Ecological Cover Classification For a Natural Resources Inventory in the Kansas City Region, USA

by

Applied Ecological Services, Inc. In cooperation with the Mid-America Regional Council 600 Broadway, Suite 300, Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: 816.474.4240

Steven I. Apfelbaum1, Kim Alan Chapman2, Jason Carlson1, Joshua D. Lippold3, Frank J. Norman3, Neil Thomas4, and Theodore Hartsig3

November 2004

1Applied Ecological Services, Inc., 17921 Smith Road, Brodhead, WI 53520 2Applied Ecological Services, Inc., 21938 Mushtown Road, Prior Lake, MN 55237 3Applied Ecological Services, Inc., 201 Main Street, Suite 201, Kansas City, MO 64105 4Resource Data, Inc., 305 Westover Drive, Asheville, NC 28801

Applied Ecological Services, Inc.

Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Executive Summary

The Kansas City metropolitan region historically was the gateway to the Great Plains, and to this day it harbors high quality natural resources and vegetative species reminiscent of those seen by early settlers. In the 150 years since settlement, communities comprising this 3,000 square mile region have grown and changed the environment of these natural resources, and these once abundant resources have diminished greatly. Now in the 21st Century, there is wide recognition that a coherent inventory is needed in the region. This natural resource inventory will be a wealth of information that can be used to plan for the future growth of our region and preserve valuable natural assets which benefit the people who live here.

This recognition is timely. The region’s many streams are threatened by unmanaged growth and change, yet the many municipalities that cut across watersheds weaken unified action. Widespread changes in land use must be understood to fully address the challenge of habitat fragmentation and degradation. Developing effective policies to protect these natural resources requires knowing where, how abundant, and in what state of ecological health these resources are.

Recognizing these needs, Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) initiated the development of a regional map to depict the region’s natural resources assets and ecological land features. MARC intends for this map and associated data to be used as a tool in conservation planning and ecological preservation by local governments and planning agencies throughout the Kansas City region. The ecological land cover map includes an extensive Geographic Information System (GIS) and associated database that is the primary basis of this tool for use in conservation planning.

This initiative is funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and managed by MARC. With its completion, MARC will begin to educate local planning agencies and government agencies the public in using the regional ecological land cover map and GIS data as the conservation planning process moves ahead. With this project, Kansas City joins other national leaders such as Chicago and Milwaukee in using conservation planning tools for environmental quality. Thanks to similar projects, these cities increasingly enjoy better air and quality, reduced Ecological Land Cover Map of the flood damage, ecosystem and biodiversity Kansas City Metropolitan Area conservation, habitat and wildlife protection,

i Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

stream course stabilization, the creation of neighborhood and development amenities, better opportunities for outdoor recreation, and models of sustainable urban development.

To achieve these goals, MARC teamed with Applied Ecological Services, Inc. (AES) and Patti Banks & Associates (PBA), two Kansas City firms with expertise in conservation planning and ecological services. AES created a natural resources classification and inventory method, conducted field surveys, and developed descriptions of ecological land cover types in the Kansas City region. The AES classification and inventory method used previous work by state and federal agencies, or data gathered by MARC and the region’s counties and cities. AES intended the classification and inventory to be understandable to lay people and amenable to future revisions and updates. During the field inventory, hundreds of locations were visited by staff of AES and PBA to assess the condition of and collect new information about the region’s natural resources, and verify existing data about vegetative communities and their occurrences.

Results of the inventory found that 22 percent of the metropolitan region retains areas of high quality vegetative communities with numerous native species that are worthy of conservation. These areas are limited in number and in their extent, but they present many opportunities for conservation of ecosystems, habitats, and other natural resources that will benefit the overall Kansas City region. Results of the inventory also revealed a tremendous need for ecological restoration work so that stream water quality and fish habitat can be improved, and that wildlife habitat in , , and can again sustain high numbers of native species. When incorporated into conservation plans, woodlands, grasslands, and can result in better stormwater management, cleaner water, healthier riparian areas and reduced sediment loadings in streams and other water bodies. Native species are vital for providing habitat for maintaining healthy wildlife populations. These also improve the aesthetic character of the , provide scenic views and open space, and provide for recreational activities for our communities.

The Kansas City region has several areas where natural resources are similar to those present 150 years ago, but they are rapidly being converted to non-native uses.

ii Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

The urban areas in the Kansas City region continue to support large tracts of woodland and restorable savannas. Urban areas are included in this 22 percent of land area that retain high quality ecological conditions, and largely consist of mature deciduous forests, lowland hardwood forests in stream valleys and river bottoms, marshes and other wetlands, and the native grasslands and savannas that were the dominant natural features of the region 150 years ago. These natural resources are concentrated along rivers and streams, near open water, and on steeply-sloping land. The woodlands and restorable savannas in urban settings play important roles in providing recreational opportunities, serving existing and future parkland, creating buffers for streams, and increasing awareness of the region’s environmental heritage.

Rural and semi-rural areas on both Kansas and Missouri present large tracks of both land and native prairie for conservation and/or restoration. The current data demonstrates numerous areas in Leavenworth and Johnson Counties in Kansas that have large tracts of natural vegetative communities that contain quality native and provide great environmental quality. Wyandotte County, Kansas, while largely developed for urban utilization, also contains several large tracts of deciduous forest. Platte, Ray, Clay, Jackson, and Cass Counties in Missouri exhibit extensive areas dominated by land used for agriculture and/or urban development, however, the original classification of the data from the United States Geological Service (USGS) Gap Analysis Program (GAP), because it was collected several years ago, may not reflect many areas and tracts that contain native vegetation that provide opportunities for conservation.

The results of the natural resources inventory and development of an ecological cover map for the Kansas City region provide the tools that will catalyze the next phase of MARC’s initiative to address conservation and planning needs in the Kansas City region. Conservation and planning not only ensure that plant and animal species continue to thrive in their native habitats, they are vital to the future success of the region’s communities. A focus on natural resource conservation and restoration benefits a resident’s quality of life by preserving natural breaks in development for nearby recreation and relaxation; by maintaining and raising land values; by improving stormwater management and reducing flood risk; and by enhancing environmental quality. Along the way, conservation and planning will maintain or improve the stream flow and water quality, wildlife habitat and populations, and the rich diversity of life forms in the region. If successful, conservation planning for sustaining our natural resources will bequeath the heritage of the region’s natural ecosystems and its many benefits to the future generations in the Kansas City metropolitan area.

iii Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1. Project Overview ...... 1

2. Ecological Land Cover Assessment and Natural Resource Inventory Methods ...... 3 2.1. Data Assembly and Base Mapping ...... 3 2.1.1. Regional Crosswalk ...... 3 2.1.2. Digital Database...... 5 2.2. Field Reconnaissance...... 6 2.2.1. First Field Reconnaissance...... 6 2.2.2. Second Field Reconnaissance...... 7 2.2.3. Field Reconnaissance Data Evaluation ...... 7 2.3. Initial ELC Classification and Natural Resources Inventory (Jackson County) ...... 9 2.3.1. Aquatic Communities ...... 9 2.3.2. Natural Communities...... 9 2.3.2.1. Forests ...... 10 2.3.2.2. Lowland Communities...... 11 2.3.2.3. --Woodland Communities ...... 12 2.3.3. Cultural or Sparsely Vegetated Land ...... 13 2.3.3.1. Developed Land ...... 13 2.3.3.2. Urban Forest ...... 14 2.3.3.3. Other Cultural Types ...... 14 2.4. Extrapolation to Eight-County Kansas City Region...... 14 2.5. Final ELC Classification and Natural Resources Inventory (Kansas City Region) ...... 14

3. Ecological Land Classification and Natural Resource Inventory Outcomes 17 3.1. ELC/NRI Results...... 17 3.2. Ecological Land Cover Conservation ...... 21 3.3. Establishing Regional Conservation Priorities ...... 22 3.4. Public Outreach and Education...... 24

4. Project Evaluation...... 25 4.1. Summary...... 25 4.2. Existing Data Gaps and Method Development Needs...... 26 4.2. Future Data Acquisition and Analysis ...... 28

5. Acknowledgments...... 30

i Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tables

Section Page

Table 2-1 Crosswalk of Kansas and Missouri GAP Classifications...... 4 Table 2-2 Ecological Condition Ranks...... 8 Table 2-3 Ecological Land Cover Types for the Kansas City Region...... 15 Table 3-1 Ecological Land Cover in the Kansas City Region...... 18

Figures Figure 2-1 Ecological Land Cover Classification of Natural Resources in the Kansas City Region...... 16 Figure 3-1 Distribution of Ecological Land Cover in the Kansas City Region...... 17 Figure 3-2 Example of Natural Resources Conservation Planning Map ...... 22

Appendices

Appendix A A-1: Detailed Data Collection and Conversion Methodology A-2: Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) Metadata A-3: Shape Files Used for the Kansas City NRI GIS Program

Appendix B Soil Types in the Kansas City Region

ii Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

1. Project Overview

The Kansas City metropolitan region has historically served as the gateway to the Great Plains of the United States, and to this day the region continues to exhibit the rich natural resources and high quality vegetative communities. The extent of our native natural resources, however, has largely disappeared with development of the cities and communities that make up the metropolitan region, with relatively small remnants remaining in areas along the major drainage ways and in small pockets throughout the area. These remnant prairies, wetlands, and forests are worth protecting for the benefit of the people that live in the region, and for sustaining and promoting native wildlife and vegetation.

The Kansas City region exists at the confluence of the Kansas and Missouri Rivers, natural resources that dominate the geographical features of the area. This area is situated in the western glaciated plains and the Osage Plains on the southern portions, consisting of gently rolling topography dominated by thin soils on uplands, rock outcrops, and rich, deep soils in bottomlands. Prior to its settlement, vegetation in the Kansas City region consisted of upland and bottomland prairies, although relatively large tracts of forests were present in the bottom lands. The majority of the area, however, was tallgrass prairie on the gently rolling plains that were dissected by the tributaries of the Kansas and Missouri Rivers. Extensive aquatic and wetland communities were present, particularly in the floodplains of the larger rivers and, to a lesser extent, their tributaries.

In 2003, Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) initiated the development of a regional map depicting natural resource assets and ecological land features oriented towards conservation planning and ecological preservation. The objective of this program is to develop a comprehensive database and GIS program that features multiple mapping “layers” that depict the region’s vegetation resources, natural resource features (including rivers, streams, and other water features), and regional infrastructural features, such as streets and roads, political boundaries, parks, and features of MetroGreen, the regional network of trails and greenways. These layers can be used to evaluate regional natural resources and how they can be conserved and integrated into community planning.

This project, inclusive of the regional map and the fieldwork it incorporates, represents a natural resource inventory across a broad region that is part of a larger initiative to produce the tools for communities in the Kansas City region to develop conservation plans. These tools are intended to be used as the basis for identifying important conservation goals and strategies to protect the region’s natural resources. With this project MARC will implement the region’s first multi-phase, collaborative, community-based initiative to document, map, and ultimately conserve natural resources within the Kansas City metropolitan area. The development of a natural resources inventory is a critical first step toward solid environmental planning at the local level utilizing a systems-based framework for watershed management, resource conservation, and restoration at the regional level.

This report presents the methodology used to develop the ecological classification system and natural resources inventory for the Kansas City region, as well as the results of initial data collection and the creation of a regional ecological land cover database and map. The report describes how the project creates new digital maps of the region’s natural resources - useful to local governments, planners, engineers, developers, ecologists, and citizens - to ensure that critical natural areas such as floodplains, wetlands, and quality upland areas are conserved as

1 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

development continues. Over the long term, the intent of this regional natural resource inventory and the associated map series is to provide a base that will lead to the creation of a regional framework for an interconnected, landscape-scale conservation and restoration plan. This inventory and map can be utilized to form a key component of all local and regional planning efforts related to such factors as land use, economic development, transportation, water resources, and air quality.

