Management Implications and Current Directions
Planning without action is futile. Action without planning
is fatal.
- K. Hamilton and E. Bergersen
6.1 Management Implications of Gap Analysis
The purpose of gap analysis is to identify two elements of biodiversity - land cover types and vertebrate species - in need of protection before they become critically rare. The gap analysis approach uses management objectives associated with land area as an indication of the kinds of activities that can occur on an area, and hence the potential impact on the land's biological diversity. As a result, it is only a preliminary indication to the long-term maintenance of these elements of biological diversity. An evaluation of other factors, such area requirements, isolation, or disturbance regimes necessary for maintaining populations, are not considered in gap analysis. For example, some of the status 1 and 2 lands in Wyoming designated as "protected" may be too small in area to actually provide protection for species with large area requirements. Furthermore, species have different responses to the same management practices. Therefore, assigning a single protection code to an area to indicate its suitability for maintaining biodiversity is a simplification. Nevertheless, it provides a first assessment of the protection of the land base or potential habitat for these elements.
In Wyoming, less than 10% the land base has been identified as providing protection for biodiversity and most of this (90%) occurs in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. These lands were not originally established to protect biodiversity, rather the areas were established for their scenic and geologic values. Since that time, the concept of the GYE has advanced through concerns over individual species rather than broader ecological principles (Schullery 1995). As a result, the GYE affords protection to some wide ranging species, like the grizzly bear and wolf, that is not possible in most other areas of the country. Nonetheless, from a state-wide perspective, the majority of protected lands in Wyoming are biased toward high elevation, mountainous areas that protect a relatively narrow set of land cover types and vertebrate species that exist in Wyoming.
We have identified three groups of land cover types in Wyoming that require management priority in the state. The highest priority should be given to protecting vegetated dunes, active sand dunes, forest-dominated riparian, shrub-dominated riparian and grass-dominated wetlands and riparian areas because their current protection is minimal and because they are potentially the most vulnerable to ongoing land management practices. These types are not satisfactorily mapped at our current MMU. Before decisions on their future management are made, further efforts will be needed to provide an adequate spatial analysis of their location as well to conduct an assessment of their condition.
Second priority are xeric upland shrub, limber pine woodland, saltbush fans and flats, desert shrub, greasewood fans and flats, and unvegetated playas. While in some cases these types comprise extensive areas, they presently have little to no area in status 1 and 2 lands, and they are vulnerable to development, especially from oil and gas extraction activities. The latter four types could easily be accommodated in conjunction to one another along topographic gradients. These types largely occur on land under the jurisdiction of BLM. Currently proposed BLM wilderness areas, which were not included in status 1 and 2 land in our analysis, will only marginally increase the protection of these types. In addition to the above types, bur oak woodland and Great Basin foothills grassland are also second priority for further protection. These types are restricted in distribution and patchy in nature, and as a result opportunities for their conservation are more limited. The opportunity for long-term conservation of these types resides primarily with the U.S. Forest Service.
Shortgrass prairie, mesic shrubland and ponderosa pine are considered land cover third priority because they have small percent of their area in status 1 and 2 lands, and because ponderosa pine is vulnerable to disease and repressed fire regimes associated with current management practices. The conservation of these types may require working cooperatively with private land owners.
Habitats of 6 (50 %) amphibians, 8 (31%) reptiles, 25 (22 %) mammals, and 41 (14%) birds that are not peripheral in Wyoming merit further consideration for protection. The habitats of most of these species are unprotected because they occur at low elevations in the eastern portion of the state or in the Green River area where status 1 and 2 lands are rare. Management on multiple-use lands under the stewardship of the U. S. Forest Service in the Black Hills, the BLM in the Green River area, and cooperative efforts with private land owners in both the eastern portion of the state and in the Green River area will be important to the long-term conservation of a large number of vertebrate gap species in Wyoming. Wyoming state trust and Native American lands may also play an important role for species such as the olive-backed pocket mouse (Perognathus fasciatus), prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster), and sage grouse, although more detailed field studies will be required to verify the extent of their distribution on these lands.
Official designation of BLM's proposed wilderness areas will only marginally increase protection of those species occurring on BLM land. Only 11 species (one amphibian, two mammals and eight birds) would be removed from Wyoming's terrestrial vertebrate gap list by the inclusion of the BLM wilderness areas in status 1 lands in Wyoming. BLM's proposed wilderness areas are designated primarily on the basis of their natural or esthetic appearance and potential for wilderness-dependent opportunities and experiences, and only secondarily for their potential to conserve cover-types and critical habitat types (Bureau of Land Management 1991).
