Utah State University
DigitalCommons@USU
All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional
Depository)
U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional
Depository)
1982
Land Use Inventory of Salt Lake County, Utah
From Color Infrared Aerial Photography 1982
Kevin P. Price
Reynold D. Willie
Douglas J. Wheeler
Merrill K. Ridd
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs
Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons
Recommended Citation
Price, Kevin P.; Willie, Reynold D.; Wheeler, Douglas J.; and Ridd, Merrill K., "Land Use Inventory of Salt Lake County, Utah From
Color Infrared Aerial Photography 1982" (1982). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 529.
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/529
This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S.
Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) at
DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All U.S.
Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) by an authorized
administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
ORIQI/'tAl. PAGE IS
Of POOR QUAI..RY
E84 -10015
e~-IU ~ 30
CENTER FOR REMOTE SENSING AND CARTOGRAPHY
LAND USE INVE~rDRY OF SALT LAKE COUNTY. UTAH
FROM COLOR I NFRARED AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
1982
CRSC REPORT 83-2
By
Kevin P. Price. Reynol d D. Willie. Doug l as J. Whee l er • • nd Merrill K. Rldd
Center f or Remote Sensing and Ca r tog r aphy
Un iver Sity of Utah Research I nstitute
420 Chlp.ta Way. Suite 190
Salt Lake City. Utah 84108
Jilly 1983
This pr oject was suppor ted prl ... rfly by the Utah Division of Wate r
Reso urces. wi th assistance from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administ r at ion (NASA Gr ant NAGW-9S).
UN IV ERSIT Y O F U T AH RESEA RCH IN STITUTE
Salt l ake City
of current land use.
WTROllUCTl 3H
Salt lake County. Utah's major population center. continues to
experience rapid urban growth.
The Impacts of urbanization on land use
patterns and natural resources In the county are of particular Interest
to both state and local policy makers and planners.
These maps will provide a basis for assessi ng recent
urbanization trends by allowing cOOlParisons with land use studies previously made.
Finally. the maps will be used as a form of "ground truth·
to calibrate landsat digital mapping studies currently underway .
The effect~ of urban
developonent on a dwindling agricultural land base and water resources
STUDY AREA
The project area Includes all of Salt lake County .
Figure 1 shows
must be assessed to allow a rational basis for future water allocation
the county and the 23 U. S.G.S. quadrangles used as the mappl ' g base for
and land use planning .
the land use overlayS .
METHODS
OBJECTIVES AHD PURPOSES
The primary objective of the project Is to prepare land use maps of
Salt lake County that wi 11 be useful In land and water planning.
The maps
High-altitude color Infrared (CIR) photography was utilized as the
primary medlllD for land cover Interpretations and delineations.
CIR
need to accurately depict at an appropriate scale the "water-related "
photography has been shown In previous studies to be an effective tool for
land use/land cover types of the county In a readily usable fa"".
preparing quadrangle overlays of agriculture land use and wetlands (Rldd.
It was
dete,..lned that transparent overlays to U.S . Geological Survey topographic
quadrangles would provide both an adequate and unlfo"" map scale base .
et a1. 1980; Jaynes. et a1. 1981; ~aynes and ~Illie 1982) .
CIR photography from three recent dates was used In the project.
Once the land cover categories were decided. the Interpretation would take
Because of Its large scale (nominally 1:30.0~) and high color quality.
place from color Infrared (CIR) photography. and the results would be
CIR photography flown on August 1. 1979 was the most useful.
tabulated at the quadrangle
~ nd
from June 29. 1981 and June 28. 1982 allowed the means to update the 1979
township level.
It Is anticipated that the Information acquired will be valuable to
a variety of users .
Photography
The local Soil Conservation District and municipal-
photography.
However. t he 1981 and 1982 photography are of smaller scale
(1 :65 .000) and lower color quality. especially the 1982 set.
The codlined
Ities may use the maps and tables as a basis for developing land use
use of .11 three dates of photography. coupled with considerable field
policies.
observation. pemltted fairly accurate and current land use interpretation
The Utah Division of Water Resources will use the data In
ana l yzing water use patterns and future needs; land use data ar
used In
updating hydrologic Inveltorles and for operating basin hydrologic models .
and mapping .
The first stage of map production was to determine t/".e categories of
County and city planners may utll Ize the updated maps for a variety of
land use/land cover and the mapping unit detail.
planning purposes .
set of priorities established at the outset of the study.