To assure that this project is as complete as possible, the ecological land cover map and GIS builds on past inventory and conservation work for critical ecosystems and valuable natural resources in the region. The results provide an up-to-date assessment of the condition of ecosystems and natural resources while compiling consistent baseline information in a usable Geographic Information System (GIS) for use in local planning processes (e.g., watershed plans and greenway plans); support the identification and implementation of high priority MetroGreen trail segments around the region; and offer opportunities to educate Kansas City audiences about the value of local natural resources and the value of sound environmental planning and stewardship. This is an on-going process however, and this report describes the first steps in a program that will be added to from data collected through new studies and planning processes in the Kansas City region.

2 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

2. Ecological Land Cover Assessment and Natural Resource Inventory Methods

This section describes the general approach and methodology used to complete the ecological classification and inventory for the Kansas City region. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. (AES) used the following tasks to complete the ecological survey and inventory, which are described in detail in the following sub-sections:

1. Data Assembly and Mapping: digital information from several government sources was used to establish baseline information about land cover in the region.

2. Field Reconnaissance: The digital information was validated and/or refined through field inspections and verifications.

3. Ecological Land Cover Classification Development: Using data from the data assembly and subsequent field reconnaissance, AES created an ecological classification representing existing natural resources in the region, a GIS-based information database, and a regional map of ecological land cover.

4. Data Extrapolation and Second Field Verification: The ecological classification involved an iterative process in which initial data were assembled, evaluated in the field, revised, and then re-evaluated in the field a second time. Final data were assembled after the second field reconnaissance, evaluated, and incorporated into the GIS program and the regional land cover map.

Details of the methodology of this process are provided in Appendix A. This program was completed between June 2003 and June 2004.

2.1. Data Assembly and Base Mapping

The initial phase of the ecological classification and inventory work involved data identification and assembly; the synthesis of data and creation of GIS base maps and graphics; and solicitation of input from local experts on the type and condition of natural resources in the Kansas City metropolitan area. This initial phase included two primary components: a regional crosswalk and development of the digital database. These components are described below.

2.1.1. Regional Crosswalk

Early assessment of information about vegetative cover and natural resources in the Kansas City area indicated a lack of a comprehensive, up-to-date data set from which to create an ecological land cover classification and complete a natural resources inventory. Classifications from Missouri and Kansas used different criteria to map natural resources, and classifications by different agencies varied in their mapping results. To overcome this challenge, AES examined existing land cover classifications and tested the mapping results against recent digital orthophotos of the Kansas City metropolitan area.

A classification was considered acceptable based on its ability to correctly describe a uniform patch of land surface on digital orthophotos (e.g., forest, grassland, and urban) and correctly

3 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region match the edges of the digitized polygon to that land surface patch. Based on this examination, AES decided to use United States Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Program (GAP) data rather than other land cover data systems. The GAP project is a nationwide inventory of land cover and habitat suitability whose purpose is to identify conservation opportunities especially as it relates to the needs of wildlife.

While available for both Missouri and Kansas, each state used a different GAP classification. In order to join these classifications and create a regional ecological land cover classification, AES created a two-level classification linked to the two GAP classifications (Table 2-1). This approach to combining different classifications is termed a “crosswalk.”

The crosswalk contains two types of classifications. The first classification, herein called AES Type 1, is broader than the second classification, called AES Type 2. For example, Cultural or Sparsely Vegetated Land (AES Type 1) in Kansas is subdivided into Cultivated Land, Developed Land, and Cultural Grassland (AES Type 2). The AES Type 1 names are used for initial mapping work and the AES Type 2 names are used for field inventory.

Table 2-1. Crosswalk of Kansas and Missouri GAP Classifications.

Kansas GAP Classification AES Type 1 AES Type 2 Missouri GAP Classification Water Aquatic Communities Open Water Open Water Cultural or Sparsely Barren or Sparsely Vegetated Barren or Sparsely Vegetated Vegetated Land Land Cultural or Sparsely Cultivated Land Cultivated Land Row and Close-grown Crops Vegetated Land Cultural or Sparsely Developed Land Urban Impervious Vegetated Land Cultural or Sparsely Developed Land Urban Vegetated Vegetated Land Cultural or Sparsely Non-native Grassland Cultural Grassland Cool-season Grassland Vegetated Land CRP (Conservation Reserve Cultural or Sparsely Cultural Grassland Program) Vegetated Land Maple-Basswood Forest Natural Communities - Forest Deciduous Forest Deciduous Forest Oak-Hickory Forest Natural Communities - Forest Deciduous Forest Deciduous Forest Post Oak-Blackjack Oak Natural Communities - Deciduous Woodland Forest Grassland and Transitional Natural Communities - Mixed Oak Ravine Woodland Deciduous Woodland Grassland and Transitional Natural Communities - Deciduous Woodland Deciduous Woodland Grassland and Transitional Natural Communities – Deciduous Woodland Glade Complex Grassland and Transitional Eastern Red Cedar and Red Mixed Evergreen-Deciduous Natural Communities - Forest Cedar-Deciduous Forest and Forest Woodland Mixed Evergreen-Deciduous Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Natural Communities - Forest Forest Woodland Mixed Evergreen-Deciduous Shortleaf Pine Forest and Natural Communities - Forest Forest Woodland Natural Communities - Tall Grass Prairie Grassland Warm-season Grassland Grassland and Transitional Natural Communities - Mixed Prairie Grassland Warm-season Grassland Grassland and Transitional Natural Communities - Lowland Hardwood Forest Pecan Floodplain Forest Lowland and Woodland

4 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Kansas GAP Classification AES Type 1 AES Type 2 Missouri GAP Classification Ash-Elm-Hackberry Floodplain Natural Communities - Lowland Hardwood Forest Bottomland Hardwood Forest Forest Lowland and Woodland and Woodland Natural Communities - Lowland Hardwood Forest Bottomland Hardwood Forest Cottonwood Floodplain Forest Lowland and Woodland and Woodland Natural Communities - Lowland Hardwood Forest Mixed Oak Floodplain Forest Lowland and Woodland Natural Communities - Lowland Hardwood Forest Bur Oak Floodplain Woodland Lowland and Woodland Cottonwood Floodplain Natural Communities - Lowland Hardwood Forest Bottomland Hardwood Forest Woodland Lowland and Woodland and Woodland Lowland Hardwood Forest Natural Community – Lowland Swamp and Woodland Natural Communities - Marsh and Wet Herbaceous Low or Wet Prairie Lowland Vegetation Natural Communities - Marsh and Wet Herbaceous Marsh and Wet Herbaceous Freshwater Marsh Lowland Vegetation Vegetation Natural Communities - Marsh and Wet Herbaceous Marsh and Wet Herbaceous Cattail Marsh Lowland Vegetation Vegetation

2.1.2. Digital Database

Data collected for use in the ecological classification and natural resource inventory were assembled in a functional spatial database. These data came from a variety of sources, including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), Kansas Biological Survey (KBS), MARC, Missouri Spatial Data Information Service (MSDIS), Kansas Data Access and Support Center (DASC), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and local governments) and were obtained in digital form, or digitized by AES if the information was critical (e.g., Missouri Natural Features Inventory reports). Field data gathered by AES also were incorporated into this spatial database. All data were rectified to a base projection. In addition to field information, orthorectified aerial photography (2001), and land cover data, the following data were assembled:

• MARC planning area boundaries • Municipal, state, and federal jurisdictional boundaries • Floodplains and flood-prone areas • Streams and water resources (including National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetlands and ponds) • MARC’s files of roads and similar information • Contours and other topography features • Natural resource inventories and rare natural features locations • Soils, including hydric soils

In addition, a subset of information was also collected in Jackson County where stream assessments were completed for three demonstration watersheds. Three separate reports, currently being finalized, contain information from Jackson County stream assessments . Information gathered for these assessments included the sources cited above, as well as field verification of problem areas; opportunity areas for the treatment of stream erosion, flooding, and poor water quality; and stream-related physical data necessary for modeling. A summary of data conversion methods, data applicability, and related information is provided in Appendix A.

5 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

2.2. Field Reconnaissance

The objective of field reconnaissance was to obtain information to verify land cover and species and, if necessary, revising the ecological land cover classification and resulting mapping. By evaluating the condition of selected natural resources, an understanding of the conservation needs in the Kansas City metropolitan area would be achieved. The field reconnaissance was completed in two phases: an initial field reconnaissance, and a second, followup field reconnaissance. The first field reconnaissance was performed in Jackson County, with the intent of extrapolating the findings to the rest of the region. The second field reconnaissance was conducted throughout the Kansas City region at plant communities where classification questions remained. The field reconnaissance involved visiting locations that represented the entire county and region, as well as to locate significant and rare natural resources, such as remnant prairies and undisturbed forests. The results of the field reconnaissance were used to create an initial ecological land cover classification and natural resources inventory for the region.

2.2.1. First Field Reconnaissance

The first field reconnaissance was completed September 15-18, 2003. Five AES staff and one employee of Patti Banks and Associates (PBA) formed two teams and visited over 150 locations in Jackson County. The following data were obtained at locations that were used as references for revising the ecological land cover classification:

• County • Site Number • AES Type 1 • AES Type 2 • Canopy Dominants (trees collectively comprising 90% of highest vegetation layer) • Subcanopy Dominants (trees/shrubs collectively comprising 90% of layer below canopy) • Groundlayer Dominants (trees/shrubs/herbs collectively comprising 90% of <1m vegetation) • Other Species (common species, species indicative of site diversity, rare species, etc.) • Condition Rank (based on level of disturbance and quality of community) • Notes (remarks that further describe the site) • Soil Series (from soils map) • Kansas/Missouri GAP Type (from GAP land cover map) • Stewardship Problems (invasive species, fire suppression, over-grazing, erosion, etc.)

Locations of visited sites were digitized and the field information entered into a database. Prior to visiting sites in the field, field maps were prepared. Separate maps showed AES Type 2 ecological land cover, GAP land cover, and soils data on a base of streams, roads, municipal boundaries, and contours. These maps initially were produced on paper at a 1:2,000 scale.

At each site in Jackson County the GAP type was checked and the edge of the GAP polygon was examined relative to the aerial photographs. This provided more detailed understanding of the limitations of the GAP classification and the changes necessary to improve its quality.

6 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

2.2.2 Second Field Reconnaissance

After evaluation of the data compiled from the first field reconnaissance, two AES teams convened in Kansas City during the period of November 18-21, 2003 to complete the second field reconnaissance. Staff sought to represent all habitats, slopes, aspects, and geographical locations in the Kansas City region for those natural communities where classification questions remained. During the second field reconnaissance, all data were placed in digital form on laptop computers carried in the field. Digital information could be displayed on orthophotographs from which field staff selected sites and navigated to them.

With each site inspected, staff digitized the location in the GIS program, and entered data into the database linked to that digital location. Other data were written on field forms for later data entry into the GIS program. In addition, AES searched for natural communities in good ecological condition, although project constraints did not permit region-wide ground inventory work. AES planned to add these better condition natural communities to the reference sites already assembled from previous inventories in order to later contribute to a conservation plan for the Kansas City region.

AES teams checked over 150 locations outside Jackson County. AES digitized these locations and entered field data in the spatial database. These field data were combined with previous field data, Heritage program field data, and Natural More than 300 sites in the Kansas City region were evaluated Resources Inventory data during the first and second field reconnaissances. collected by others. These digitized field data established a set of reference stands to aid future classification and inventory work, and help to establish conservation priorities in the Kansas City region.

2.2.3 Field Reconnaissance Data Evaluation

Correlation of the field information on ecological conditions of natural resources to the aerial photography available for the region is essential for successful data evaluation. To accomplish this, ecological conditions were ranked at many locations using a pre-determined ranking system (Table 2-2). Aerial photography was then examined to determine if the ecological conditions seen in the field were readily apparent on the aerial photography.