We emphasize that our current database is inadequate to reliably map a large number of vertebrate species in Wyoming. In compiling and reviewing the species distribution maps, we have identified species for which information is incomplete and documented mapping problems that we have recognized (Merrill et al. 1996b, see also Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 1996). Because of the uncertainty in the maps of many vertebrate species, we stress the need for further data collection and mapping efforts. In particular, refining the database so that the distribution of breeding birds may be identified separately from their overall distribution may be valuable for conservation purposes. We promote the use of the WY-GAP database structure as a useful framework for designing surveys and updating our current information. Further, a wider array of biotic resources than WY-GAP has addressed need to be incorporated into biodiversity planning in Wyoming. It is clear from the patterns of vertebrate distributions that species richness among vertebrate taxa in Wyoming do not coincide (Chapter 3) and we suspect that similar incongruities exist with other taxa.
Because gap analysis takes a coarse filter approach to habitat protection, it did not identify a number of vertebrates species which already have been recognized as needing special management by public agencies or TNC (Appendix 5.3). Most of these species, such as the grizzly bear, wolverine, Caspian tern, Forster's tern, trumpeter swan, and Harlequin duck, were not identified because they occur in the GYE and their habitat already has a high level of protection even though their populations are rare or vulnerable. Bats were a second group of species not identified on the gap list, yet they are frequently listed as species of management concern (Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 1996). Most of the bats have microhabitat roosting requirements and were inadequately assessed in our analysis because their ranges were overestimated, therefore overestimating the amount of their habitat in status 1 and 2 lands. Additional efforts to survey and map these species will be necessary to reliably evaluate their management status. We also found that using the proportion of the land base or habitat in status 1 and 2 lands as a criterion to evaluate species protection may have over-emphasized the need for protection of some common or wide-spread land cover types (e.g., Wyoming big sagebrush) or vertebrate species (e.g. thirteen-lined ground squirrel), and under-represented some species that had a restricted distribution and only a small amount (but large proportion) that was protected. For this reason, we included in our list of "gaps" species that have < 50,000 ha of their total predicted habitat in status 1 and 2 lands, even though this was an arbitrary threshold.
Current status 1 and 2 lands in Wyoming may not be sufficient to sustain species and ecosystems in them in the long-term. The lesson from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is clear - it is one of the largest, nearly intact ecosystems in the northern temperate zone (Schullery 1995), yet management for ecological processes and vertebrate species has remained controversial and politicized (Keiter and Boyce 1991, Knight 1994). Outside the GYE, most status 1 and 2 lands in Wyoming are relatively small, isolated tracts that are subject to outside influences. In themselves, these areas probably will not be sufficient for maintaining biodiversity in the long-term, but they will need to become part of a state-wide network of management areas. Establishing such a network will require a cooperative effort among state, federal and private entities in Wyoming. Prototypes for biodiversity consortia currently exist in other states (Vickerman and Smith 1995) and their development was associated with gap analyses or in tandem with gap analyses in their respective states. While we recognize that a network of management areas may play a vital role in biodiversity conservation, it is but one element in an approach for planning for biodiversity (McNeeley 1994). Management outside these areas, endangered species programs, and control of exotics are among other actions necessary for conserving biodiversity.
6.2. Gap Analysis and State-wide Biodiversity Planning
Gap analysis serves as a preliminary step in directing further, more detailed studies and planning efforts needed to select and design areas for potential biodiversity management (Scott et al. 1993). Vickerman and Smith (1995) have suggested there are three basic approaches to implementing gap analysis, each aimed at making more informed and better land management decisions. First, the gap databases may be used in situation-specific decision making. This involves the use of the gap databases to address project-level questions such as determining the amount of overlap in the predicted distribution of the pygmy rabbit and proposed mine leases in Carbon county, or determining correspondence of bird diversity on an National Forest to recreational areas for bird viewing. To date, most of the applications of the gap databases have been at this level. The second approach involves integrating new information with a landscape perspective to existing land conservation planning. For example, a federal agency could utilize the gap databases in developing a more comprehensive, biological resource management plan for a district. These uses of the gap databases do not necessarily involve multiple jurisdictions. The third approach uses gap information to its greatest potential for a state-wide planning effort for biological conservation. An organized, comprehensive planning effort brings together multiple state and federal agencies and interest groups in a cross-jurisdictional effort aimed at managing species habitats and ecosystems at the landscape scale for long-term maintenance of biological diversity.
The objective of a comprehensive state planning effort is to identify a set of landscapes with the highest potential for efficient, overall management of biological resources. The initial focus of the Gap Analysis Program was identifying "hot spots" of species richness as an efficient means to conserve biodiversity. In the past decade, conservation planners have adopted approaches to selecting management areas by identifying efficient combinations of sites capable of representing a group of species in a region. Methods used to prioritize management areas have proceeded from simple scoring, where sites are ranked, to iterative heuristic methods (Bolton and Specht 1983, Kirkpatrick 1983, Margules et al. 1988, Nicholls and Margules 1993, Church et al. 1996, Csuti et al. in press). Efficiency is achieved using the principle of complementarity, where sites are selected that complement one another in terms of species composition, avoiding unnecessary duplication. The result is a minimum set of areas that represents all species in a small area. For example, the "greedy" algorithm approach selects the site containing the most species and sequentially includes sites that add the most additional species (Pressy et al. 1993). Other approaches emphasize characteristics of species, such as rarity, endemism, taxonomic richness, or vulnerability, and choose sites in order of the characteristics of species they contain or weighted heavily for the characteristic of interest.