A nurmer of other state and federal agencies and
private land ownerS will benefit from the availability of accurate maps
-2-
This was Influenced by a
The hl 9hest
ORIGINAL PI',GE 19
OF POOR QUALITY
level of Interpretive detail was given to the land use categories found In
the agricultural or urbanized portl cns of the county; these areas are of
primary Interest wi th regard to the consl.lllptive use of water from surface
streal!lS and wells .
A slightly lower level of mapping detail was given to
wetland environments; areas to which watel
man
~'It
s not purposely diverted by
which have a high cons""Ptlve rate of water use .
The final and
lowest priority for Interpretive and mapping detail was assigned to
upland/mountain areas.
Decisions of categories and mapping unit size were
made In concert with the Di vision of Water Resources personnel.
shows the fi nal categories and legend.
.\
.........
Figure 2
Appendix A provides operat i onal
definitions for the categories .
Photos were Interpreted
!
~n
he basis of color, tone , texture, and
pattern. together with features of the topographic, hydrologic. and
I
.curtNS
..
\
ecological context .
....,
f.~IfSWOIl" ,uc
~
,
check draft IMps .
Several trips to the project area were made to field
In the agricultural environment. map units were guided
by field boundrles so that whole fields were classified as a unit. despite
I
I
whatever spati al varlatlMs , .Ist within fields .
• CDI'f'IJ41'OfIf
)
In the urban areas •
logical geometric chunks were delineated. again a110wlng for some Internal
(
i
variation per map unit.
KtIU"...,.
I t,,' WoUItA.I!YOtl
V.I.
•
In the undeveloped areas and lIIOuntalns. Irregular
polygons were delineated according to photo properties and field context.
With the Interpretation criteria established. the next stage was to
flC lVl\ U v allitG
-_/\\ ....
./
delineate aerial photograph aoapplng units at the final map scale (1 :24.000)
to correct for photographic displacement and to register Interpretations
with the standard 7's minute U. S.G. S. quadrangle base map.
FI~ure
1.
Salt Lake County
showln~
i:24,00') scale U. S.G . S. quadrangles .
of U. S.G . S. orthophoto quadrangles.
Where orthophoto quadrangles are not
-4-
-3-
This step was
accoaopllshed. for most of the quadrangles In the county. through the use
() I-IIG1 NAll'l . ~
r:I
OF POOR QUAL nY
available , t he mapping ..as assisted by the use of
projector.
4
K&E !(argl cartographic
The projector is basically an enlarg i ng light table which
allows the user to project a photograph onto a base map to make interpretaIAl.' \. ... ltl COUN'"
LAND UI.
IMW,,,,O."
II ." llOINO
tions and spatial adjustments.
The mapping units were then labeled with
i nterpretations of land cover .
The mini .... mapping unit size was approxi-
ma tely two acres, with the exception of open water which was mapped when
.......................
..
.11.,' .............. .... .
A,
su rface area was at least 0.5 acre.
G . ... .
",., .. "'.
,.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
.-.
.... ........ . 0 • • , •••
o
.... ,.. _... 01
.
_
The primary final products are the 23 clea r overlays which correspond
to the ' :24.000 sca le quadrangles shown in Figure 1.
registered to the border lines of the corresponding U.S.G.S. quadrangl e
U .... . . . .... .'OOo4
til
\.
"f••.•.
for direct reading.
. . . . .......".
, ....... . . ..
,.... _,., .. .
D ......... ...
",
is a representative portinn of
the overlay at full scale .
An underlying guideline used in selecting land uselland cover
categories was homogene ity in characteristics of consllllptive water use .
'.11 ......
As noted earlier, despite variations of "greenness· in individual fields
u, .....
U,
U.
U.
Figure
......... . ... , .. ,
.. .... •
,• ...u .......
..: ....... ..
.
Figure 3 displays a reduced copy of the Hidvale
quadrangle overlay and legend.
C. __ • ••.~ .... OI .....
C
Each overlay may be
............. ... ... ".01 ... '
(due to uneven irrigation), the entire field was classed as a unit .
G .....~ ••
Where
1iIII ••• ' . . . .. ....0 . ·.....
adjacent fields were of the same category , the boundary between fields was
( _.1.......... .
.~.
.. .. ............ ........
not drawn in order to minimize clutter on the overlay.
Thus,
SOllIe
of the
. " ., . . . . . .. . ., ...... . o. . ....
,
"
large polygons on the overlay may represent severa l dozen individually
i nterpreted, but contiguous fields of the s..., category .