In general, it was found during the two field reconnaissances that the condition of natural resources in the field was not readily apparent on aerial photography, except for the more mature forests and remnant prairies. The more mature forests were generally classified as forests in GAP, while less mature forests were classified by GAP as woodlands. It was also determined, using soils information, that most of the GAP woodlands in the Kansas City metropolitan area have developed where prairie grew 150 years ago. As such, they represent forests of poorer ecological conditions compared to forests which have existed at the same location for a more substantial period of time, as is the case for the more mature forests of the

7 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region region. Forests on historical forest and savanna soils are significant and deserving of conservation because they represent the original forest conditions of the region.

Table 2-2. Ecological Condition Ranks (letters may be combined to suggest a range of conditions)

A Excellent. The plant community is intact and fully functional. Its soils, vegetation structure, plant diversity, and ecosystem functions have not changed substantially for decades, if not centuries. B Good. The plant community is intact and functional, but soils, vegetation structure, and plant diversity were slightly modified by land use during the past century or more. C Fair. The plant community is damaged and has lost species and ecosystem functions as a result of incompatible land use during the past century or more. Its vegetation structure can be quite different from that existing in the plant community over a century ago. D Poor. The plant community is highly damaged by long-term incompatible land use, but is still recognizable as a plant community of the type. Soils are usually intact, but vegetation structure has changed greatly, and many species have been lost and replaced by non-native invasive species. NR Not Ranked. The location is culturally created (e.g., residences, cropland, orchard, pasture, and impoundment).

Generally, the poor-quality forests became established on soils that were transitional between typical grassland and typical forest soils. It was also found that some GAP forests located on these soils were recovering from severe cutting decades ago. These forests contained large honey-locust (Gleditsia tricanthos), an indicator of disturbance, rather than large oak (Quercus) trees encountered in the more mature forests on forest soils of the region. Generally, a predominance of oak in a forest of the Kansas City region indicates better ecological conditions.

Remnant prairies were also evident on the aerial photography by the color and the texture of the photograph. The GAP classification and inventory work did not accurately locate remnant prairies. Remnant prairies visited during AES field reconnaissance were discovered by AES or already known through previous inventories. While AES staff identified potential remnant prairies by their color-texture signature, project constraints limited opportunities to locate and visit all remnant prairies in the Kansas City metropolitan area.

To assure that field data collected for the natural resource inventory were consistent with accepted standards, a meeting of technical experts and other stakeholders from the region was held October 23-24, 2003 in Kansas City. Meeting participants evaluated the ecological land cover classification and natural resource inventory methods of this project, and contributed information on important natural resource areas known to them. The stream assessments performed in Jackson County were discussed, and suggested modifications were provided at this meeting and in separate meetings with federal and state regulatory agency personnel and Jackson County staff. The outcomes of the first field reconnaissance and this meeting provided an initial ecological land cover classification as described below.

8 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

2.3 Initial Ecological Land Cover Classification and Natural Resources Inventory (Jackson County)

The initial ecological land cover (ELC) classification was created and the natural resources of Jackson County were mapped in November 2003. This map and classification formed the basis for developing the eight-County Kansas City Region map used in the second field reconnaissance. Detailed information on the creation of this classification and map are provided in Appendix A, but a brief summary follows.

2.3.1. Aquatic Communities

Aquatic Communities include areas of open water for a substantial part of the year. The information was derived from NWI data that was incorporated into the project database. Polygons coded as open water or aquatic bed were selected from the NWI data set and mapped. These polygons were verified and corrected against the digital orthorectified aerial photography.

In addition to using digital mapping information, stream assessments were completed in Jackson County for the Bur Oak, Little Cedar, and Round Grove Creek watersheds. While this information was not directly used for the creation of the regional ELC classification, it was used to establish the methodology that could be used for completing future stream assessments in the region. Also, the reports provided a template for completing similar work in the region.

These assessments identified the critical issues which related to stormwater and natural resource management and simultaneously developed Stream assets are numerous throughout the strategies and actions to address those critical Kansas City metropolitan region issues. The reports will be available from Jackson County when completed.

2.3.2. Natural Communities

Natural communities are recognizable as examples Natural communities of the Kansas City of plant communities that existed in the Kansas region have existed for several thousand City metropolitan area for several thousand years. years, and they still retain many of the Many of these plant communities have same native species and provide similar experienced some alteration due to land use wildlife habitat and ecological functions as practices, but still retain many of the same native they would have 150 years ago. species, exhibit much of the same vegetation structures, and provide similar wildlife habitat and ecological functions (such as water retention and infiltration) as they would have 150 years ago.

Natural communities are the focus of inventory work because, due to their rarity in the Kansas City region and the great expense and difficulty of replacing them, they will become the chief object of conservation and protection work. Natural communities in the Kansas City

9 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region metropolitan region are used by the Missouri and Kansas state governments, and local non- profit conservation groups (e.g., The Nature Conservancy) in their own natural resource inventories. Using natural communities is a way to create a common language among parties interested in natural resource conservation, protection, and use.

The following categories of natural communities were mapped in this report.

2.3.2.1. Forests

An accurate forest layer was created for Jackson and Johnson Counties from recent aerial photography (circa 2001). Forests in the other six Kansas City region counties were classified using the AES classification and GAP data. Forest boundaries created from GAP data do not match recent aerial photography and date from 1991 in Missouri and the late 1990’s in Kansas.

In this study forest classification and natural resource inventory work for Jackson and Johnson Counties are more accurate than the forest work in other counties. Jackson and Johnson Counties provide a model and goal for future classification and inventory work in the other six counties.

Oaks are often dominant in upland settings, with the addition of other tree species in lowland settings. Layers of tree saplings and shrubs grow beneath the uppermost tree canopy. Forests in good ecological condition have a groundcover comprised of tree seedlings, shrubs, and native wildflowers, grasses, Forest community on rolling terrain in and sedges. Forests in poor ecological Leavenworth County, Kansas condition have few if any oaks in the tree canopy, few native plant species in the ground layer, and an abundance of non-native or highly invasive woody plants beneath the tree canopy [e.g., buckbrush (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus), Tartarian and Japanese honeysuckles (Lonicera tatarica and L. japonica).

Forests identified by the GAP classification work ranged from good to poor ecological condition, and up to 50% of the forest boundaries for some polygons locations did not match the orthorectified aerial photography. In addition, the GAP data were developed from 1991 imagery, and therefore were out-of-date. Development has since destroyed or altered some of the forests.

To rectify this, AES completed an unsupervised classification of 2001 aerial photography in Jackson County. A detailed explanation of this process is provided in Appendix A. AES then edited this unsupervised classification to create a forest land cover layer. Three sources of error were encountered. First, the unsupervised classification selected tree shadows adjacent to forests and included them in the forest layer, resulting in slightly unmatched forest polygon boundaries. Second, old fields being invaded by brush and young trees were also selected as forest areas. Third, areas of moist soils that appeared dark on aerial photographs were also selected. AES staff removed these errors by hand-editing the unsupervised classification.

10 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

While this method created a very accurate and up-to-date forest layer in Jackson County, it proved too expensive to repeat in the remaining counties.

Johnson County recently completed a land cover classification and inventory which resulted in a forest layer with accurate polygon boundaries. AES classified the Johnson County forest layer polygons using GAP data. For example, a Johnson County forest polygon that was classified as deciduous forest by GAP was called deciduous forest.

The forest classification and inventory was further refined in Jackson and Johnson Counties using soils data from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys (Appendix B). Soil conditions have a direct effect on the types and quality of vegetation that will grow in different areas. Different NRCS soil units correspond to different AES soil types, which in turn are typically associated with certain natural communities. Association of soils to vegetative communities was tested and employed in Jackson and Johnson Counties, but was not used in the other six counties. Forest soils (technically hapludalfs, soils that are transitional between grassland and forest) correspond to upland forests in the Kansas City region. Grassland soils were upland prairies 150 years ago, and today support a variety of natural communities. Present-day forests that established on grassland soils typically are of less ecological quality than forests that have grown on soils that favor high quality trees. Similarly, existing prairie remnants on grassland soils are usually in better ecological condition than those not on grassland soils. As an example, soils that are shallow, such as soils of the Oska series, once supported glades, savannas, prairies, and other rare natural communities. Today many of these soils support poor-quality forest or disturbed pastureland.

Soils in the Kansas City region that are Lack of regular burning and/or haying of wet occasionally flooded are historically capable of prairie vegetation has resulted in succession supporting wet prairie, a valuable vegetative to lowland hardwood forest and woodland. resource. The lack of regular burning and/or haying of wet prairie vegetation over the past several decades, however, has resulted in succession of these areas to lowland hardwood forest and woodland. Some soils that are occasionally or continuously flooded are classified as hydric. Hydric soils support wetlands, typically marsh and wet herbaceous vegetation, including shrubby wetlands.

In Jackson and Johnson Counties, the digitized forest layers were subdivided into deciduous forest, lowland hardwood forest and woodland, and deciduous woodland/immature forest based on these soils data and GAP data. One GAP forest type (mixed evergreen-deciduous forest) corresponded to former savanna areas and was identified in the other six counties, but not in Jackson or Johnson Counties.

2.3.2.2. Lowland Communities

The trees of lowland hardwood forests are primarily non-oak species, although bur (Quercus macrocarpa) and swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor) both occur, and even occasionally chinkapin oak (Quercus muhlenbergii). In their condition 150 years ago, these forests resembled savanna, with scattered large bur, swamp white, and chinquapin oaks, cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). In the absence of fire, other trees [e.g., American elm (Ulmus americanus), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), honey-locust, and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanicus)] have filled canopy gaps and overtaken the wet meadows formerly located in these areas as well. Remnant wet meadows are dominated by grasses, sedges, and various wildflowers. Poor ecological conditions are indicated by an abundance of reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea), invasive tree species, and poor groundlayer diversity.

11 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

These natural communities are found on occasionally flooded and hydric soils. As described above, the lowland hardwood forest was mapped where recently flooded or hydric soils overlapped with up-to-date forest layers in Jackson and Johnson Counties and with GAP forest data in the remaining six counties. Marsh and wet herbaceous vegetation polygons were derived from NWI data and GAP data. Included are NWI polygons coded as emergent wetland, wet meadow, and shrub swamp. Marsh and wet herbaceous vegetation were required to be located on occasionally flooded or hydric soils.

2.3.2.3. Grassland-Savanna-Woodland Communities

These rare natural communities proved the most difficult to locate using this methodology. Included in this group are limestone glades, sparsely vegetated natural communities with scattered oaks [chinquapin, post (Quercus stellata), and blackjack (Q. marilandica)] and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). A variety of native wildflowers, grasses and sedges grow in limestone glades. This plant community often contains species that are rare in the Kansas City region. Upland prairie is well known, but also rare in the Kansas City region, along with the species, which inhabit it. In this study, AES uses the term “grassland” to indicate natural communities recognizable as native prairie, but in addition former prairies that have been interseeded with tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) or planted to smooth brome (Bromus inermis), yet still may support scattered native prairie plants and function as hayfield or pasture. Prairie in the best ecological condition would be located on grassland soils.

Savannas are comprised of a mixture of trees, shrubs and groundcover, but Prior to 1850, prairie and savanna blanketed the majority of require fire, light grazing, or haying to the Kansas City region. Today they are among the region’s persist in recognizable form. Prior to rarest natural communities. 1850, prairie and savanna blanketed the majority of the Kansas City region. Today they are among the region’s rarest natural communities. Conversion to cropland, heavy grazing by livestock, and the lack of fire have altered over 95% of the region’s original prairies and savannas so that today they are not recognizable as these natural community types.

Because of the difficulty of locating these communities, additional, intensive inventory work is necessary to locate remnant prairies, savannas, and limestone glades in the Kansas City region. Locations for these natural communities reported by previous inventories were digitized or added to the project’s spatial database, and then used by AES to specify the site conditions where these communities would mostly likely be found. AES also located remnant glades, prairies, and savannas for inclusion in this spatial database.

