ID-GAP Abstracts

The Misconceptions of Conservation Terminology.

Svancara,L.K., G.M. Wilson, and R.G. Wright

Conservation, preservation, protection. What do our audiences hear? Is it what we really intend? Most biologists would agree that the definition of “conservation” can take many forms but, in general, implies something about the planned management and preservation of a natural resource. In reality, the term has developed as many different meanings as there are groups who are concerned about the land and land practices. Ranging from “the preservation and protection of land” to “the wise-use of land and its resources”, these definitions create confusion that can hamper efforts to maintain biodiversity if not addressed. At a recent workshop, federal and state agencies, private industry, environmental groups, and local citizens came together to discuss “conservation” in Latah County. Workshop participants quickly learned of the need to clearly define many terms that are common knowledge within their own disciplines.

Presentation given at the Idaho Chapter of The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Idaho Falls, ID, 2002.

Creating a Conservation Plan: an Example of County-level Strategy

Svancara, L.K. G.M. Minshall, R.G Wright, R.J.F. Abbitt

At the 2000 National GAP meeting in San Antonio, TX, there was much discussion about the usefulness of GAP data outside original statewide analyses. To demonstrate the value of GAP data and methodology in local conservation planning, we developed a county-level conservation plan for Latah County, Idaho. Located in the southern portion of Idaho’s panhandle, the majority of Latah County is encompassed by the Palouse bioregion, a landscape once dominated by the Palouse Prairie but, in the past century, has been transformed into a wheat and legume agriculture complex. In recent years the Latah County government and Palouse Land Trust (PLT) have become increasingly interested in taking steps to conserve open space and natural landscapes within the county. Working on behalf of the PLT, we developed a system of criteria for identifying conservation opportunity areas on lands considered most at-risk of development. In addition to applying GAP data, we have incorporated fine-scale spatial information on wetlands and riparian areas, plant and wildlife richness, sensitive species locations, soil characteristics, and the aesthetical value of local landowners. We feel the methods used for this northern Idaho county can easily be replicated elsewhere and provide local land trusts and county governments with the tools necessary to identify and prioritize key areas for conservation.

Presentation given at the National Gap Analysis Meeting, Duluth, MN, 2001

Identifying Gaps in the Conservation of Idaho's Vertebrates

Svancara, L.K., J.W. Karl, N.M. Wright, J.M. Scott

As a first step in conservation site selection, we used wildlife habitat relationship (WHR) models developed by the Idaho Gap Analysis Project to identify areas of species richness complimentary to current reserves in Idaho. We determined the protection status of vertebrates known to breed in Idaho and assessed the accuracy of the WHR models created. Primarily concerned with the conservation of native under-represented and ranked species, we only included those species with <10% of their modeled habitat currently in protection status 1 and 2 lands in the reserve identification process. Anthropogenic and introduced species were excluded from analyses. Conservation opportunity areas were evaluated based upon size of area encompassed, richness of species, current land ownership, and possible threats to habitat in that county. Our results accomplish the first step in the reserve identification, selection, and design process and provide state and federal agencies as well as county planning departments and land trust organizations with a land conservation prioritization.

Presentation given at the National Gap Analysis Meeting, San Antonio, TX, 2000

A Comparison of 1st and 2nd Generation GAPs.

J.W. Karl, L.K. Svancara, J.M. Scott

In 1991, the first Gap analysis project (GAP) was carried out in Idaho. Since GAP was a prototype project at the time, results were published extensively in peer-reviewed publications, but a final report for Idaho was never completed. Advances in remote sensing and modeling technology have allowed much higher resolution in mapping and led to a second generation GAP for Idaho. Our objective was to determine the management status of Idaho’s land cover types and compare these results to those of the original Idaho GAP (reported by S.L. Caicco, J.M. Scott, B. Butterfield, and B. Csuti, 1995, Conservation Biology 9:498-511). The Landscape Dynamics Lab compiled the Idaho Land Cover Classification from Redmond et al.'s (University of Montana, 1997) Current Vegetation Map of Northern Idaho and Western Montana and Homer's (Utah State University, 1998) Idaho/Western Wyoming Landcover Classification. These sources were crosswalked and merged to produce a unified land cover map for Idaho. This coverage is stored as an ARC/INFO grid with a 0.09ha (30m) cell size and a 2ha minimum mapping unit. Thus, the new Idaho GAP land cover map is much more detailed than that of Caicco et al. (1995). In addition, the new land cover classification captures many smaller land cover patches (such as shrub-steppe inholdings within agricultural matrix), and results in a shift in the proportions of major land cover classes in the state. We also updated the 1991 Land Stewardship coverage with information provided by Idaho Conservation Data Center for Status 1 and 2 lands, and by contacting land management agencies for other ownership boundaries. These updates added almost 90 new protected areas ranging from 100-1000 acres and another 10 between 1000 and 10,000 acres. Despite the changes in the land cover and stewardship coverages, the cover type protection results were very similar.

Presentation given at the National Gap Analysis Meeting, 2000, and the Idaho Chapter of the Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Boise, ID, 1999.