Our IJviiif; ReMOiorcx — Hahilal Assessments 



46.i 



FLirlheriiKire, the mechanisms, or the "emer- 

 gent properties." by which an ecological system 

 operates cannot be identified by a simple aggre- 

 gation of its smaller components nor by a reduc- 

 tion of its larger components (Allen and Stan 

 l982;0"Neiiretal. 1986). To adequately char- 

 acterize an ecosystem, it must be observed as a 

 functioning whole rather than only inferred by 

 reducing it to its component parts and then re- 

 aggregating the information discovered about 

 the components. For ecosystems that cover 

 large areas, observation is difficult, perhaps 

 impossible, without using aerial photography 

 and satellite imagery along with computerized 

 systems that can handle the large amounts of 

 information lor analysis. 



There are four requisites to the effective 

 management of biological diversity, soil, water, 

 and natural processes across large landscapes: 

 standardized definitions of the resources: 



replicative scientific methods for inventories 

 that must go beyond lists of species to include 

 natural communities and their processes; a 

 high-quality environmental infonnation system 

 with easy access for all: and the expertise to 

 usefully synthesize the information (Jennings 

 and Reganold 1991). The National Wetlands 

 Inventory. Gap Analysis, and the Multi- 

 Resolution Land Characteristics Database are 

 achieving the.se requisites. 



References 



Alien. T.F.. and T.B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives 



for ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press. 



IL. 310 pp. 

 .lennings. M.D.. and J. P. Reganold. 1941. A theoretical 



basis for managing environmentally sensitive areas. 



Environmental Conservation 18(.3):2I 1-218. 

 O'Neill. R.V.. D.L. DeAngelis. J.B. Waide, and T.F.H. 



Allen. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. 



Princeton University Press. NJ. 2.').^ pp. 



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 proac- 

 tive approach for assessing the cunent status of 

 biodiversity at all levels. By using computerized 

 mapping techniques called geographic informa- 

 tion systems (GIS) to identify "gaps" in biodi- 

 versity protection, gap analysis provides a sys- 

 tematic 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 chang- 

 ing land-use practices (Edwards et al. 199,^: 

 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 ter- 

 restrial vertebrates as predicted from the distri- 

 bution of vegetation and from observations. By 

 using the GIS. map overlays of animal distribu- 

 tion and land ownership are compared to esti- 



Table 1. Management status codes applied to Utah land 

 ownership (Scott et al. 199.^). 



Code 



Description 



1 An area having an active management plan in operation to 

 maintain a natural stale and within »»hich 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 IVlost 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. 



mate 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 vegeta- 

 tion 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 bio- 

 diversity or certain species is problematic. We 

 arbitrarily define adequate protection as requir- 

 ing at least 10% of a vegetation cover type in 

 status category 1 or 2. 



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 I 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 



Protection 

 Status of 

 Vegetation 

 Cover Types 

 in Utah 



by 

 Thomas C. Edwards, Jr. 



National Biological Senice 