Limestone glades were most likely to be found on shallow soils (e.g., Oska) identified as deciduous forest or woodland in GAP data. On aerial photographs, patches of light-colored

12 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region limestone and sparse vegetation were visible among small clumps of trees and shrubs. Prairie was found on grassland or thin soils and had a characteristic dried-blood color and finely-dotted texture. Winter wheat fields, old fields with abundant goldenrod (e.g., Canadian goldenrod [Solidago canadensis) and tall goldenrod (S. gigantea)], and some recently mowed areas had a similarly-colored signature, but a smoother or coarser texture than native prairies. CRP fields resembled native prairie on aerial photographs and required a site visit to determine the true origin of the grassland.

AES developed a method to identify potential savannas in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Potential savannas are located on forest soils or thin soils. In addition, they are located on slopes (>6%), which face southerly and westerly (from 135 to 315 degrees). They are often classified in GAP as deciduous forest or mixed evergreen-deciduous forest. Even if current aerial photography indicates a potential savanna site is forested, those sites often are tinted reddish due to the underlying groundlayer vegetation. These locations have the greatest potential of any location in the Kansas City region for restoration to ecological conditions resembling those of 150 years ago. Restoration would involve careful thinning of selected trees and prescribed burning. Site visits would be necessary to determine the potential of the groundlayer to recover its native sedges, grasses, and wildflowers. Sites that have Restoring extensive savannas would improve been heavily grazed for decades have the runoff infiltration, provide habitat, and create least potential to recover a native beautiful open woodlands. groundlayer. Restoring extensive savannas would improve runoff infiltration above stream valleys, provide habitat for uncommon species, and create beautiful open woodlands for recreation and aesthetic enjoyment.

2.3.3. Cultural or Sparsely Vegetated Land

Cultural or sparsely vegetated lands do not typically include natural communities, but rather combinations of plant life and built surfaces that are used intensively by people. They include cropland, cool-season grasslands, urban and suburban areas, and highly disturbed lands.

2.3.3.1. Developed Land

Because development of land has progressed at a rapid rate in the Kansas City metropolitan area in the decade since the Missouri GAP mapping was completed (Kansas GAP data is more recent), AES decided to update information on developed lands in the Kansas City metropolitan area. To do this, cadastral data from municipal tax rolls were obtained and modified as described in Appendix A. Where Developed land includes land that has been taken cadastral data were not available, 911 out of it’s natural condition and is continuously used emergency response road centerline for the benefit of the human population, including data were used to identify developed residence, commerce, transportation and industry, areas (Appendix A). This assumes and other cultural uses. that, outside the developed areas in municipalities, these small parcels resulted from subdivision of and therefore contained or would soon contain a built structure.

There is an ecological justification for this decision. Over the span of a decade or more, the presence of a home, cabin, commercial building, or even a staging area or parking lot within or adjacent to natural communities causes those natural communities to become less viable for certain wildlife species, as well as for native plants. The long-term survival of many wildlife and

13 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region plant species in the Kansas City region requires large, continuous blocks of natural communities. Without careful planning and long-term stewardship, the cultural and built environment leads to the introduction of non-native aggressive plants [e.g., Japanese honeysuckle, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata)]; shifts the balance of habitat to favor small predators (e.g., house cats, raccoons, skunks, and crows), which eat birds, eggs, reptiles, amphibians, and other wildlife; and prevents the execution of prescribed burning and other land management due to the proximity of real estate and development.

2.3.3.2. Urban Forest

In Jackson and Johnson Counties small parcels of undeveloped forest land were mapped as urban forest. These forests have value to local residents, despite having lower ecological value than large blocks of forests in rural areas. AES split these forests from other forests using parcel data in order to elevate the value of these forests in development areas.

2.3.3.3. Other Cultural Types

These include three types of land—cultural grassland, cultivated land, and agricultural lands. Cultural grassland is cool-season, non-native grassland that largely lacks native species, and also cropland that has been abandoned and has been colonized by weedy plants, shrubs, and trees. Cultivated land is currently cultivated to crops that are harvested each year. Agricultural lands are primarily used for a mixture of agricultural uses and also small patches of natural communities, and they may contain buildings. AES derived these layers from GAP data, parcel data, and as the “negative” of the natural communities already mapped.

2.4. Extrapolation to Eight-County Kansas City Region

Using the classification described above, AES mapped the eight-county Kansas City region prior to conducting the second field reconnaissance. This classification and ecological land cover map used in the field tested the accuracy of data that AES staff collected during the second field reconnaissance. Based on this classification, and following the second field reconnaissance of the entire region, a final classification was produced.

2.5. Final Ecological Land Cover Classification and Natural Resources Inventory (Kansas City Region)

Results from the second field reconnaissance were used to refine the initial ELC classification (Table 2-3). Using the final ELC classification, the natural resources of the eight-county Kansas City region were mapped as shown in Figure 2-1, and are discussed in the next section.

Table 2-3. Ecological Land Cover Types for the Kansas City Region Aquatic Communities Open Water – Standing water for a significant part of the year Natural Communities – Lowland Lowland Hardwood Forest & Woodland – Open to closed forest canopy in flooded or wetland areas Marsh & Wet Herbaceous Vegetation – Wetlands without a closed forest canopy; includes brush and scattered trees

14 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Table 2-3. Ecological Land Cover Types for the Kansas City Region Natural Communities – Forest Deciduous Forest – Mostly closed canopy of deciduous trees, often mature; includes former savannas on south to west slopes. Mixed Evergreen Deciduous Forest – Open to mostly closed canopy of junipers and deciduous trees; often oaks; may include former savannas Natural Communities – Deciduous Woodland/Immature Forest – Open Grassland-Savanna-Woodland canopy of deciduous trees; often immature; may contain former savannas, or glades on soils with bedrock close to surface. Grassland – Grassland, often containing native wild plants; may include CRP plantings. Cultural or Sparsely Vegetated Urban Forest – Deciduous canopy cover within an Land urbanized location (specific to Jackson and Johnson Counties) Cultural Grassland – Grassland of planted domesticated grasses, or formerly cultivated land reverting to grassland and sometimes brush. Agricultural Land – Used as farmland (specific to Jackson and Johnson Counties). Cultivated Land – Used as cropland. Developed Land – Urban and suburban land uses, including homes, businesses, roads Unclassified– Insufficient data to classify

15 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Figure 2-1

Ecological Land Cover Map Kansas City Natural Resource Inventory

1

Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

3. Ecological Land Cover Classification and Natural Resource Inventory Outcomes

The ELC classification and the NRI have provided an updated source of data for the Kansas City region that can be used by cities and counties within the metropolitan region for planning of community growth and development while also planning for resource conservation. The results of this study and the use of the outcomes of this project, primarily the Ecological Land Cover maps (including individual maps of the numerous natural resources, parks, green spaces, and infrastructure systems) are presented in this section.

3.1 ELC/NRI Results

The distribution of ecological land cover is illustrated in Figure 3-1 below, the Ecological Land Cover Map, and is summarized in Table 3-1 on the following page.

Open Water, 1.61% Agriculture Mixed Evergreen Deciduous, 0.42% Cultivated Land Unclassified, 0.12% Marsh/ Wet Herbaceous Vegetation, 1.70% Cultural Grassland Urban Forest, 2.16% Low land Hardw ood Forest Deciduous Forest Woodland, 3.06% Agriculture, 0.55% Grassland, 1.80% Dec. Woodland Immature Forest Cultivated Land, 27.43% Developed Land

Grassland Developed Land, 20.42% Lowland Hardwood Forest Woodland

Dec. Woodland Immature Marsh/ Wet Herbaceous Vegetation Forest, 4.45% Mixed Evergreen Deciduous Deciduous Forest, 8.88% Cultural Grassland, 27.41% Open Water

Unclassified Figure 3-1 Distribution of Ecological Land Cover in the Kansas City Region Urban Forest

In general, the data show that the region’s undeveloped land is dominated by land used for agricultural purposes, a reflection of the region’s history, and for human dwellings and businesses. About 75% of the region’s land area is dedicated to crops (cultivated land), non-native pastures and hay meadows (cultural grassland), and residences and businesses (developed land). Land utilized for agriculture is well distributed in the region; however, a significant amount dominates the land cover in Cass, Platte, and Ray Counties in Missouri, and Leavenworth County in Kansas. While agricultural lands make up most of the ecological land cover in the region, and urban or developed lands also occupy much of the land in the core urban areas, 22 percent of the area, or approximately 538,000 acres (840 square miles), have been identified as areas that may retain natural or near-natural ecological conditions and present opportunities for conservation and restoration.

17 Table 3-1 Ecological Land Cover in the Kansas City Region Percent Ecological Leavenworth Jackson MO Clay MO Cass MO Platte MO Ray MO Wyandotte KS Johnson KS Total of Classifi- KS Acres Total cation acres % acres % acres % acres % acres % acre % acres % acres % Area Open Water 8,730 2% 7,702 3% 6,463 1% 5,677 2% 5,413 1% 1,125 1% 2,240 1% 2,147 1% 39,497 1.61% Lowland Hardwood Forest & Woodland 22,866 6% 6,039 2% 13,375 3% 10,845 4% 5,753 2% 1,618 2% 8,766 3% 5,870 2% 75,132 3.06% Marsh/ Wet Herbaceous Vegetation 2,175 1% 4,978 2% 2,333 1% 8,955 3% 6,870 2% 3,469 3% 8,305 3% 4,562 2% 41,647 1.70% Deciduous Forest 15,294. 4% 17,078 6% 25,737 6% 27,034 10% 37,211 10% 16,164 16% 67,927 23% 11,643 4% 218,088 8.88% Mixed Evergreen- Deciduous 4,705.5 1% 0 0% 368 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5,138 2% 10,211 0.42% Deciduous Woodland/ Immature Forest 31,953 8% 9,351 4% 19,591 4% 11,156 4% 19,947 5% 687.5 1% 5,714 2% 10,9010 4% 109,309 4.45% Grassland 900 0% 0 0% 7,868.0 2% 0 0% 0 0% 1,825 2% 19,527 7% 13,985 5% 44,105 1.80% Urban Forest 43,382.5 11% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9,776 3% 53,148 2.16% Cultural Grassland 60,407 15% 94,332 36% 188,165 42% 82,698 30% 132,690 36% 7,939 8% 70,183 24% 37,011 13% 673,425 27.41%

Agriculture NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 13,619 5% 13,619 0.55% Cultivated Land 78,107 20% 47,878 18% 128,874 29% 104,227 38% 154,996 42% 11,263 11% 88,460 30% 60,008 20% 673,813 27.43% Developed Land 125,037 32% 75,594 29% 56,733 13% 26,778 10% 8,337 2% 55,529 56% 23,551 8% 130,154 44% 501,613 20.42%

Unclassified 268.5 0% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,696 1% 2,964.50 0.12% Total 393,826 100% 262,953 100% 449,506 100% 277,371 100% 371,218 100% 99,620 100% 294,671 100% 293,900 100% 2,456,572 100% Acreage Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Many opportunities for conservation exist for ecological land cover areas as defined in Section 2 and in Table 3-1, including deciduous mature and immature woodland/forest, lowland hardwood forest with herbaceous vegetation, mixed evergreen and deciduous woodland, and, particularly characteristic of this area, native grasslands, marshes, and aquatic systems that contain wetland vegetation. Many of these areas are currently located in rural or semi-rural areas along river and stream corridors, near open water, and in non-forested upland areas. These features present opportunities not only for parkland and recreational use, but also for promoting the conservation of important ecological systems that both represent our environmental heritage and provide valuable resource benefits to our communities.

Review of the ELC map indicates that several natural communities exist throughout the region. The current data shows numerous areas in Leavenworth and Johnson Counties in Kansas that have large tracts of native communities. Wyandotte County, Kansas, while largely developed for urban utilization, also contains several large tracts of deciduous forest. While the Missouri counties (Platte, Ray, Clay, Jackson, and Cass) show large areas dominated by land used for agriculture and/or urban development, the original classification of the data from the USGS GAP, may not reflect many areas and tracts that contain native vegetation that provide opportunities for conservation because the data collected several years ago. In fact, the Missouri GAP data don’t list native grasslands when, in fact, many areas of native prairies exist within the four counties that are of high enough quality to be considered for conservation and restoration. An example of how this data may be used is provided in the next section. By county, conservation areas may include the following:

1. Cass County, Missouri: The land cover data show that most of the county is in cultivated or cultural grasslands (71 percent). The data show, however, that 16 percent of the land cover is lowland hardwood and upland deciduous forest, with another 7,868 acres, or 2 percent of the land area, in native grassland. These resources may be considered for conservation, particularly near many of the growing communities and along stream and rivers in the county.

