SWReGAP Habitat Modeling

1
The Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
2
Southwest Regional GAP
Regional Julie Prior-Magee Arizona Kathryn Thomas Colorado Don Schrupp Lee OBrien Diane Osborne Nevada Bill Kepner Dave Bradford New Mexico Ken Boykin Bruce Thompson Gary Roemer Utah John Lowry Doug Ramsey Colin Homer NatureServe Keith Schulz
Center for Applied Spatial Ecology (CASE) New
Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
3
What Is GAP?

• A gap is the lack of representation or
  under-representation of an element of
  biodiversity (plant community or animal species)
  in an area intended for its long term
  maintenance.
• Keep Common Species Common

4
Mission Statement
To promote conservation of biodiversity through
information... by providing conservation
assessments of natural communities and native
species, and to facilitate the application of
this information to land management.
5
Regional Partnerships
USU Logan

• Biogeographic zones
• Regional seamless biotic data set
• Regional Labs
• Land Cover USU
• Habitat Modeling NMSU
• Stewardship NMSU
• Analysis - NMSU
• USGS
• NatureServe
• BLM

CDOW BLM NARSC Denver
EPA Las Vegas
CPFS Flagstaff
NMCFWRU Las Cruces
6
SWReGAP Statistics

• Project area 530,415 sq mi (339,465,600 acres)
• 93 of the size of Alaska
• BLM lands 31 of area
• USFS lands 14 of area
• State lands 7 of area
• Tribal lands 9 of area

7
Gap Objectives

• Map the distributions of natural communities.
• Map predicted habitat of native animal species.
• Map the degree of management for biodiversity
  maintenance of land tracts and water bodies
  focusing on intent.
• Analyze the representation of biotic elements in
  the conservation network to identify gaps in
  long-term security.
• Provide this information to the public and those
  entities charged with land use research, policy,
  planning, and management.

8
Predictor Data Sets Landsat ETM Imagery (MRLC
data set)

• 85 ETM scenes for three seasons Spring, Summer
  and Fall (1999-2001)
• Web-based tool for image standardization
• Mapping zone mosaics

9
Training Data Collection

• Region totals
• 46,000 ground based ocular surveys
• 30,000 existing databases
• 17,000 remote sources interpretation
• Ground-based
• Opportunistic sampling
• Sufficient data to assign NVC Alliance or
  Ecological System
• Other sources
• Ecological System label only

10
Mapping Method Decision Tree Classifier
(See5-Imagine)
See5-Imagine Integration with EROS NLCD Mapping
Tool
11
NatureServe Ecological Systems
Groups of plant communities and sparsely
vegetated habitats unified by similar ecological
processes, substrates, and/or environmental
gradients
Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine
Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland
Dominant Specie(s)
Lifeform
Region
Environmental Setting
12
125 Land cover classes 109 Ecological
Systems 1-acre min. mapping unit
13
Land Cover Descriptions
14
Overall Validation (sum of the matrices)

• Combined error matrices for all mapping zones
• Ignored classes with lt 20 validation samples or
  unevenly validated in the region
• Total samples 17,030
• Overall agreement 61
• Kappa statistic 0.60
• Representing
• 85 of 125 classes
• 91 of land area

15
Vertebrate Habitat Modeling and Mapping

• Modeling habitat of vertebrate species that
  reside, breed, or use habitat in the five-state
  region for a substantial portion of their life
  history.
• Not modeling habitat quality or species abundance

16
Number of Species Modeled
Project No. Species
Amphibians 37
Birds 437
Mammals 215
Reptiles 130

Total 819
17
Hydrologic Unit for Range Limiting Maps
Historical/ Recent Distribution Historical/ Recent Distribution
Known/Probable Potential Extirpated
Reproductive Use Reproductive Use
Breeding Non-Breeding Both
Seasonal Use Seasonal Use
Migratory Wintering Summering Winter and Summer
18
Habitat Associations for each species

• Range Delineation
• Mountain Range
• Habitat Variables
• Land Cover
• Elevation (min/max)
• Slope/Aspect
• Hydrology (Proximity)
• Streams, lakes, springs
• Soil
• Patch Size

19
Database
20
Model Review

• 80 Experts
• Workshops and individual reviews
• 1000 reviews
• Visual Sensitivity Analysis (VSA)
• All Models remain the responsibility of SWReGAP

21
Run final habitat models
22
(No Transcript)
23
New Regionally Consistent Map
24
Mammals
Aberts squirrel (Sciurus aberti)
25
Birdsnorthern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis)
26
Arizona Myotis (Myotis occultus) Not previously
modeled
27
Products

• Digital dataset
• 30 m models
• 240 m models
• GMD File
• Range
• Report
• Model
• Databases

28
Species Richness
29
Richness
30
(No Transcript)
31
Stewardship

• Categorizes lands
• Public land ownership and voluntarily provided
  private conservation lands.
• According to four levels of commitment to
  biodiversity maintenance.
• Based on expressed long-term intent.

