were retained and supplemented with water features from the DLGs.
To update the digitized land ownership through 1994, maps and legal descriptions of recent land acquisitions or releases 640 acres were requested from federal and state agencies and, in most cases, incorporated into the database. Some purchases/exchanges could not be included because the complete legal description (subdivision descriptions by metes and bounds) could not be interpreted accurately to 1:100,000 maps by township, range and section. Updates incorporated into the current version of the database are documented in Appendix 4.3.
4.2.2 Administrative Units
Boundaries for administrative units such as wilderness areas, wildlife refuges and nature preserves were compiled from a variety of sources at different map scales, projections, and qualities of base materials. While some administrative unit boundaries were available as existing GIS layers digitized by their administrative agency, others units were digitized by WY-GAP. When these units were digitized directly off 1:24,000 scale source maps provided by agencies, a maximum RMS error tolerance of 0.01 digitizing inches (6 m) was used. In other cases, the source maps could not be directly digitized because either they did not contain registration points or their boundaries had to be interpreted from legal descriptions. In these cases, the boundaries were manually transcribed onto the BLM surface management status maps and digitized. Areas that were not included in the database are proposed units (legislation still pending as of September 1995) such as USFS and BLM wilderness study areas. Based upon the recommendation of BLM officials, BLM Areas of Critical Environmental Concern were not included because the dynamic nature of their management plans precludes the assurance of long-term protection of natural elements and communities from extractive (mining, timber harvesting) activities.
4.2.3 Management Status
Categories and definitions of management status used by WY-GAP (Table 4.1) were developed by GAP (Edwards et al. 1994). In general, management status was assigned to an area based on its stewardship and intended management (Table 4.2) using a key developed by NM-GAP (Appendix 4.4). Because specific management objectives for many administrative units in the state were difficult to obtain or interpret, we contacted land managers and real estate specialists within the BLM, USFS, NPS, USFWS, WGFD, and TNC to collaboratively assign a management status to administrative units under the agencies' jurisdiction (Appendix 4.5). Collaborators used the definitions provided by GAP (Table 4.1) and the NM-GAP key (Appendix 4.4) to assign land units to management status categories.
Table 4.2 Management status designated to land stewardship categories in Wyoming.
| Status 1 | Status 2 | Status 3 | Status 4 |
|
NPS National Parks* NPS National Monuments USFS Wilderness Areas National Wildlife Refuges* Nature Conservancy Preserves |
USFS Special Interest Areas USFS Research Natural Areas NPS National Recreation Areas* State Wildlife Habitat Management Areas* |
State Parks* USFS National Recreation Areas USFS National Forests* USFS National Grasslands* BLM lands DOD military lands |
Private lands Native lands State trust lands |
* Units may contain parcels coded to a numerically lower management status due to inclusion of private/state holdings
In some cases, administrative units could not be assigned to a single management status category because the unit was comprised of parcels of different ownership. For example, private
and state trust lands occur within the boundaries of national parks, recreation areas and other federal- or state-managed units. The private and state trust lands within these boundaries are not managed in the same manner as the federal or state wildlife lands and were assigned to a different management status. Administrative units frequently had to be evaluated for management status on a case-by-case basis because management objectives specific to that particular area existed. For instance, some wildlife habitat management units managed by WGFD were established to maintain forage resources for specific big game species (status 2) while others were acquired to protect natural land cover types and habitats for a variety of animal species (status 1).
In assigning management status to water features, the same management status of the surrounding land was assigned to the water. Where a water body was encompassed by lands of different management status, such as in the case of rivers and large lakes/reservoirs, the polygon representing the water was partitioned in order to match up with adjacent land polygons of corresponding management status.
4.3 Results
Public lands comprise approximately 53.3% of Wyoming with 47% under federal and 6.3% under state jurisdiction (Table 4.3). The greatest concentration of federal lands occurs in the western, and especially the northwestern, portion of the state (Map 4.1). The BLM administers the largest amount (28%) of public land in the state and, for the most part, these lands exist in a mosaic with state and private lands. Private lands, including native American lands (reservations) represent 45.9% of Wyoming's land area and the majority are located in the eastern half of the state (Map 4.1). Approximately 0.8% of Wyoming's surface is occupied by water (Table 4.3).
Table 4.3. Area (ha) and percent (%) of Wyoming's land stewardship
categories. Underlined categories represent 8 stewardship subtotals
and bolded categories represent another grouping of 4 stewardship
subtotals. The miscellaneous category includes areas such as open
water that are not under specific jurisdictions. Accuracy of these
numbers is discussed in section 4.2.1.