Several areas with native vegetation exist throughout the Kansas City metropolitan area that are worthy of conservation.

19 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

2. Clay County, Missouri: The ecological land cover data indicates that 14 percent or more of the land may have conservation value, particularly large areas of lowland hardwood and upland deciduous forests. The data show that the majority of the county is either developed or in cultural grassland, but areas of native grassland probably exist throughout the county that may be considered for conservation.

3. Jackson County, Missouri: The data show that extensive areas of this county are developed. However, large areas of forested land covering 18 percent of the county provide many conservation opportunities, some of which have already been undertaken by the County in their planning process. The data also show large amounts of urban forest that are valued by citizens of the county in parkland and in border areas, and 2,175 acres of wetland vegetation that can be considered in the planning process.

4. Johnson County, Kansas: Many opportunities for conservation of woodlands and prairies exist throughout Johnson County, especially in the fringes of suburban development. An estimated 19 percent of the land cover in Johnson County is listed as lowland hardwood and upland forests and native grasslands. Many of these areas are near streams and rivers that drain the county and present opportunities for parkland, buffer areas, and environmental quality.

5. Leavenworth County, Kansas: The ecological land cover data show that Leavenworth County has extensive areas with native vegetation that can be considered for conservation through the planning processes as this county grows in population. The data indicate that 38 percent of the land area in Leavenworth County, or 52,099 acres of land are mapped as lowland hardwood forest, deciduous forest (mature and immature), marsh/wetland vegetation, and as native grassland. In particular, 23 percent of the land is shown as deciduous forest, a resource that provides opportunities for maintaining environmental quality, water quality, stream buffers, and parkland throughout the county.

6. Platte County, Missouri: Twenty-one percent of Platte County is identified as lowland hardwood, deciduous (mature and immature) forest, and marsh/wetland vegetation. The nature of the land cover in the county would suggest, however, that many areas of native prairie also exist and should also be considered for conservation. Many of these areas (woodland forest and prairie) may be along the Missouri River and its tributaries that are in Platte County.

7. Ray County, Missouri: Ray County is dominantly rural (only 2 percent developed land) with 78 percent of the land cover listed as cultural grassland and cultivated land. Nineteen percent of the land cover, however, is identified as forested or marsh/wetland vegetation. Like the other Missouri counties in the Kansas City metropolitan region, the rural, undeveloped nature of the county suggests that many areas of native prairie exist, and together with forested land, there are many opportunities to conserve these native areas and utilize them for enhanced environmental quality, parkland and recreation, and wildlife/game management.

8. Wyandotte County, Kansas: The majority of Wyandotte County is developed land (56 percent), and 19 percent is identified as cultural grassland or cultivated. This smallest of the metropolitan area counties (with 99, 620 acres total land area) also contains nearly 24,000 acres of land identified as woodland/forest (19 percent), marsh/wetland vegetation (3 percent), and native grassland (2 percent) with conservation opportunities particularly in the western and northwestern portions of the county along streams that drain to the Missouri River.

Regionally, conservation opportunities often extend beyond county and community boundaries, suggesting that to optimally conserve resources and provide enhance environmental quality,

20 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

local governments and conservations groups may seek to work together in formulating long term plans that include conservation and restoration measures within watersheds in the Kansas City area.

3.2 Ecological Land Cover Conservation

The importance and value of conserving natural resources and the ecological systems that remain in the Kansas City region is vital to the future success of our communities. One of the most important aspects of ecological conservation is protecting our natural resources, including native vegetation and wildlife. Protected habitat assures that plant and animal species will continue to live in their native habitats and persist in the Kansas City region. Conservation of native vegetation and animal species also protects our environment and communities from unwanted invasive vegetation.

Conserving natural resources is not limited to retaining spaces where native plant and animal communities can thrive. Conserving the existing ecological land cover provides substantial value and benefits for quality and protection of land planning and utilization. Such benefits include:

• Development of buffer regions around and between communities in order to provide natural breaks in land use. Buffers may include parks, riparian and native area green corridors, conservation areas, and residential conservation development.

• Utilization for parks and green space which serve recreational and education purposes. Parks can incorporate native landscape features, including aquatic, geological, and vegetation features that can provide a living monument to the original ecosystems of the Kansas City region. Within the parks, pathways and open areas can allow residents to observe vegetation and wildlife.

• Improving land value by increasing aesthetic and land use desirability. Properties adjacent to conservation areas hold higher value because of their desirability for working, playing, and living near.

• Providing buffers for stormwater management and flood prevention. Opening areas up to provide natural attenuation of stormwater allows the natural hydrologic cycle to be more balanced, lessening the risk of damaging floods while preserving the flow and aquatic wildlife of streams and rivers.

• Improving environmental quality by filtering pollutants from and air. By conserving native vegetation, a natural filtering system that captures sediments and pollutants before they enter streams, thereby improving water quality. Similarly, conservation of vegetation provides traps of airborne particulates and pollutants while also reducing the volume of noise.

• Reducing water and energy consumption. Conservation of native vegetation reduces water consumption in multiple ways, including:

Native vegetation increases infiltration of stormwater where it is then stored in the soil, minimizing the need to continually water open areas.

21 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Native vegetation is adapted to Kansas City’s climate, and requires less water to sustain a healthy plant community.

Native vegetation reduces evapotranspiration because its use of water is more efficient than non-native vegetation.

Conservation areas also reduce energy consumption by lowering the ambient temperature of surrounding areas and requiring less maintenance.

Of these benefits, the last three may provide the most distinct and important values to our communities in terms of protection of property and our environment, reduction in maintenance costs, and sustaining the quality and quantity of water.

3.3 Establishing Regional Conservation Priorities

The ecological land cover map produced and described in this technical report will be used in combination with previous inventories, AES field data, feedback from local experts, analyses (e.g., stream buffer requirements), connectivity information, public lands, and other information from local agencies, to produce a map of conservation priorities in the Kansas City region. The ecological land cover map reflects priorities to some degree. For example, all forest communities classified as Deciduous Forests in Jackson and Johnson Counties are likely to be more mature than those classified as Deciduous Woodland/i\Immature Forests due to their origination on native forest soils as opposed to the latter’s more recent origination on grassland soils. Furthermore, these immature woods are likely to be of lower ecological quality as they occur on soils not suitable for forest growth.

AES learned that previous inventories, which identified high quality sites, have become outdated. This is to be expected in a rapidly developing region. For example, the Missouri Natural Resources Inventory work completed in the 1970’s and 1980’s now contains sites, which have been developed, or have deteriorated due to incompatible land use or neglect.

The results of the NRI are available for conservation planning throughout the Kansas City metropolitan area. The information, including data for use in GIS, includes maps that show conservation elements for the entire metro area and for each county. GIS layers that show the various natural resource features of each county have been developed to clearly show where natural resources and various ecological features exist in relation to urban and agricultural areas, as well as to current Kansas City green corridor features. Other layers show existing parks and trails to demonstrate how these areas can be maximized for planning decisions regarding buffer areas, park development, and other conservation measures, as well as for determining how communities can develop around these areas.

Figure 3-2, on the following page, demonstrates an example of how using the database and GIS can illustrate the ecological features of a county in conjunction with community boundaries, roadways, parks, and Kansas City MetroGreen corridors that can be used for planning purposes. Using these features, planners can map the locations of valuable conservation areas and prioritize their conservation based on their proximity to other features such as parks, MetroGreen corridors, and surrounding geographical features, including roads and surrounding communities. Planners can utilize this information to maximize existing natural resources in the planning process, including how natural resources can be used for stormwater management,

22

Figure 3-2E cological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Example Natural Resource Conservation Planning Map (Johnson County, KS)

20 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

where future or existing parks can be planned, and how development can take place with conservation of native vegetation, aquatic features, and soils to retain the Kansas City region’s native heritage.

3.4 Public Outreach and Education

This program includes public outreach to provide an outlet for the Kansas City Natural Resources Inventory information and database. The public outreach program consists of educational sessions to describe the data collection and compilation process, including development and utilization of the GIS program for communities throughout the region to use in the planning process. In addition, presentation of brochures and posters will enable public agencies to view and utilize the NRI information as an integral component of their community planning process. The public outreach program includes the following:

1. GIS Tutorial: A tutorial that provides users information about the data compiled for this project access to the GIS features that can and should be explored for its full utility and application for planning processes.

2. Informational Brochures: Brochures and supporting text on the topics of stormwater management, big rivers conservation, greenways and parks, and community planning. These brochures can be used by MARC and local communities for explaining the ELC and NRI process and use.

3. Power Point Program: A power point presentation summarizing the natural resource inventory work can be reviewed that presents ideas on how interested parties can become involved in protection, restoration, and stewardship of these resources.

4. Case Studies: Project-specific examples of conservation, stormwater management, restoration, and management activities in the Kansas City region include a brief summaries of the work involved and cost for various projects, and will demonstrate how conservation measures are already working within the region. These case studies will be presented during public meetings and education opportunities to demonstrate how conservation measures are already working.

5. Meetings: AES and PBA will assist MARC in meetings for stakeholders in the Kansas City region. The intent is to summarize the results of this project and to seek input from experts, interested parties, and others. All outreach materials will be presented and provided at these meetings.

25 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

4. Summary and Project Evaluation

4.1 Summary

Historically, vegetation in the Kansas City region consisted largely of upland and bottomland prairies, with relatively large tracts of forests were present in the bottomlands. The majority of the area was tallgrass prairie on the gently rolling plains that were dissected by deep drainages of the tributaries of the Kansas and Missouri Rivers. Extensive aquatic and wetland communities were present, particularly in the floodplains of the larger rivers and, to a lesser extent, their tributaries.

In 2003, MARC initiated the development of a regional map depicting natural resource assets and ecological land features that now exist in the Kansas City metropolitan area, with the objective of developing a comprehensive database and GIS program for use by local governments and planning agencies to incorporate ecological and natural resource features in future development and growth. This project, inclusive of the GIS program and its regional map, represents a natural resource inventory across a broad region that is part of a larger initiative to produce the tools for communities in the Kansas City region to develop conservation plans. The multiple mapping “layers” depict the region’s vegetation resources, natural resource features (including rivers, streams, and other water features), and regional infrastructural features, such as streets and roads, political boundaries, parklands, and the MetroGreen Program, with pathways that connect the regions’ parks and greenways. These layers, either individually or combined, can be used to evaluate regional natural resources and how they can be conserved and integrated into the development of community plans.

To complete field surveys of the region’s natural resources, AES created a natural resources classification and inventory method, completed the field surveys, and developed descriptions of ecological land cover types in the Kansas City region. The AES classification and inventory method used previous work by state and federal agencies, or data gathered by MARC and the region’s counties and cities. During the field inventory, hundreds of locations were visited by staff of AES and PBA.

The inventory revealed a lot about the region’s natural resources. For example, the inventory identified 22 percent of the metropolitan region as potentially supporting high quality vegetative communities and natural resources, and that many of these areas support native vegetative communities similar to those found 150 years ago . These areas of high quality vegetative communities present many opportunities for conservation of ecosystems, habitats, and other natural resources that will benefit the overall Kansas City region. The inventory also revealed a tremendous need for ecological restoration work so that stream water quality and fish habitat can be improved, and that wildlife habitat in forests, savannas, and grasslands can again sustain high numbers of native species.

The urban areas in the Kansas City region continue to support extensive forests and restorable savannas. These areas largely consist of mature deciduous forests, lowland hardwood forests in stream valleys and river bottoms, marshes and other wetlands, and the native grasslands and savannas that were the dominant natural features of the region 150 years ago. These natural resources are concentrated along rivers and streams, near open water, on steeply-sloping land, and in rural and semi-rural areas. The extensive forests and restorable savannas in urban settings play important roles in providing recreational

26 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

opportunities, serving existing and future parkland, creating buffers for streams, and increasing awareness of the region’s environmental heritage.