32
Stewardship

• GAP Management Categories
• Status 1 Highest level of management intent for
  biodiversity, e.g., Research Natural Areas.
• Status 2 High level of intent but allows some
  use, e.g., Wilderness Areas that allow grazing.
• Status 3 Intent to conserve special features or
  endangered species in context of human use, i.e.,
  public multiple use lands.
• Status 4 No known intent to maintain
  biodiversity.

33
2 Main Products

• SWReGAP Stewardship Data Layer
• Develop a digital map depicting land ownership
  boundaries internal management areas combined
  with attributes of entities responsible for
  management
• SWReGAP Conservation Status Data Layer
• Attribute individual land units with GAP
  management status categories for purpose of
  describing biodiversity conservation and
  identification of potential gaps

Zion National Park
34
Management Plans

• Collected over 300 plans for the entire region
• USFS Forest Plans and Amendments
• BLM Resource Management Plans, Record of
  Decision
• DoD Integrated Natural Resource Management
  Plans
• NPS General Management
• Plans/Statement of Management
• If No Plan is Available, Conducted Interviews
  with Knowledgeable Personnel

35
Stewardship from Land Ownership
36
Management Status
37
Level of Detail in SWReGAP
Rio Grande National Forest Weminuche
Wilderness Pristine GAP Status 1 Primitive
GAP Status 2
38
Stewardship Statistics
Code Owner KM2
1100 BLM 423,008.78 30.52
1200 BOR 1,767.06 0.13
1300 FWS 18,363.31 1.32
1400 USFS 197,518.57 14.25
1500 DOD/DOE 44,413.33 3.20
1600 NPS 24,181.11 1.74
1750 ARS 951.93 0.07
1950 DOC 6.80 0.00
2200 Tribal 131,046.66 9.45
3100 State Parks Rec 2,223.41 0.16
3200 State Land Board 98,045.02 7.07
3300 State Wildlife Reserves 5,215.95 0.38
3400 Other State Land 529.06 0.04
4100 Regional Gover. Land 533.73 0.04
5100 City Land 508.74 0.04
5200 County Land 655.38 0.05
6100 Audubon 4.91 0.00
6200 Local Land Trust 1,267.58 0.09
6300 TNC 2,305.85 0.17
7200 Private/Biodiversity 4,604.43 0.33
7300 Private/Unrestricted 418,213.49 30.17
8100 Water 10,706.81 0.77
  TOTAL 1,386,071.93 100.00
Status KM2
Water 10,706.81 0.77
1 36,689.99 2.65
2 123,493.00 8.91
3 688,816.41 49.70
4 526,365.73 37.98
Total 1,386,071.93 100.00
39
Analyses

• Intersect habitat and land cover distributions
  with stewardship
• Create tables of representation for each element.
• Compare ownership/managing entities to
  biodiversity management status
• Compare Land Cover types and habitat to
  Stewardship