All fields of
two acres or IIIOre within all polygons were independently examined and
categorized.
Figure 2.
Categor ies of land usefland cover used in the final map
overlays . (See Appendix A for legend explanation)
Thus, for example , alfalfa , pasture, and raw crops were
grouped together under the symbol "A, " on the assumption they generally
require equal alllOunts of water.
The wetland categories are consistent
-6-
-5-
t> CE ~
OF POOR QUALITY
ORIGlNi\L
LAND USE INVENTORY
SALT LAKE COUNTY. UTAH
·T~- --
~
@:
=::=
I
8
--'~ =~Sr\
f 8.
Figure 4.
Figure 3.
n
Full-scale sample of overllY from the Midvale quadrangle.
Reduced copy of one of the 23 quadrangl es.
ORIGINAL PAGE is
OF POoR QUALITY
-7-
-8-
VKI ~ ; ••\ L """'lU~ ~
wI t h those of a prevIous s tudy (Jaynes and Willie 1982) and could be
:7-=-'
S;
•
.,lfT
adapted to correspond to the class I fIcatIon system used by the U. S. FIsh
"'H./' ~
and Wildl Ife Ser vI ce (Cowa rdln . et al . 1979) .
/
OF POOR QUALITY
.~
In .ast cases . land use categorIes IdentIfIed on the larger scale 1979
photography could be verIfIed on the 1981 and 1982 photography .
A notable
• . _111
exceptfon Is the mapp Ing of "Ag" or graIn crops; this category could be
easily de t ected on the 1979 photography (taken In early August when fl " lds
were beIng harvested and at large scale) but was confused wIth alfalfa and
II ,11111
other crops on the late June photographs taken In 1981 and 1982 .
Consequently. areas were mapped as graIn crops If they appeared as such In
1979. and contInued to appear IrrIgated In 1981 and 1982 .
The JllaP user
should be aware that the accuracy of thIs map class depends upon the
assunptlon that wheat fIelds were not converted to other crop types In
I
T.U.\
'.
1981 or 1982 .
Acreages per land use/cover category were detenulned by us Ing a
cOlllfluter dIgItIzer.
They were tabulated by quadrangle and further suh-
divIded by townshIp wIthIn each quadrangle .
All acreages were double
checked. both by IndivIdual polygons and In the aggregate to assure
accuracy.
FIgure 5 depIcts the townshIps and AppendIx B lists the
tabulatIons .
Table 1 shows the totals of land use/cover type west and
east of the Jordan River .
It Is belIeved by the InvestIgatIng t eam that
i
TU \
_.., ..- . /
(
;
\
T. . ..
"'''''IMNf•
1l. 2L
1•./_
• 'w
.'V-_"..1".
/
th I s Inventory. both I n Its IMp and acreage table fOnDS. Is as accur! t e
as can be done wIth all available photography .
FOLLOW-ON
.COIIftltTOH
FIgu re S.
Salt Lake Coun ty with townshIps outlIned .
Because of the dynalDi c nature of land use conversIon along the Wasatch
Front. and the cost of makIng reliable land use maps for pl annIng purpose ••
-9-
-10-
Table
l.
Acreage per land use type in Salt lake County. 1982.
West of
Jordon Ri ver
Agriculture. Irri gated
A
Ag
Ai
A'Jriculture. Dry Farm
IJ
Of
Urban. Residential
R
Rl
Rt
20.950 .4
1.493.5
12.437.7
East of
Jordon River
9.088.2
325.3
6.862.4
I!!!!l
30.038.6
1.818.8
19.300.1
12.082.0
15.309.1
12.082 .0
15.309.1
19.242.6
2.1 53.4
618.0
1.859.2
36.914.2
2.648.3
198.9
3.488.6
56.156.8
4.801. 7
816.9
5.347.8
8.045.3
5.133.5
16.114.9
1.763.2
2.643.1
181.3
10.912.9
3,278.0
1.858.9
18.958.2
8.411.5
17 .973.8
1.763.2
4,173.5
181.3
Wetland
Wr
Wc
Ws
H
H/Wc
H/Ws
We/M
Ws,"
We/Vs
Ws/Ve
1.288. 5
4,877.5
21,838. 1
16.754.8
387.9
2.645.2
17 .6
5.197.6
317.5
189.9
1.597.1
2.885.6
4.877.5
21,838.1
16,754.8
387.9
2.645.2
17.6
5.197.6
317.5
189.9
Upland
U9
34.265.7
10.149.4
35.874.2
59,976.9
36,415.0
13.410.0
44.415.1
35.874.2
59.9;6.9
40.855.0
13,410.0
344.5
2.237.5
25.129.1
15,756.2
4.073.6
8.711.7
269.0
2.646.2
L
Urban. C
C
rcial/Industria1
T
E
S
X
X/Ug
U
Ud
Ue
Ur
4,440.0
344.5
Ug/R1
Ug/lb
Ull/Ue
Ud/Ue
Ue/Ud
Water
Sewage Treatment
25,129.1
15.064.2
8.319.2
26.6
2.646.2
G.S.L.