(table not available in html)
Less than 10% of Wyoming falls within areas designated as management status 1 and 2 (Table 4.4, Map 4.2). The majority of status 1 and 2 lands are located within the northwestern portion of the state and occur at elevations > 2250 m (7380 ft). Over 90% of all lands in Wyoming are classed as status 3 or 4 and these lands are made up of predominantly privately owned and multiple-use public lands. The area calculations in this section are reported to the nearest hectare so that they sum to the extent of the state, but it is important to note that these figures are only reliable within +/- 300 ft (91 m) (see section 4.2.1).
4.4 Accuracy Assessment
No formal accuracy assessment has been conducted of the land stewardship database. An informal verification was performed using two methods: by comparing ownership/administrative boundaries and thematic information with original sources, and by requesting informal map reviews from groups to which the map was distributed. Ownership boundaries digitized by WY-GAP were checked systematically for correct land coding by overlaying 1:100,000-scale plots of digital data with the source maps. This overlay process primarily verified thematic accuracy of the coverage, although positional errors greater than several line widths were detected and corrected. Similarly, thematic accuracy of administrative units was systematically checked by a visual comparison with source maps. In this process we did not quantify the number of corrections made nor estimate the overall thematic or positional accuracy. In the informal review process, agencies were asked to make updates and check ownership polygons for errors in exchange for receiving the data in draft form. Twenty three of the 56 1:100,000-scale quads in the state were checked by BLM personnel in this review process, and changes resulting from this review (mostly updates) were incorporated into the final version of the land stewardship map (Appendix 4.1, Appendix 4.3).
4.5 Limitations and Discussion
The land stewardship database includes publicly administrated units in the state with permanent mandates for conservation management. The difficulty in obtaining boundary and management information from private organizations precluded a comprehensive representation of conservation areas in private ownership. As a result, many private or Native American lands currently may be managed for their natural values, but because there were either no legal documents for these management objectives or the documentation was not readily available, they were not classified according to these conservation values. For instance, TNC has conservation easement agreements with private land holders which are legally documented in the land deeds. We were unable to obtain these deeds at the time of this project because they were undergoing revisions by TNC. As a result, the current database includes only three Nature Conservancy preserves for biodiversity protection. Future revisions and updates of the WY-GAP database should incorporate more information on private land management.
Despite protocols based on standard definitions (Table 4.1) and a key (Appendix 4.4) for assigning management status, unequivocal assignment of management status was not possible in all situations. For example, according to our key an administrative unit had to have a mandated management plan in operation to maintain a primarily natural state in order to be classified as management status 1 or 2. This requirement excluded large areas of lands with multiple-use management objectives, such as National Forests and BLM Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Also, portions of National Forests are designated for timber harvest while other areas are removed from extractive activities to protect natural, biological, or cultural resources. Multiple-use lands, unlike Wilderness Areas that have permanent mandates for maintaining a natural state, are subject to changing management as the forest plans evolve. Therefore, public Multiple-use lands were not classified as status 1 or 2 as defined by GAP (Edwards et al. 1994).
Protocol for assigning management status was also complicated in situations where the boundaries of administrative units encompassed lands of multiple ownership. For instance, many state wildlife areas include private, federal, and state trust land. In some cases, these lands are subject to the management objectives of the administrating agency (WGFD), while in other cases they are subject to federal mandates, or are leased lands that are subject to specific terms of the lease agreement. Units composed of these ownership mosaics could not be uniformly assigned a status category using the key. Instead each management unit had to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis so that areas of different ownership could be assigned the correct management status based on federal, state or private mandates/lease arrangements.
Staying abreast of recent land purchases, consolidations, and exchanges on a statewide level is a formidable task, and it was not the goal of this project to keep the land ownership data up-to-date. Our purpose was to produce a "snapshot" in time of the land ownership status in Wyoming as accurate as possible for that time (1994). The land ownership map should in no way be considered a legal document. Information on land ownership and administrative units are expected to be as accurate and current as the source maps from which they were digitized. There were a significant number of updates and corrections made to the source maps (Appendix 4.3), based on information provided to us from state and federal agencies, but these should not be considered to be comprehensive for the entire state. Land-ownership changes 640 acres were not included, and complicated legal descriptions could not always be accurately recorded to the 1:100,000 scale. Finally, it is important to note that ownership designations currently reflect surface features only, and do not consider mineral or water rights.
4.6 Summary and Conclusions
Public lands comprise approximately 53.3% of Wyoming and occur primarily in the northwestern portion of the state. Less than 10% of the state occurs in status 1 and 2 lands. Most of these lands occur at elevations > 2250 m. Status 3 and 4 lands consist predominately of privately owned or public multiple-use lands. Not all lands could be unequivocally classified as to protection status. Information on the intended, long-term management of private lands, in particular, was not readily available. The land ownership map should in no way be interpreted as a legal document since changes in ownership of source maps used to develop this database have occurred.