Home


Protection Status of Vegetation Cover Types in Utah


by
Thomas C. Edwards, Jr.
National Biological Service
Maintaining biological diversity must be done at all levels of an ecosystem, not just for endangered species (Noss 1991; Scott et al. 1991). The Gap Analysis Program is one proactive approach for assessing the current status of biodiversity at all levels. By using computerized mapping techniques called geographic information systems (GIS) to identify "gaps" in biodiversity protection, gap analysis provides a systematic approach for evaluating how biological diversity can be protected in given areas. If problems are identified through gap analysis, appropriate management action can be taken, including establishing new preserves or changing land-use practices (Edwards et al. 1993; Scott et. al 1993; Edwards and Scott 1994).
Our gap analysis includes three primary GIS layers: distribution of actual vegetation cover types; land ownership; and distributions of terrestrial vertebrates as predicted from the distribution of vegetation and from observations. By using the GIS, map overlays of animal distribution and land ownership are compared to estimate the relative extent of protection afforded each vertebrate species. Gap analysis functions organize biological information by using the data base to provide the context for other, more detailed studies.
In this article, we apply gap analysis to assess the protection status of mapped vegetation cover types in Utah. We briefly describe the process used to model and map vegetation cover types and how this process was linked with land ownership to provide an estimate of the level of protection afforded each vegetation cover type in Utah. A central tenet of gap analysis is that the degree of conservation protection afforded a given area can be determined by ownership and management. To assess protection, we used land ownership maps; each ownership was assigned one of four management status codes (Table 1). For Utah, 38 vegetation cover types and land-cover classes were modeled by using Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite data (Table 2). How much land is necessary to protect biodiversity or certain species is problematic. We arbitrarily define adequate protection as requiring at least 10% of a vegetation cover type in status category 1 or 2. Table 1. Management status codes applied to Utah land ownership (Scott et al. 1993).

Code Description
1 An area having an active management plan in operation to maintain a natural state and within which natural disturbances (e.g., fire, floods) are allowed to proceed without interference or are mimicked through management.
2 An area generally managed for natural values, but which may receive use that degrades the quality of existing natural communities.
3 Most nondesignated public lands. Legal mandates prevent the permanent conversion of natural habitat types to anthropogenic habitat types and confer protection to federally listed endangered and threatened species.
4 Private or public lands without an existing easement or irrevocable management agreement to maintain native species and natural communities and which are managed for intensive human use.