TOTALS
263.777.3
-11-
1.530.4
2,237.5
692.0
4,073.6
392.5
242.4
242.166:<7
505.944.0
APPENDIX A.
an efficient and cost-effective procedure Is needed to map and to update
the changing patterns of land use.
A satelllte/cocaputer ~ystem would be
Ideal I~ sufficien tly sensitive to the small field patterns Involved In
land :onverslon.
The Center for RetDOte Sensing and Cartography (CRSC) Is
currently engaged In a research project to examl;'le this posslblllty.
AGRI CULTURE
Ird g.ted
Al fal f. h.y. this c.tegory .. y also Include Irrig.ted pasture
Many
A
Other crops, corn .nd truck crops
Ag
Gr.lns, IIIOstly whe.t And barley
AI
[dIe, this category Includes lots or fields which .. y have
been Irrlg.ted In the past
algorlthlllS of classification of land use and detection of changes In land
use are being evaluated.
If successful. the procedure can be applied
along the Wasatch Front and elsewhere. as urban enroachment on fa(lllland
and open space continue.
Explanation of land use/land cover categories
Identified In IMP legend.
Dry F.r..
Results of the study In automation .. Ill be reported to t~e Division
of Water Resources and In national professional meetings this year.
LITERATURE CITED
Cowardln. L. M.• V. Carter. F. C. 6olet. and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.
Office of Biological Services. Fish and W11dllfe Service. U.S. Departoaent of the Interior. Washington. D.C . 20240 . FWS/OBS-79/31.
Jaynes. Richard A.• L1ncoln D. Clark. Jr .• and Keith F. Landgraf. 1981.
Inventory of Wetlands and Agricultural Land Cover In the Upper Sevier
River Basin. ~tah. CRSC Report 81-6 .
o
Cropped, usually with wInter wheat
Of
F.llow
WATER
Solid black
Open water, either ponds and reservoirs or In large c.n.l s
and rivers
Great Sa It Lake
Saltwater of the Great Salt lake
llpatone
MunicIpal, sewage tre; tIoent
URBAN
Jaynes. Richard A•• Reynold D. Willie. 1982 . Mapping of W11dllfe Habitat
In FanDl ngton BlIY. Utah. CRSC Report 82-1.
Residential
Rldd. Merrll1 K•• James G. Christensen. L1ncoln D. Clark. Jr . • and Keith
F. Landgraf. 1980. Uinta 8451n Wetland/Land Use Study: A Merger of
Digital Landsat and Aircraft CIR Techniques. CRSC Report 80-2.
R
lledl .... lot size ( .. - It acre), Impervious areas .. ke up
ca . 35-40S of surface cover, r_Inder Is Irrigated
lawn, garden, etc. Mostly slngle-f.mfly oo.es. but also
Includes churches. schools, apart.ents, condominiums, etc.
Rt
Trailer court, s .. l1 lot size , slngle-fa.l1y tra11er parks,
impervious cover greater than 50S.
Rl
large lot size (often over one acre), Impervious cover
usuall y less than ZOS, r_Inder Is Irrigated vegetation .
Publ Ie open §pace, very lfttle ImperviouS cover (less than
IDS), pr dO'lilnately arge lawn or o>hervlse landscaped
public or quas l-publfc areas Including parks, ceeterles,
golf courses. la rge schools (I.e . , U of U. colleges. e~c . )
-12-
-13-
ORIGINAl PAGE IS'
OF POOR QUAlfTY
APPENDIX A.
Explanation of land use/land cover cat.gorl.s
Identlfl.d In map l.gend.
APPENDIX B.
Acreage per land use type In Salt Lake County for 19&2
by quadrangle and township.
Co .... rctal/lndustrl.l and oth.r
Buildings and parking areas .... y Include so ... landscaping
but Impervious areas are great.r than 751
Transportation corrldor/hcll Ity. Includ.s ... jor hlgh ..ays.
rail road ya rds. a I rports. etc .