40
Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland
Land Cover Status Assessment
Status 1 Status 1 Status 2 Status 2 Status 3 Status 3 Status 4 Status 4 Status 1 2 Status 1 2
STATE Total Area Area Area Area Area Area
AZ 442.0 21 4.8 72 16.3 345 78.1 4 0.8 93 21.1
CO 11432.5 258 2.3 1079 9.4 7003 61.3 3092 27.0 1337 11.7
NM 1482.6 99 6.7 422 28.5 618 41.7 343 23.1 522 35.2
NV 1288.7 38 3.0 326 25.3 764 59.3 161 12.5 364 28.3
UT 6334.2 38 0.6 320 5.1 3665 57.9 2310 36.5 359 5.7
Region 21050 456 2.2 2219 10.5 12395 58.9 5909 28.1 2675 12.7
Area (Square Kilometers) and percent distribution
of sample land cover classes for SWReGAP area
relative to four management status categories
41
Land Cover Steward Assessment
Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland
STATE Total Area BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DOE
AZ 443 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 248 56.0 0 0.0
CO 11436 677 5.9 0 0.0 1 0.0 7335 64.1 0 0.0
NM 1483 2 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1020 68.8 0 0.0
NV 1289 251 19.4 0 0.0 26 2.1 803 62.3 0 0.0
UT 6334 124 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3644 57.5 5 0.1
Region 20985 1054 5.0 0 0.0 28 0.1 13050 62.2 5 0.0
42
BLUE GROUSE (Dendragapus obscurus)
Animal Habitat Status Assessment
Status 1 Status 1 Status 2 Status 2 Status 3 Status 3 Status 4 Status 4 Status 1 2 Status 1 2
State Code Total Area Area Area Area Area Area
AZ 29 9650 329 3.4 572 5.9 8453 87.6 295 3.1 901 9.3
AZ Total 9650 329 3.4 572 5.9 8453 87.6 295 3.1 901 9.3
CO 29 92053 4244 4.6 11089 12.0 47714 51.8 29006 31.5 15333 16.7
CO Total 92053 4244 4.6 11089 12.0 47714 51.8 29006 31.5 15333 16.7
NM 29 27350 1098 4.0 4966 18.2 14801 54.1 6484 23.7 6065 22.2
NM Total 27350 1098 4.0 4966 18.2 14801 54.1 6484 23.7 6065 22.2
NV 29 11892 255 2.2 2095 17.6 8347 70.2 1194 10.0 2351 19.8
NV Total 11892 255 2.2 2095 17.6 8347 70.2 1194 10.0 2351 19.8
UT 29 35291 558 1.6 2810. 8.0 21306 60.4 10617 30.1 3368 9.5
UT Total 35291 558 1.6 2810 8.0 21306 60.4 10617 30.1 3368 9.5
Region 29 176238 6486 3.7 21532 12.2 100622 57.1 47597 27.0 28019 15.9
Region total 176238 6486 3.7 21532 12.2 100622 57.1 47597 27.0 28019 15.9
43
Animal Habitat Stewardship Assessment
BLUE GROUSE (Dendragapus obscurus)
State VALUE Total Area BLM BOR FWS USFS DoD/DOE NPS
AZ Total 9680.5 68.2 0.0 0.0 5405.4 0.0 253.6
CO Total 91987.5 9437.7 0.1 70.0 48847.0 73.1 1166.1
NM Total 25925.2 565.2 0.1 13.8 18317.0 58.2 55.9
NV Total 11894.8 5736.4 0.0 7.9 4697.3 6.5 216.9
UT Total 35316.6 3419.4 0.0 0.1 19094.0 5.2 239.6
Region Total 174804.7 19226.9 0.2 91.8 96360.7 143.0 1932.1
44
Graphical Analysis
45
    Region Region Region Region Region
State   1 2 3 4 5
AZ 1 6 9 8 2  
AZ 2 1 125 36 5  
AZ 3   53 255 14  
AZ 4   6 52 67  
AZ 5   3 1 1 5
CO 1 12 30 3   1
CO 2 6 164 89 3  
CO 3   9 162 13  
CO 4   5 27 20  
CO 5       2 3
NM 1 17 18 4 2 1
NM 2 4 201 179 17  
NM 3   17 127 19 1
NM 4   1 24 31  
NM 5   1     2
NV 1 2 9 2    
NV 2 1 53 13 3  
NV 3   51 164 8  
NV 4   12 104 44 2
NV 5   5 25 19 3
UT 1 2 5 5 1  
UT 2 2 89 21 1  
UT 3   36 186 15  
UT 4 2 16 88 47  
UT 5   1 2 4 3
Thresholds on Status 1 and Status 2 Lands
1 lt1
2 1-lt10
3 10-lt20
4 20-50
5 gt50
More conserved in Region than State
Equally conserved
More conserved within state than region
46

• Future use of Data
• long-term decision making
• Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies
• Conservation Opportunities
• USFWS Conservation Goals Project

47
Benefits of SWReGAP

• Consistent Data
• Ecological Context
• Landscape Scale Assessments
• Sampling frame for finer-scale study Coarse
  Filter

48
Web Sites
SWReGAP fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap National
GAP http//www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap Search gap
analysis