Rural and semi-rural areas in both Kansas and Missouri present large tracks of both forest land and native prairie for conservation and/or restoration. The current data demonstrates numerous areas in Leavenworth and Johnson Counties in Kansas that have large tracts of native communities. Wyandotte County, Kansas, while largely developed for urban utilization, also contains several large tracts of deciduous forest. Platte, Ray, Clay, Jackson, and Cass Counties in Missouri exhibit extensive areas dominated by land used for agriculture and/or urban development, however, the original classification of the data from the USGS GAP, because it was collected several years ago, may not reflect many areas and tracts that contain native vegetation that provide opportunities for conservation.

The NRI project has identified and mapped many areas throughout the region that merit conservation or restoration. When managing our environment properly, the effort can result in cleaner water, healthier riparian corridors, and reduced erosion and sedimentation in creeks and other water bodies. Our forests, prairies, wetlands, and shrublands are essential for providing habitat for healthy and viable wildlife populations. These plant communities also improve the aesthetic appeal of the landscape, provide scenic views and green space, provide for recreational opportunities, and protect the soil from erosion.

The results of the natural resources inventory and development of an ecological cover map for the Kansas City region provide the tools that will catalyze the next phase of MARC’s initiative to address conservation and planning needs in the Kansas City region. Conservation planning not only ensures that plant and animals species continue to thrive in their native habitats, they are vital to the future success of the region’s communities. A focus on natural resource conservation and restoration benefits a resident’s quality of life by preserving natural breaks in development for nearby recreation and relaxation; by maintaining and raising land values; by improving stormwater management and reducing flood risk; and by enhancing environmental quality. Along the way, conservation and planning will maintain or improve stream flow and water quality, wildlife habitat and populations, and the rich diversity of life forms in the region. If successful, conservation and planning will bequeath the landscape remaining in a near-natural state to the future generations in the Kansas City metropolitan area.

This report presents the first steps in developing a comprehensive conservation planning process. Additional data acquisition, mapping, and planning will contribute to a more complete and accurate database that will provide essential tools for the communities in the Kansas City region to use as they plan for the future. Many of these data needs are described below. The base program has been established with this project, and Kansas City can join other major cities in the United States in successfully using natural resources for the enjoyment and benefit of its citizens.

4.2 Existing Data Gaps and Method Development Needs

Three significant issues were recognized and addressed by this ELC classification and natural resources inventory for the Kansas City region:

1. A lack of a region-wide ecological land cover classification for natural resource inventory work.

27 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

2. A lack of a recent region-wide inventory of natural resources, and

3. Previous classification and inventory work contained imprecise boundaries of natural resource types, and in their identification.

These issues were resolved largely by the creation of this ELC classification and completion of natural resource mapping. Nevertheless, data gaps remain that should be addressed for the future success of this program and for planning in the Kansas City region as a whole.

Spatial data in Jackson and Johnson Counties are more recent and accurate than the other six counties. This is due to the special procedures used to refine the existing GAP data. The method provided great detail and accuracy, but required additional resources. For example, the unsupervised forest classification followed by hand-editing in Jackson County required approximately 40 hours of labor. The high labor requirement made this method too costly to employ in the other counties, but provided a model that could be followed in other counties.

As explained in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, rare communities--prairies, limestone glades, oak savannas-- were not accurately identified in existing GAP inventories, and while AES staff located remnants of these communities, not all remnants were identified during this inventory.

Using parcel data helped to improve the currency of the spatial data, but also introduced errors to the data. This is because the parcel criteria AES used (<10 acres) to identify potentially developable lands included small undeveloped tracts used as recreation land or simply lying idle. The 1990’s GAP classification identified many of these as forest or grassland. These parcels, nevertheless, have a great potential to be developed in the future because they have been subdivided from larger agricultural ownership blocks or are inside highly developed lands.

Because of the lack of detailed inventories in counties outside Jackson and Johnson, the information in those counties must be interpreted with care. For example, in Leavenworth County it appears that there are many locations of “Grassland.” As defined in the ecological land use classification and used in the natural resource inventory work for this project, “Grassland” is a nearly treeless expanse that likely contains native plant species, and may also include CRP lands. However, in Leavenworth County these areas are not pristine prairies, and in many cases they may be significantly altered by over-seeding with non- native tall fescue, and applying herbicides to kill broad-leaved prairie plants. Nevertheless, these locations have a greater chance of containing warm-season prairie grasses and native prairie plants than those locations identified as “Cultural Grassland.” Therefore “Grassland” is used despite the potential for inaccuracy. As already mentioned, identifying all the remnant native prairies in the Kansas City region would require special inventory work outside the scope of this project.

Some data gathered for use in Jackson County stream and watershed assessment work were not used in the development of the ELC classification. These data include floodplain boundaries, stream stability models, and stream buffers. These data will be used in future work to establish conservation priorities in the Kansas City region.

AES used its field data and that of the Kansas and Missouri Heritage Programs and Biological Surveys in order to test the accuracy with which the classification and inventory

28 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

could predict ground conditions. These field data represent a small fraction of the surface area of the Kansas City region, and therefore provide only a sample of what can be expected from the classification and inventory work when it is used throughout the region. In general, deciduous forest and woodland ELC data most accurately predict conditions on the ground. AES estimates that in Jackson and Johnson Counties, the classification and natural resources inventory is greater than 90% accurate in correctly identifying land as forested or wooded, and in correctly depicting the boundary of those forests. In the other counties, because GAP was used as a basis for mapping, the accuracy of the boundary is reduced, and the accuracy of the identity of more mature Deciduous Forest was less than 90%.

The classification and inventory are less accurate in predicting Lowland Hardwood Forest and Woodland in Jackson and Johnson Counties, and lower still in the other counties. This lower performance is due to the fact that the trees, which comprise lowland hardwood forest, are also capable of invading upland draws and ravines throughout the region. On the ground it may appear that a site is lowland hardwood forest and woodland, but often these sites were prairie or savanna prior to 1850. In addition, in many locations the damming of stream segments saturates upland soils, creating lowland hardwood forest conditions where upland conditions existed previously.

Detecting prairies, limestone glades, and oak savannas in good condition will require additional detailed inventory work outside this project’s scope. This classification and inventory did not predict good examples of these communities with great certainty. However, in Jackson and Johnson Counties, the classification and inventory data identified areas with shallow soil and southern forested slopes, which have the greatest potential to support these communities. Good examples of prairies, glades, and savannas could be located with additional inventory work in the appropriate ecological land cover type and soil type.

The classification and inventory predicts wetland occurrence in the field with a reasonable accuracy due to the use of NWI mapping. However, these data are generally more than a decade old, and consequently, the classification does not match wetland boundaries to field conditions well. It is better at identifying the existence of of a wetland. However, many farm ponds and gravel bars in streams were identified as wetlands by the NWI. These were not mapped as wetlands in the ELC cover map produced here.

4.3 Future Data Acquisition and Analysis

Opportunities abound to improve and expand on the work completed for this project. To create a more detailed and comprehensive source of natural resources information that can be used throughout the Kansas City region, the following recommendations are made to accomplish the following:

• Complete an inventory for remnant prairies and limestone glades using color imagery supplemented by field assessment and verification. This inventory will be facilitated by the predictions inherent in the classification and inventory map, as well as the previous and new field inventory data assembled by AES and available with the digital data. Consultation with the KBS on the results of its 2004 tallgrass prairie inventory in Leavenworth and Johnson Counties is also suggested.

29 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

• Complete an inventory for the most restorable oak savannas in the region, again, using color imagery and field assessment. This inventory will also be supported by the predictions inherent in the classification and inventory map, as well as the previous and new field inventory data assembled and available with the digital data.

• Update the existing natural resource inventory data for the six remaining counties using current cadastral data and 911 data. The inventory has been completed for Jackson and Johnson Counties.

• In conjunction with the cadastral and 911 updates to the six counties, the NRI data can be enhanced with the creation of forest boundaries and the addition of soil and aspect information. Important ecological assumptions, found in this project, that relate forest types to landscape position could then be extrapolated to the remaining counties.

While this study has gone great lengths to map out natural resources through the utilization of existing GIS data, the project can also be enhanced with a high resolution land cover or land use data set. The creation of such a data set can efficiently be accomplished for the Kansas City Region using two methods: 1) Utilizing cadastral information or 2) Use of high resolution multi-spectral imagery. This land cover or land use data should be created and updated every 5 years ultimately allowing planners and land managers the ability to track land use change.

To optimally utilize data across community boundaries, planners and land managers will benefit if the NRI data is summarized by watershed, subwatershed, and catchment area. Watershed delineation data has been included as part of the hard drive delivery making this step a quick and easy GIS exercise. By summarizing the NRI data by various watershed parameters much can be learned in terms of the vulnerability and sensitivity of various drainage basins.

The spatial and other data assembled for this project have created an opportunity for accomplishing the next level of classification and inventory work when that time arrives. These data provide a ground-truthed basis for creating a new classification with an up-to- date satellite image of the Kansas City region. Should the opportunity arise to purchase such an image, it is recommended that the compiled old and new field data (including Natural Heritage Inventory and Biological Survey data), knowledge gained about image signatures, and the current natural resource inventory be used to create a spectral-based classification of the satellite image. Given the existing data, the greatest cost of such an effort would be obtaining the imagery and completing the spectral classification.

30 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

5.0 Acknowledgements

The staff of AES wishes to thank MARC, and in particular Tom Jacobs, Scott Paszkiewicz, and Andrea Repinsky, for their inspiration and vision, which set the course for this project. Walt Foster and others at the EPA were also very helpful in establishing the technical foundation for this project. Data came from many sources, but in particular, AES wishes to thank the following due to the large commitment they made in providing assistance: EPA, MDC, KBS, MARC, MSDIS, DASC, NRCS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Johnson County Automated Information Mapping System (AIMS) and other local governments. PBA, especially Patti Banks and Laurie Brown, shared expertise, time, and office space to bring this project to completion.

24 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

APPENDIX A

A-1: Detailed Data Collection and Conversion Methodology A-2: Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) Metadata A-3: Shape Files Used for the Kansas City NRI GIS Program

Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Appendix A-1: Detailed Data Collection and Conversion Methodology

To complete data collection for the ecological classification and inventory for the Kansas City region, AES completed the following tasks:

A. Data Assembly and Mapping: digital information from several government sources was used to establish baseline information about land cover in the region.

B. Field Reconnaissance: The digital information was validated and/or refined through field inspections and verifications.

C. Ecological Land Cover Classification Development: Using data from the data assembly and subsequent field reconnaissance, AES created an ecological classification representing existing natural resources in the region, a GIS-based information database, and a regional map of ecological land cover.

D. Data Extrapolation and Second Field Verification: The ecological classification involved an iterative process in which initial data were assembled, evaluated in the field, revised, and then re-evaluated in the field a second time. Final data were assembled after the second field reconnaissance, evaluated, and incorporated into the GIS program and the regional land cover map.

Details of how data was compiled and utilized for this project are described below.

Data Assembly and Mapping

One of the primary objectives of the Kansas City Natural Resources Inventory was the compilation of extensive amounts of data from a variety of source that could be used as a baseline for the natural resources inventory and from which to build a comprehensive GIS program. As the project began, and data sources were accessed and compiled into the program database, it was found that a lack of comprehensive, up-to-date data sets existed. These data sets were needed to create a consistent and complete region wide ecological land cover classification and natural resources inventory. While both Missouri and Kansas and their many different agencies have extensive geographical and land use data sets that provide data of different resolutions, accuracies, and formats, AES determined that the information and data available from the states would require close examination and testing to assess its quality for use in the Kansas City Natural Resource Inventory.