Excavatton. Includes various IDlnlng activities such as
grav.l pits. quarries. landfill. tailings. etc .
Salt evaporating ponds
Disturbed - Inci pient residenti al - com. and other
... p
S,-l
..
•
~t.elope h lind So .
!!!
:~
I t _ CoII)on
~~
On ..,
!~
AI
~::
m
:lS
U(
l.l~.]
60.6
2.119 .0
0
0'
I
II
It
167. 5
l
,
Riparian. sublrrlgated grass.s and grass-Itke plants.
mostly cOlDprlsed of ar.as adjacent to the Jordan River.
primarily used for pasture
Irtghtotl
!~
~~
"1. 7
II . '
"9.0
11.6
H .6
C
IIr
~e
[
lZO.
11' .
5
"1.
c n6 .0
511.0
I
.r
1.6lO . 2
253 . 1
19. 2
166. 3
158. 3
5.m.l
2eo . l
125.0
llO . 3
174 . 3
655 .•
152. 5
27< . 6
IIUG
Wc
ca ttan . also may Include bulrush
115
Saltgrass. also Includes sonae other grasses. as well as
some sallcornta and other forbs
"
Hudnat areas. seasonally Inundated. most often with
saltne water
.,
lie
1-_-
1IlIlI'
IIIcJII
.,111
WILDLAND (Upland/Mounta l n)
Ug
Grass-shrub. generally bunchgrasses mixed with sagebrush
lh
Itluntaln brush or juniper. prl ... rlly oakbrush and ... ple
on the east side of the valley. juniper and olkbrush on
the west
Ud
D.ciduous forest. mostly aspen.
Uc
Coniferous forest. mostly spruce-fir
.
". ,.....
171 .
169 . 7
,.,.
<.
57 .
510.
IIkIVs
.;no;-
lila
Ud
MO . 2
1691.0
217.0
11<
Or
157 .0
1 969.0
315.0
82'. 7
39'. 7
lO . 5
"'.9
1 292.6
2.795 .0
I.SIl . l
11la1l1
IUoJU.
77 . 1
1..-
Ur
15.2
102. 5
.....
Rock
"I 0
I.m.
UdIUc
","Ju.o
......
Sow,.
11'.'
909.'
5 159 .0
l.m .•
62:.0
1 581.'
1 11l.~
7Cl.l
--
In ••
"
.2
ZO.1
Cl.'
'1.7
21.'
•• t71.7
2.612.7
6.961 . 5 19.914.1
' .5, .
Total
Hote:
2."' . 5
1.66' . 1
4.0&0 .0
11.21' .6
1.022 .1
Should avoid co.pl ..es. but. when necessary.
place syabol of predotlinlte type first followed
by a "I" and second syatol.
-15-14-
6.063.'
Ok IGI. AI. PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY
APPENDIX 8.
s::.)
A
••
AI
0
' 0'
•
.t••
L
t
~::.~
~~
APPENDIX 8.
Acreage per land use ~ype In Salt Lake County for 1982
by quadrangl~ and townshIp.
Ft.-.1"",,,,
~,.,'.. Ii;
lli
~~
~~
~
~:
F.rworU ' .. k
~~
~~
rort Oovgl u
~::
..p
~
ze.O
A
A•
56 ••
A'
107 .'
104.
0
.
0'
"
101..
29 .'
,.
•..
'0
ZO ••
5<>0 .
'45.
L
t
'"
"»
,....
T
I
IIUo
17 .
...
...
v,
"
'NV<
"""
Vc/II
W<
1V\l,
.,
..."
v./Wc
115.
365 .0
"".0
• 5'.0
Ur
,., ..
• •1
1.636 ••
IOM . 7 1 IlI .1
3 MO •• 1 m.1
Uo/ll
.
, 101.0
'.ZIt.3
"'.,
•
..
."..
....
It .S
1.103.
..... T.
11
G.S ••
1,5501 .
•. m .o
1. 6M .'
1:.356 ••
I.SOI . 3
....
....
....
•
n.
...)
m.
.
...
61 .
3'
.
Il.
m.
...
,..
51. '
281 •
:~
~~
.'"
....II"
,n
'.117
7
« , ••
.n .
.n
'5.
S.
7.3
27 .'
53 .
.. ..
710 .
,.....
."
t.
m.
..,...
~
,.,
'.1,..
...."'.
.
Iu.