Status of Lands
State and federal public lands make up roughly 71% of the 21,979,000 ha (54,288,130 acres) of Utah (Table 3). Land protection status reflects this public control over lands (Table 3). Only 1,554 ha (3,833 acres) of the state's land are considered status 1 lands; these are owned exclusively by The Nature Conservancy. The area in status code 2 is 874,736 ha (3.98%; 2,160,605 acres); the area considered status code 3 is 15,464,474 ha (70.36%; 38,197,251 acres). The remaining 5,638,229 ha (25.65%; 13,926,440 acres) are status 4 lands. By far, most lands in Utah are nondesignated public lands subject to multiple-use guidelines (i.e., status 3). Based on the 10% rule, only 6 of the 37 mapped vegetation cover types are protected as status 1 or status 2 lands (Table 1). Four of these six cover types are timber or other high-elevation cover types. The remaining two cover types are wetlands and barrens areas with less than 5% vegetation. Table 2. Protection status of mapped vegetation cover types in Utah.
  Status code
Cover type Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4 Total
  ha (%) ha (%) ha (%) ha (%) ha
Open water 61 (<0.1) 23,447 (2.7) 737,835 (86.3) 93,652 (11.0) 854,995
Spruce-fir 0 (0) 95,733 (19.3) 374,611 (75.4) 26,738 (5.4) 497,082
Ponderosa pine 0 (0) 2,281 (4.8) 39,677 (83.5) 5,577 (11.7) 47,535
Lodgepole pine 0 (0) 28,901 (12.6) 191,103 (83.3) 9,330 (4.1) 229,334
Mountain fir 0 (0) 17,376 (6.7) 198,893 (76.2) 44,862 (17.2) 261,131
Juniper 11 (<0.1) 83,467 (5.3) 1,248,615 (79.1) 246,778 (15.6) 1,578,871
Pinyon pine 66 (<0.1) 22,320 (3.4) 528,572 (81.4) 97,996 (15.1) 648,954
Pinyon-juniper 641 (<0.1) 78,067 (3.9) 1,619,168 (80.4) 316,571 (15.7) 2,014,447
Mountain mahogany 0 (0) 0 (0) 167 (62.1) 102 (37.9) 269
Aspen 0 (0) 20,660 (2.8) 475,551 (64.7) 238,769 (32.5) 734,980
Oak 88 (<0.1) 43,158 (5.4) 460,617 (58.1) 289,542 (36.5) 793,405
Maple 0 (0) 8,588 (11.4) 30,155 (40.1) 36,488 (48.5) 75,231
Mountain shrub 0 (0) 17,812 (8.6) 139,128 (67.3) 49,786 (24.1) 206,726
Sagebrush 43 (<0.1) 32,334 (1.5) 1 ,579,658 (73.5) 536,498 (25.0) 2,148,533
Sagebrush/perennial grass 0 (0) 50,818 (3.0) 863,295 (50.9) 781,212 (46.1) 1,695,325
Grassland 0 (0) 20,580 (2.4) 539,027 (62.8) 298,461 (34.8) 858,068
Alpine 0 (0) 33,542 (41.4) 46,270 (57.2) 1,123 (1.4) 80,935
Dry meadow 0 (0) 3,019 (1.4) 122,521 (56.6) 91,118 (42.1) 216,658
Wet meadow 0 (0) 40 (0.7) 3,956 (68.3) 1,793 (31.0) 5,789
Barren 0 (0) 67,922 (11.8) 451,191 (78.4) 56,378 (9.8) 575,491
Lodgepole pine/aspen 0 (0) 24 (0.4) 5,408 (92.2) 435 (7.4) 5,867
Ponderosa pine/mountain shrub 0 (0) 7,694 (3.4) 196,052 (86.0) 24,145 (10.6) 227,891
Spruce-fir/mountain shrub 0 (0) 104 (2.5) 3,320 (79.4) 756 (18.1) 4,180
Mountain fir/mountain shrub 0 (0) 117 (1.3) 6,271 (67.2) 2,943 (31.5) 9,331
Aspen/conifer 0 (0) 57 (0.4) 9,766 (71.9) 3,767 (27.7) 13,590
Mountain riparian 0 (0) 1,612 (4.2) 17,895 (46.2) 19,205 (49.6) 38,712
Lowland riparian 149 (0.3) 908 (1.8) 12,605 (24.7) 37,445 (73.3) 51,107
Lava 0 (0) 0 (0) 259 (100) 0 (0) 259
Agriculture 494 (0.1) 6,208 (0.7) 19,647 (2.1) 908,905 (97.2) 935,254
Urban 0 (0) 88 (0.1) 5,233 (3.6) 139,338 (96.3) 144,659
Salt desert scrub 0 (0) 98,802 (2.2) 3,660,972 (80.6) 779,929 (17.2) 4,539,703
Desert grassland 0 (0) 9,307 (1.0) 662,639 (73.8) 225,936 (25.2) 897,882
Blackbrush 2 (<0.1) 84,091 (8.8) 708,021 (74.1) 162,854 (17.1) 954,968
Creosote-bursage 0 (0) 308 (0.8) 36,084 (76.1) 10,925 (23.1) 47,317
Greasewood 0 (0) 1,316 (1.3) 73,890 (75.4) 22,840 (23.3) 98,046
Pickleweed barrens 0 (0) 3,990 (0.9) 385,163 (89.3) 42,401 (9.8) 431,554
Wetland 0 (0) 9,967 (18.5) 10,470 (19.5) 33,390 (62.0) 53,827
A common perception is that there currently exist sufficient protected lands that preserve and maintain biological diversity. Our analyses indicate that while some cover types are protected, most of the mapped cover types in Utah have less than 10% of their area protected. Our analyses also indicate that the Utah lands that are protected are more of a random product than a systematic approach to protecting the diversity of vegetation cover types. A more reasoned approach to the management of lands for the conservation of biological resources should include a systematic evaluation of the geographic distribution of resources. Table 3. Land ownership and protection status in Utah by major category.
Ownership Total area Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4
  ha (%) ha (%) ha (%) ha (%) ha (%)
Federal 14,006,997 (63.7) 0 (0) 699,692 (5.0) 13,307,095 (95.0) 210 (<0.1)
Native American 942,363 (4.3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 942,363 (100.0)
Private 4,699,145 (21.4) 1,554 (<0.1) 1,935 (<0.1) 0 (0) 4,695,656 (99.9)
State 1,666,700 (7.6) 0 (0) 173,109 (10.4) 1,493,591 (89.6) 0 (0)
Water 663,792 (3.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 663,792 (100.0) 0 (0)
For further information:
Thomas C. Edwards, Jr.
National Biological Service
Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84322
References
Edwards, T.C., Jr., J.M. Scott, C.G. Homer, and R.D. Ramsey. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach for assessing national biological diversity. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 2:65-72.

Edwards, T.C., Jr., and J.M. Scott. 1994. Use of gap analysis as a tool for the management of biodiversity. Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Union of Game Biologists. In press.

Homer, C.G., T.C. Edwards, Jr., D.H. Ramsey, and K.H. Price. 1993. Use of remote sensing methods in modeling sage grouse winter habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:78-84.

 Noss, R.F. 1991. From endangered species to biodiversity. Pages 227-246 in K. Kohm, ed. Balancing on the brink of extinction: the Endangered Species Act and lessons for the future. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Scott, J.M., B. Csuti, K. Smith, J.E. Estes, and S. Caicco. 1991. Gap analysis of species richness and vegetation cover: an integrated biodiversity conservation strategy. Pages 282-297 in K. Kohm, ed. Balancing on the brink of extinction: the Endangered Species Act and lessons for the future. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Scott, J.M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, S. Caicco, C. Groves, T.C. Edwards, Jr., J. Ulliman, H. Anderson, F. D'Erchia, and R.G. Wright. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123.


Home