To overcome potential data quality issues, AES examined existing land cover classifications and existing natural resource data and tested the mapping results against recent digital orthophotos of the Kansas City Metropolitan Area. From this process, it was discovered that a “Triage” approach was necessary for project success. This approach would map different counties to different resolutions dependent upon existing data availability and coherency. Our examination of data determined that Johnson County, Kansas and Jackson County, Missouri had the most detailed and consistent data. Cass, Clay and Platte Counties, Missouri had less detailed information than Johnson and Jackson Counties, and Ray County in Missouri and Leavenworth and Wyandotte Counties in Kansas were found to have the lowest resolution data and were mapped similarly.

Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Land cover data was considered acceptable based on its ability to correctly distinguish a uniform patch of land surface on digital orthophotos (e.g., forest, grassland, urban) and correctly match the edges of the digitized polygon to that land surface patch. Based on this examination, AES found GAP data to be the most accurate and consistent when compared at a multi-county, multi-state level.

While available for both Missouri and Kansas, each state used a different GAP classification. In order to join these classifications and create a regional ecological land cover classification, AES created a two-level classification linked to the two GAP classifications (Table 1 of the “Ecological Land Cover Classification for a Natural Resources Inventory in the Kansas City Region, USA” report). This approach to combining different classifications is termed a “crosswalk.”

The final Crosswalk Classification for this study (CLASS_URBF) included the following:

Aquatic Communities

Open Water: Standing water for a significant part of the year.

Natural Communities –Lowland

Lowland Hardwood Forest and Woodland: Open to closed forest canopy in flooded or wetland areas. Marsh and Wet Herbaceous Vegetation: Wetlands without a closed canopy; includes brush and scattered trees.

Natural Communities –Forest

Deciduous Forest: Mostly closed canopy of deciduous trees, often mature; includes former savannas on south to west slopes. Mixed Evergreen-Deciduous Forest: Open to mostly closed canopy of junipers and deciduous trees, often oaks; may include form savannas

Natural Communities –Grassland-Savanna-Woodland

Deciduous Woodland/Immature Forest: More open canopy of deciduous tress, often mature. Grassland: Often containing native wild plants; may include CRP plantings.

Cultural or Sparsely Vegetated Land

Urban Forest: Deciduous canopy cover within an urbanized location (Specific to Jackson/Johnson Counties) Cultural Grassland: Grassland of planted domesticated grasses, or formerly cultivated land reverting to grassland and sometimes brush. Agricultural Land: Used as farmland (Specific to Jackson/Johnson Counties) Cultivated Land: Used as cropland Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Developed Land: Urban and suburban land uses, including homes, businesses and roads. Ares mapped may contain natural vegetation. Unclassified: Insufficient data to classify.

In order to classify data into the crosswalk classification the following methods were used.

1. “Developed” or “Undeveloped” Classification

Developed lands were the first class assigned and delineated within the NRI classification. This class is the most accurate spatially and temporally because of the source data availability. Because of its accuracy and consistency within the project area the developed land class was set to override all other classes. Once developed and undeveloped lands were distinguished the undeveloped lands class were further dissected.

1.1. Developed Classification defined: “Urban and built-up areas”

A Land Cover/Use category consisting of residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional land; construction sites; public administrative sites; railroad yards; cemeteries; airports; golf courses; sanitary landfills; sewage treatment plants; water control structures and spillways; other land used for such purposes; small parks (less than 10 acres) within urban and built-up areas; and highways, railroads, and other transportation facilities if they are surrounded by urban areas. Also included are tracts of less than 10 acres that do not meet the above definition but are completely surrounded by urban and Built-up land. Two size categories are recognized in the NRI: (i) areas 0.25 to 10 acres, and (ii) areas greater than 10 acres. [NRI-97] http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5885.html

2. Two Methods for Defining Developed Lands

Two methods were used in the classification of “developed” and “undeveloped” lands. (1) Parcel size and parcel use (cadastral data) provide the required information necessary to classify “urban area” according to NRCS’s definition (below). (2) The average distance from a road provides the second approach taken to define “developed land.”

2.1 Cadastral Method

Of the two methods, the cadastral data (parcel size and tax use values) is perhaps the most accurate and highly resolved method of classification. Because cadastral data is used for tax assessment purposes the data is developed to a set of minimum standards which are very similar across the study area. The spatial accuracy of any parcel may vary according to the data and survey methods used. The older methods are generally the least accurate. Even with this cadastral mapping variability the overall spatial accuracy of the cadastral data is significantly greater than any other land use source data available for this project. Because taxation is an annual event, parcel data is updated each time the parcels are sold and subdivided. The temporal accuracy of the data is generally accurate to within 1 year of the acquisition data (often accurate to the data of purchase) unless earlier versions are requested.

2.1.1. Redefining Urban Areas for Use with Cadastral Data

Johnson, Clay and Cass Counties were the only counties to provide workable tax use values (Further work and discussion with the various counties will be required to extract these codes Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

and their descriptions.). The tax use values can be very valuable for projects like this one because they describe the primary use of the property for tax purposes. Thus, smaller parcels used for higher intensity uses such as residential homes, commercial properties, industrial properties, etc., are more than likely developed. As parcels increase in size the reliability of the “use class” decreases as some parcels may have multiple uses or certain portions of a parcel may have a secondary or multiple different uses not defined by the use class value. Larger parcels should be reviewed and reclassified accordingly. Parcels less than or equal to 10 acres were defined as “developed”. All parcels greater than 10 acres that were not specifically defined as commercial, industrial or some other developed category were defined as “undeveloped.”

2.1.1.1. Cadastral Data Availability

Cadastral data was not available for all of the counties in the study area. As the map development began only one county had provided cadastral information. Currently all counties but one (Ray) have provided some form of cadastral data. Jackson County data has only provided geographical subsets of its attribute data (including tax use). Other counties have not provided the appropriate attribute data to perform this analysis. As a result, other methods for defining developed areas were required for this study. It may be useful to develop a GIS users group of key county officials and GIS staff in order to support the efforts of the various county mapping departments and their staff. Regular meeting would help MARC explain and demonstrate the value of cooperation in meeting the mapping needs of the region. The publication of annual map and data products would help support the efforts of individual GIS departments to develop and enhance their data development and distribution efforts.

2.1.1.2. Updating NRI Developed Lands

We strongly recommend that you pursue the acquisition of the cadastral data and the related attribute information required to map “urban and built-up areas” using this method. The use of this data is the least expensive and most accurate method to update the NRI annually. Changes in developed lands represent the continuing encroachment of development on the natural resource inventory.

2.1.1.3. Urban Area/non-Urban Area Map

An Urban Area/Non-Urban area map, a subset of the NRI map, can easily be generated from cadastral data. Change in urban area (using parcel size metric) can be measured accurately, reliably and regularly. Annual updates of this map will provide a visual presentation and data that decision-makers and the public can understand. Increases in urban area reflect reductions in the various natural resource classes.

2.2 Roadless Areas

The “roadless area method” is the second method used to classify developed land. This method is less accurate than the cadastral method and is used when cadastral data is not available and when the accuracy of the road centerline data is reasonable, i.e. when there are few omissions in the road centerline network and when road centerlines accurately overlay current orthorectified aerial photos as shown in Figure 1 below.

Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Figure 1. 911 Road centerlines overlay 2001 aerial photos with reasonable accuracy. In a few areas the centerlines were not as accurately depicted as here.

Road metrics are ideal indicators of development which includes impervious surface area and hydrologic segmentation. Roads are built to provide access. On forested land, temporary roads are needed for timber extraction and management. Agricultural land requires more permanent roads for intensive cultivation and livestock management. Residential and commercial areas require greater road densities to service smaller properties that support larger populations. Greater overall road density in a study area indicates greater intensity use of the land. In addition to their contribution to impervious surface area, the abundance, longevity, and spatial characteristics of roads affects the natural drainage system. They modify natural drainage patterns within a watershed, creating artificial, segmented hydrologic systems. They function as dikes and dams, containing and directing water into and out of these artificial basins. Overland flows enter and exit these basins through breeches in the system, e.g. culverts and bridge openings.

2.2.1 Roadless Areas Defined

Roadless area polygons are bounded by roads and railroads generated from road and railroad GIS centerline data. The road network was converted from a vector line file into a polygon theme in which the roads and railroads serve as the boundary lines of the polygons. Only centerlines that create a closed boundary around unroaded areas are converted into polygons. Cul-de-sac and other dead-end streets and roads are not incorporated into the resulting metrics. These disconnected or dangling line segments do represent important access into roadless areas. Distance from a road grid metric was used to better characterize the roadless polygon areas. Below in figure #2 you see a distance grid with the roadless polygon overlaid. Red represents a least distance from a road while blue represents a furthest distance. The black lines are the roadless polygon boundaries.

Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Figure 2. The use of grid distance from roads incorporates the access issues presented by cul- de-sacs and dead end roads that are not addressed with roadless polygon metrics. Blue areas identify the greatest distances from roads.

Using the zonal statistics function within the spatial analysis extension we were able to extract summary grid distance statistics for each roadless polygon. The average distance from a road and the maximum distance from a road were added to the roadless polygon file. The resulting roadless polygon mapped below identifies the roadless areas with the maximum distance from a road of less than 300 meters in yellow. These polygons are most often associated with developed land. Polygons with a maximum distance from a road greater than 300 meters are less often associated with developed areas.

Figure 3. Summary statistics for each roadless polygon such as the maximum distance to a road within a polygon are linked and coded to the roadless polygon record.

Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Figure 4. Roadless polygon techniques identifies more developed areas (shown in yellow). The areas in yellow have a maximum distance to a road of 300 meters. This measurement roughly corresponds to the NRCS metric defining urban areas of parcel clusters of 10 acres or less. Road centerline data is developed and maintained by Mid-America Region of Governments and is available internally to MARC.

2.2.2. Roadless Area Maps

An Urban Area/Non-Urban area map, a subset of the NRI map, can easily be generated from road centerline data. Change in urban area (using parcel size metric) can be measured accurately, reliably and regularly. The resolution and accuracy of the road centerline data is less than from cadastral data. However, updates of this map will provide a visual presentation and data that decision-makers and the public can understand. As with the cadastral version of this map, increases in urban area reflect reductions in the various natural resource classes.

3. High Resolution Forest Cover

In Jackson and Johnson County we have very accurate forest cover GIS files. In Jackson County the data was generated from the aerial photo interpretation process. In Johnson County the forest cover data was provided by the County.

4. Land Cover Data

Various sources of land use land cover data was inventoried and assessed for accuracy, precision, usability and consistency from a spatial and temporal perspective. It was determined that GAP Land Cover data was the most appropriate for this project.

4.1. Land Use and Land Cover (LULC)

Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) data from the USGS was one of the data layers inspected. LULC data consisted of historical land use and land cover classification data based primarily on the manual interpretation of 1970’s and 1980’s aerial photography Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

(http://edc.usgs.gov/products/landcover/lulc.html#top). This information could be used as a data source for change analysis. The resolution of the data fits comfortably well with NLCD or GAP data described below. Because the coverage is more than 20 years old it was not used in the development of the current natural resource maps.

4.2. The National Land Cover Characterization (NLCD)

Also reviewed was the National Land Cover Characterization (NLCD) project. The project was created in 1995 to support the original Multi-Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) initiative and fulfill the requirement to develop a nationally consistent land cover data set from MRLC data called National Land Cover Data 1992 (NLCD 92). Additional information about the project can be found at: http://landcover.usgs.gov/nationallandcover.asp.

According to product description on the USGS NLCD web site the land cover data results from the early to mid-1990s Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite data with a 30 meter resolution.” The unsupervised classification was labeled using “relatively small numbers of aerial photography for ground truth.” Leaf-off and leaf-on imagery were combined in the classification process. Classification was performed at the state level often with a mosaic up to 18 TM scenes. The “reliability of the data is greatest at the state or multi-state level.”