1 067 .•
3
m.3
m .o
Ud
'" .,
~n
In
tAO,
.......
..An
Ik
un.
m.
U .
7• . 3
3.....
2) .
""...
•• 440.0
.....
IIoIUo
u,
~
3 .m.O
""'""
tIc/Ud
...
.;~
I....f
314
.
n.
-»t.
<0.
•
,..
t.
G. S
1."1.
•• llt.1 1•• ltl. 7
.
... .....
Ur
'.856.0 lC.ltS . l
5.000.'
Total
'.C21 . 1
'.m .3
1l.'IO. S
•. m .
'.043.'
ORIGINAl PAGE ts
OF POOR QUAlITY
-16-
..,
I .m
nt .•
).
-;;;-
./11
"
154 .
,.
...
L...
~~
lion,
""""
Total
...
no
Ik/Ud
tI .
"
•ze.
Vc/II
V,/IO
UdJUc
0.'
.
......
.. ~:i....
"
.' 645 .0
941.3
UoIUc
.. ur
i!f
~;;»
~::
{~;tl (..;~
2.297 .
.Olt .
IIIV<
1O .
V:/VI
Ud
tic
..,
Vt
Vs
1«
V,/IO
!1:
...
.,.,.
,,.
We
Jordan .. ~
Fort Douglu (cone )
T
E
5
I
I JUo
S
.
.,•
l'
E
u.
5_
Acreage per land use type In Salt Lake County for 1982
by quad rangle and townshIp.
-17-
174.~
••• 1t. 3
301 ••
•• ts1.D
n.m.)
ORIGiNf.L P"!>E is
OF roaR QUAUTV
APPENDIX B.
.,
Acreage per land use type In Salt ~ake County for 19B2
by quadrangle and township.
ltrt (cont)
5_'
I
~~
..• ....
~~
l,'"
~~~
~~
I
11
Rt
l
~
95 . 7
9.1
192.
593.2
230 .•
' ' ': 3
310.'
e
lJ.O
66.5
2.3
15 . 2
..
6. 1
T
E
5
30. 5
,
00 . 1
'IU.
SL'
",
~
-,,-:0
" .7
AI
0
~~
'.'
7• • 9
101. 7
316.
'9 . 7
eSl . t
376.
2.464.
11 . 5
1.065.
m13 .
~~
4U .
AI
0
0'
I
161.
..
",
10.
19 .
l
e
21 . 6
6.3
30.2
112 .2
lSl.S
II.
100 .5
' .1
26.5
1.012 .'
3,'37. 5
1.251.6
45 . 1
1.5
E
5
,
21 . 9
1!!~'1
~~
: ~",
m
1.631.3
117.9
169 . '
20.1. 1
'55.2
1IS.3
227 . 1
1.536 .•
1SS . 6
131 .0
100.6
21.3
763 . 2
658.1
11 . 5
" .f
7. 3
~9 . '
114 . )
302 .0
100.0
41.1
.0;;;:
\.1" .•
'~3
Z 197 . 1
I 509 . 5
!~
I~~. ,
12 . 1
1'1
m
1._ .
u
~~~:.,
It,
u
,.
,<7
... -.,
1<7
"
21< .'
995.
~~~
'",
"
.;;
71.
In.'
300.2
7515.
7.6
236 . 7
7.'
I~.,
la .,
..9
410 . 7
"Idul,
1.1>
I
716 .'
T
%75 . 1
117 .
71
149. &
m.
".
33 . 7
&
• 0
55.2
ll • . '
16 . 1
71 .1
11 .2
3. •
10.,
6. 3
1ft
90 . 5
151 .0
1l9 . )
)01.)
789.7
&. 3
111~1
29 . 7
~ r15.
"
III/We
IIVW,
We,.
IHlw,
Weill
W,,.
W~,;
We/V,
wcJVt
.,/\Ie
251.2
111 . 2
258.0
694 . 2
2 766.0
200.0
Ua
lid
',/\Ie
I..
Ill.
7.131.9
14.2
691.6
'0.
" .1
17 ,
.. ,
Ua
lid
IUc
Uc
,
,
2M.
1"'111
I,,';;'~
,.
11loJ1k
~
1.631.0
2 003.0
619 .0
71.'
34.9
665.0
I... II
I Ual\IO
IJo/Ik
...
107 .0
IIdIUc
.....,
Is.w.r.
1... lUd
I!/CJlI4
•
165.
2.
11.997 .
m.
e.s ..
louis
IN
TZS
m
"
IVWc
Sew. T.