Current approaches focus on minimum set solutions and do not address issues of size, shape, or quality of the sites selection (Csuti et al. in press), but they can be modified to consider spatial relationships (Nicholls and Margules 1993). However, our limited understanding of the spatial requirements of most populations currently hinders our efforts to incorporate these factors into biodiversity planning. Additional data layers can also be used for a more holistic conservation evaluation. Biological indicators of stress or risk (e.g., human population growth, road density, rate of habitat fragmentation, distribution of pollutants) and socio-economic indicators (e.g. natural resource production activities such as mining, forestry, hunting, and agriculture) can be incorporated into planning to evaluate options among solutions (Machlis et al. 1994). These more detailed analyses were not part of the initial state gap analyses, but are areas of research that National GAP is pursuing and are vital to the long-term success of biodiversity conservation.
6.3 Current Directions For Gap Analysis in Wyoming
With the completion of the Wyoming Gap Analysis Project, two initiatives have been established to promote the long-term maintenance and application of the WY-GAP databases. First, the Spatial Data and Visualization Cluster (SDVC) is a project funded by the National Science Foundation's Experimental Program for the Stimulation of Competitive Research (EPSCoR) and the Wyoming Science Technology and Energy Authority (STEA) for the purpose of developing spatial geologic and natural resource databases (Gloss et al. 1996). Second, a partnership with Biological Resources Division of the USGS has been established to develop a Wyoming Bioinformation Node (WBN) (Kohley et al. 1996) as part of the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII). The establishment of a WBN will help facilitate the dissemination and use of the WY-GAP databases by developing a coordinated approach to provide increased access to the WY-GAP and other natural resource databases.
Both the SDVC and the WBN will combine resources under the direction of the Wyoming Water Resources Center (WWRC) to accomplish four objectives. First, they will supplement WY-GAP data with other existing natural resource databases, including big game seasonal range maps, selected TNC heritage program data, watershed boundaries, ecoregional land-type delineations, National Wetlands Inventory, known mineral deposit areas, and U.S. Census Bureau demographic data to allow for further analyses based on a wider array of biotic and socio-economic factors.
Second, an Internet-based World Wide Web (WWW) homepage for Wyoming will be established to facilitate the dissemination of digital biological and related information, though sensitive biological information compiled by WY-GAP or the WBN (e.g. roost locations of verteberate species of concern, or locations of rare/endangered plant species) will be restricted. The WWW webpage will be developed by the SDVC and linked to the National Gap Analysis webpage, and will conform to the standards developed under the NBII. Subtasks to be completed in the development of the WBN-WWW homepage include: (a) metadata documentation of WY-GAP and non-WY-GAP data layers in accordance with the FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata or NBII metadata standards, including development of corresponding GEO attribute sets for implementation under the Z39.50 service protocol; (b) establishment of a server supporting the Z39.50 protocol v.2/3, utilizing I-Site and I-Search "browse and search" software; (c) integration with the existing SDVC WWW server; (d) development of webpage forms for client site access for compatibility with any forms capable web browser; and (e) a browser test of database functionality and usability.
Establishment of a "bioinformation extension program" will promote the use and integration of the WBN databases into natural resource planning, management, and education programs. Specific objectives include: (1) showcase the utility of the WY-GAP databases and demonstrate how they can be integrated with other natural resource databases for planning, management, and education purposes, and (2) demonstrate the value of adopting the standards developed by the NBII for data collection, classification, and documentation to ensure compatibility with the WBN. A portable Arcview demonstration of the WBN databases will provide on-site conceptual demonstrations and technical training in the use the WBN databases. Essential to the demonstration of the WBN databases will be the development of specialized interface tools which facilitate the query and retrieval of biological information. These interface tools will be developed using Arcview Avenue scripts to provide "push-button" functionality to common spatial queries.
Finally, the WBN databases will be applied towards county land-use planning by developing a pilot project at the county level in which the WBN databases are used to assist county planners in developing a cooperative biological data support system. The support system will be used to assess the county's current subdivision regulations and planning documents in terms of managing local biological resources. The WBN databases will also identify elements and areas of biological significance to be considered in future planning efforts, and establish and maintain a permanent, dynamic system for routine use in planning and land-use evaluations. The overall goal of this initiative is to promote the integration of biodiversity considerations into ongoing and proposed land management activities in the hope that they lay the foundation for comprehensive conservation planning at all levels of government.