•
•
..... (co••
TlS
W,
10.
3.029 .
1.130 .
M
.ct.,
S~I
Acreage per land use type In Salt Lake County for 19B2
by quadrangle and township.
'M
!It
I...
...
...,01
lOft p••
%,52:1.
1]f.1
2.011.
135.
055 .
2.143.
61.6
13 .•
110
0'
~~
APPENDIX B.
I.l
2. 2
641 .2 15.271 . •
5.362 . 7
c.s..
910 . 7
1I0 .~
2.1 ... 1
" .0
3.617. 2
'.119 .9
910 . _
665.0
Toull
....
'1.>
6.&
2.014 .'
.,
1.023.1
ORIGINAl PAGE
OF .POOR QUALllY
-18-
-19-
16.138.6
_.936 .4
10.
1.'l66 . '
7.]
1.536 .1
'Sl.O
ORIGINAL PAGE III
OF POOR QUALITY
ORlGlNAL PAG~ IS
OF I'OOR QU ALITY
APPENDIX B.
APPENDIX B.
Acreage per land use type in Sal t Lake County for 1982'
by quadranale and township.
o--r- '
....
S,..,..
•
••
"ldv.l.
Nowntatn 0.11
("",.1
!~~
!:~
~~~
~~~
Mt:tIIftt
~
;;:
~;:
Atr.
,.=.~t~
;f,
2<'<
AI
!~
~
"
'"
"<I.
'89.
134 .0
1 .
C
'n
50
".
91.0
5. 1
2S9.1
36 .
•••
"
55 1
9.9
61' .4
191 . 1
1. 5
1.2
9. S
'.9
12S. 6
185. 0
7l2 . 1
lZ . 1
1
~~
U.6
75.2
12 .e
lZ.'
Z!)S.)
12. 1
21 . 6
U1. 5
110. 5
112 .0
55 . 1
21.1
2.11 0. 8
1.536 .9
125 .8
21 .'
I/U.
lie
lis
290 . 8
581 . '
"
r'IfII'
"
SSC . ,
76 l.0
lS . S
1l0 .9
• 882 .'
ze.'
Ilillie
I"""
IlVII,
w,,"
lIel"
I' h/ "
~cJ WI
""lis
lIe/"
15 .9
81 . 2
1. 584
I ......
,
.,..
n"
.,. •.....
'1
1.09'
135. 5
6.9
1 51.
6446 . 2
1557. 1
11 0 .
42 . 2
2
662 .0
S2A.'
21 .·
61.1
1D1.
lzn .6
• no.
...
19 . "
16". 1
1 m .s
..."..
IkI
1 0'3.1
...01.6
• ZI2.0
• m.2
1
Uc
1481. 0
1.241 . 5
U'
I.... "
IUo/Uo
I""""
ud"~
..
"
1.0.2
9.0
U.
1 .C6J .S
90U .6
),500 .•
37 . 7
4sa . S
11.6
1.711 .9
240 . 2
Uo
I..~
."
21l .S
13 .9
11)'.Z
w,/1Ic
W,IIk
I..
IUc/Ikl
1951.
' 1
Z.'
5.'20. 6
2.609 . 1
V.ttr I
•
17"
• 226 .0
41 .
)1.1
SSC:!
2·"' . 2
Sew. T.
- 51' '''-
G. S. .
G. S• .
fouls
136. S
E
S
J,
",'0'
~~
!~
~~
!~
198.
21.1
T
w,
ISew.T.
.
9. 1
110.0
5.'
C
w,
I""""
Ud/Uc
Uc Ud
!:~
;~
lO.'
We
Uc
u,
I...",
;~
L
1.1
S
I
IIUo
...Ud
.;W'"
AI
L
£
~
S&lUtr
ME
SoIltAl'
(cent)
0'
-;;
T
•
H
0
0
"
'-
~~r\ City
S~'
"
1
0
0'
...
Acreage per land use type in Sal t Lake County fo,' 1982
by quadrangle and t ownship.
2" . 1 17 .la7 .2
2.'U.'
4,006 . 6
1.6ll.'
-20-
1l ."6 .1
S.91l . S 11.644 . 1
Touh
4.916 . 7
1.'55 . 1
•• m.l
248 . 1
1.047 . 5
-21-
n.92O.'
262 .'
5.150 . 1
218 ••
5 •• 12 . •
APPENDIX B.
ORIGINAL PAGE 19
Acreage per land use lype in SaIL Lake Counly for 1982
by quadrangle and lownship.
OF POOR QUlIl/TY
APPENDIX 6.
..
Stlt
S_I
-
A
!IN
r2JI
(~~'l
OIV
70.'
la
At
...
l .~.
~::
;;;,1
Ctty North
TIN
Al[
541t l.h Ctt)' Si;;ljll'!
m
II>
l~~~
,:!~ ,
~:~
I;;;;,
lIS
0\[
.'"
111.
1.515.8
1.'V .l
m.
1.1.4
).m . 1
);0.
~:~
I;;;,
.. ,
m.'
TIS
Ol[
)Up
Of
0\
, • .0
SO , I
"
'<.1
8< .0
183 . 1
'''.'
I ,,. .
\.0" .0
)1, , )
) .0
)1' . 6
L
C
r
,
[
•"UO
14<1
I US .O
&07 . 1
'SII .
-"" .
..,.,
191.
I ....
'I .
5• .
1" .
)85 . 1
n.
21.8
" '.0
1l . 1
ml
'"
--;;.)
.u
'.,
""
",
.
101 . 1
<09 . )
)m .
91 .'
o~
80
1.41'"
no.
I
Z6 ,
2\
1.0\.
I" ,
192. 1
U').'
, .1
'le/W,
m.
80 . 1
L
lOS 81
1.ISO . '
SIIIJ.,.ftQUU
TIS
<IE
flS
~It:
467 .7
'2(
52. '
I.Z6I . 5
1,110.1
•. 890.'
29 .•
2S11.'
us
! .]V
IlS
..,
....
lIS 9
Tic\¥111eSpri"9
IlS
$i'!
TI'
19 . •
64.0
115 1
Al(
•• U).)
161 . 8
61:1
<1 .01
1.}C . 5
171 . 0
' .1
. ..
' 01 .
"
..
IM . 2 t
ZOO .O
5'5 . 5
52 . 1 ~
12 . 1 '
m .'
25 . 1
~.
290.'
1l• . •
521.'
'81.2
I
1 Oll .1
•
\.0<
9'9 . 7
I •.
n .• 1
1
".1
I
""
1
1
1
.
!Ie
76 . 6
'o . ,
1
I
I
1
I
tV\h
"
,
11I .
.$rk.
..
."
uc
V,
u.
I Ill.'
Vd
2.m.O
10.0
Vc
1...,11
111
2 .• 1' .0
IM . 1
IIoro.
I."
"'.
001'
"o .0
1M.
Vr
..,
" .....
,,'
." ,
ut/AI
IUOIUc
Vd/tlc
V. ro.
s..r.
.. ,
\6 .0
n
)/.
2\
G.S . .
1.487 .6 12.Sl9 .Z
.
1 ------j
,
!
,
'I
o·
1
,
,I
:
1
I
I
1
,
1
I
J
:leI"
1.269 .'
191
-
1
1
"' 'IV<
V'IM
'4c/V,
lue/Vd
I
I
,,
191.
j
1
~
"
51 .
I
1
19' •
'.2
'5\.0
,
S
"
....S •
I
)U
::~
20.'
8.
(fU CI
L9",'
"'Uc!"
:~
2• . '
591 . 0
~
J'
\.1110 .'
••
fouh
0
•
.,fAe
Wittr
"
•
"':
_ l~Ul \
I
s
:Je/"l
.,IM
~~~
I i:~
251 . 2
211 .6 •
11012 . 1
m .o
,
"
Of
'OZ . 1
17 .1
I"
see.
It'
lOl .
" .2
1& .
' V'.oc
0"",
J «5 .6
I'
s.1t Uti Ci ty SouU'I (con t )
,....1 1 ("'J)
~
0
•
Acreage per land use lype i n S.l t Lake Cc.nly fo r 1982
by quadran g le and lownship.
5,'22 .•
1,912. 6
l,Sza . ·
1 •• a1.1
112. 0
I3 . SO?7
UOIUc
d lJc
....
,.,It.S
ue Vd
w.,ur
S~ . f .
2.46Il .'
...
PAG~
,,
,
.0
2.106 . 3 15,120.6
',1 62 .0 11.19 1 3
3,511 9
I.
10 .
"
..
M
68 . 1
G.S.L.
IfCl UIt. 11.085 . 1
ORIG(. Al
...
•••
II . '
, . "'"
I
),111 .6
IS
OF POOR Q\JALITY
-22-
-23-
6011 .0 1(,015. '
'10 .0