4.3. Gap Analysis Program (GAP)

Gap Analysis is a scientific means for assessing the extent native animal and plant species are being protected at a state, local, regional, or national level. One of the primary by-products of the GAP effort is a land use, land cover mapping data. The data was derive from satellite imagery similar to the NLDC data but has been refined specifically to identify natural community types. http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/. The National Gap Analysis Program or “GAP” function, according to its website at http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/About/Overview/GapDescription/default.htm, is to “provide broad geographic information on the status of ordinary species (those not threatened with extinction or naturally rare) and their habitats in order to provide land managers, planners, scientists, and policy makers with the information they need to make better-informed decisions”

Gap analysis is a method used to identify “the degree to which native animal species and natural communities are represented in our present-day mix of conservation lands. Those species and communities not adequately represented in the existing network of conservation lands constitute conservation gaps.” The national effort brings state and national agencies together in an effort to map the following:

• Existing natural vegetation to the level of dominant or co-dominant plant species; • predicted distribution of native vertebrate species; • Public land ownership and private conservation lands • The current network of conservation lands; and • Distributions of any native vertebrate species, group of species, or vegetation communities of interest with the network of conservation lands.

Kansas Gap data was taken from TM data since 1995 to 2000 while the Missouri Gap data was taken from TM data from the 1991 to 1993. The vegetation mapping uses the National Vegetation Classification System (FGDC 1996). Several agencies are involved in the development of the GAP including the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Survey, the Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency and various state agencies. Other non-government partners include The Nature Conservancy.

The GAP work was conducted in Kansas by the State Biological Survey using a classification scheme prepared previously for the State (Lauver, Kindscher, Faber-Langendoen, and Schneider 1999). In Missouri land cover mapping and classification was prepared by an interagency team using the National Vegetation Classification introduced initially by The Nature Conservancy and later modified by a working group with The Ecological Society of America. Other classifications completed included those available on the DASC website in Kansas, and the MSDIS web site for Missouri. Further information is available on the Kansas GAP efforts at: http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/Projects/States/Detail.asp?State=ks

Further information is available on the Missouri GAP efforts at http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/Projects/States/Detail.asp?State=mo http://calmit.unl.edu/gapmap/

4.4. Summary of Existing Land Cover Mapping Data

All of the data described above was developed for regional planning for use at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller. None of these data fit the specific needs of this project. None of the data was of the desired resolution for more detailed planning in the MARC study area. The GAP data provided the best and most current cover data of these land cover sources. GAP data was used and refined where possible in the development of the NRI maps.

5. Johnson County Forest Cover

A detailed forest cover GIS boundary of Johnson County was provided by the county. The boundaries fit very well over the 2001 natural color aerial photography produced by AerialExpress. A description of the process used by the County to define forest cover was not provided but assumed to be an aerial photo interpretation process. The digital feature code (FEA_Code) “82” was used to represent forest cover in this project. According to additional codes the photography used in the forest cover classification was dated “1998.”

Figure 5. The red boundary lines represent the forest cover boundaries in Johnson County.

These forest cover boundaries were used in the further classification of forest type.

Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

6. Jackson County Forest Cover

Jackson County was used as a test case to determine the value of additional aerial photo interpretation work to map land cover from 2001 natural color aerial photographs. The photography was highly resolved (1 meter pixel resolution), was current to 2001 and covered a major portion of the MARC 8-county study area. This photography represented the best mapping data available for this study at the time. More recent natural color photography has been flown by AerialExpress since this study was initiated.

Platte Clay Ray

Leavenworth

Wyandotte

Jackson

Study Area Johnson

Cass Photo Coverage Area

Figure 6. AerialExpress Aerial Photo Coverage area overlaid on the MARC 8-county study area. Portions of Ray and Cass counties in Missouri were not covered.

Additional information on this and more recent imagery can be found at Aerial Express.com’s web site: http://www.aerialsexpress.com/saleshome2.php3.

6.1 Aerial Photo Classification Process of Forest Cover

Image classification methods were used to see if improvements could be made on the GAP forest cover data. It was found that the image classification of the aerial photography would significantly improve the GAP classifications both with regard to boundary resolution and temporal accuracy. However, the analysis of natural color imagery is not without issues. The image classification process uses digital natural color imagery. Signatures or groupings within the electromagnetic spectrum are used to help identify or classify ground features such as urban, cropland, water, forests. There are 2 primary types of classification, unsupervised and supervised. An unsupervised classification allows the computer to automatically group Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

reflectance values into classes where supervised classification allows the analyst to select the bands of interest for each class.

There are many complications with the two different classification techniques. If you are using several images, each image must be treated separately as reflectance varies with time of day, season of the year, etc. Thus, classification rules vary from image to image. Often classification results are uncertain and/or inaccurate. Refining spectral values is as much an art as it is science-based methodology. Land use classes are rarely discrete with clearly defined boundaries. Often an edge pixel will contain several classes or transition areas between classes. In spite of this, the classification process assigns a single class to every pixel, ignoring uncertainty.

The classification of natural color imagery is also problematic as the spectral signatures do not clearly identify specific feature types. Often very different features have similar or identical reflectance signatures. This problem can be overcome, in certain circumstances, by using different types of imagery. For example, color infra-red imagery would be very helpful in extracting vegetation classes. For this project various supervised and unsupervised methods were experiment with all supplying varied results across the study area. In certain locations landscape features were identified cleanly where in other areas the features were not well identified. It was determined that the unsupervised classification method would be implemented on Jackson County in order to determine potential success, failures and costs of this method for the entire study area.

Jackson County is covered by 4 full “Level C” images and 8 partial images. Sixteen unsupervised classes were developed for each of these images. The first 3 to 4 classes which represented the darkest areas within image were used to roughly identify the forested areas. Each image was assessed to determine if any single or any combination of classes would represent a specific landscape feature.

A smoothing technique was used prior to classification to remove some of the smaller features. This process incorporated the minor feature into larger adjacent features through a neighborhood pixel averaging process. In most cases this process removed many of the random and difficult to classify pixels that would break up the landscape feature boundaries unnecessarily.

In general, forests and wooded areas are darker than most other landscape features. The nature of the forest features was very hetrogenetic, varying according to age, density, slope and time of day. With the exception of water and some dark, freshly tilled soils, most of the darker regions within Jackson County were in forest or woodland. As described above the darker signatures also suggest water and dark soils. We were not able to spectrally tease these different features apart, which required a step of manual inspection and digitizing of edits to the forest layer. This manual visualization and editing process was very time consuming. To begin the process, classified spectral classes that best represented the forest communities were combined to form a single class. This class was then converted to a polygon vector file that represented the outlines of forest boundaries. Transparent shading was assigned to the forested polygons and layed over the 1 meter aerial imagery. On top of this a 5,000 meter grid was laid over the imagery and the forest polygons were edited. Forested polygons in each grid were reviewed checking for omissions and commissions. Heads up digitizing was used to add omitted forest lands and non-forested lands were removed from the forest polygons. Edits were primarily used to clean up edges and to incorporate forested island polygons. Wooded field edges and wooded rural residential areas were captured as well. Many of these problem Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

features were edited and refined while others still need more attention. Many of the polygons required the editor to make an interpretation of forest edge. Because many of the forest edges are not discrete, judgments are required slowing down the editing process.

During the initial review of the classification a variety of errors were found. In urban residential areas shadows represented a combination of trees and some shadows from buildings. The urban residential areas with more trees were classified as urban-residential with trees. This is not a perfect classification but it does identify residential areas with relatively more trees. This data layer was ultimately included in the Crosswalk Classification and improved the identification of forested areas in Jackson County significantly.

Figure 7. Various textures are found within the Jackson County forest cover boundary representing various forest types and various forest ages. Some recent clear-cut areas as well as some early succession forests are shown here. The overall the accuracy of the Jackson County forest boundary is much greater than any of the low-resolution land cover sources.

Data Sets and Classification Methods

The Crosswalk Classification throughout the project was a natural progression of give and take between data availability, the technical issues within the GIS and an end product that satisfied resource planners and their ultimate purpose for the data. Keeping this in mind three versions of the crosswalk classification are present within the final GIS land cover data layer named: “nri_allcnties” (these three classifications are found within the attribute table of the GIS shapefile). The three classifications are simple modifications of what AES and MARC has decided on as a final classification applicable for the purpose of this project called, “CROSS_URBF”. The “CROSS_URBF” is used in this project because it is the generalization of the more detailed, but less accurate “FINAL_CLAS” but also includes urban forests unlike the classification attribute column “CROSS_NOUR”. In summary, the three attribute columns found in the final natural resource inventory shapefile are as follows: FINAL_CLAS: This classification is the most detailed but also has the greatest chance for error.

Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

CROSS_URBF: This classification is deemed AES and MARC’s most applicable for the nri because it generalizes information to a point of maximum accuracy while maintaining pieces of detail by identifying forested areas within the developed class.

CROSS_NOUR: This classification is the same as CROSS_URBF however the urban forests within the developed land class have been removed. All discussion in this report refers to the classification CROSS_URBF or the “Crosswalk Classification”

The GIS methods used in the NRI classification of Johnson and Jackson counties are different from those used in the other counties. The process defined below is primarily a binary coding process. The methods used in defining developed land for all counties and forest cover for Johnson and Jackson counties are described above. All work was done on a county by county basis and files were merged once the county files had been completed.

The following datasets were unioned for Jackson and Johnson counties:

(1) Developed land/undeveloped land, (2) Forested/non-forested cover, (3) GAP data, (4) Hydric soils (from SSURGO data), and (5) Aspects.

A dominance and priority rules were established for the classification (order of priority 1 being the highest):

1. Developed Lands (over rides all except in the case of the urban forest class) 2. NWI’s open water 3. Hydric soils or NWI (not open water) (either Lowland Hardwood Forest, or Marsh and Wet Herbaceous) 4. Forested boundaries 5. Aspect 6. Soil Origin

All land was initially classified as either “developed” or “undeveloped.” All developed land was labeled as “developed” except in Johnson and Jackson Counties where forest cover boundaries and developed areas coincided. These areas were classified as “Urban Forest”.

“Developed Land”: Parcels less than or equal to 10 acres and all parcels greater than 10 acres that were specifically defined as commercial or industrial (Described above). “Undeveloped” land was further classified. If an undeveloped polygon was classified as “Non- Forested” then:

“Hydric soils” or NWI’s (that were not open water) were classified “Marshland and Herbaceous Vegetation”

Non-hydric soils or non-NWI (that were not open water), polygons were classified as non- forested GAP crosswalk class: “Grassland”, “Cultural Grassland”, or “Cultivated Land”. One exception to this rule was “Agricultural Land”

Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

“Agricultural Land”: Non-forested, non-hydric soils that were GAP “Forested types”, that were made up of parcels coded as agricultural.

If an “undeveloped” polygon was classified as “Forested” then:

Where the “forested” polygons were coincidental with “hydric soils” or NWI (that were not open water) they were classified as “Lowland Hardwood Forest & Woodland”.

2. Where “forested” polygons were coincidental with “non-hydric” soils the polygons were further classified. a. “Forested”, non-hydric soils with north aspects were classified as “Deciduous Forest”. b. “Forested”, non-hydric soils with south aspects were further classified by soil origins.

Soils from forest origins were classified as “Deciduous Woodland and Immature Forest”.

Soils are thin-to-bedrock were classified as “Mixed Evergreen Deciduous”.

Soils from Grassland Origin were classified as “Grassland”.

Open water from NWI’s was classified as “Open Water”

Final classification assignments were coded and are found in the field “CROSS_URBF” of the data layer: “nri_allcnties”.

7.1. Reduction of File Size and Complexity of GIS Files

The polygon count was extremely high from the intersections and unions required in the development of this map. The dissolve function was initially used to merge adjacent polygons with the same classification. Because the file size and the number of polygons were so large the process failed. Instead the polygon file was converted into a 10 meter grid and grid cells were assigned values based on the polygon classes. Grid data was then converted back to a polygon format. Any reduction in accuracy or resolution is negated by the low resolution of the original data.

7.2. Classification Scheme for All Other Counties.

Classification of developed and undeveloped areas (as described earlier).

Undeveloped lands were unioned with GAP land cover data generating a land cover map for the undeveloped areas. GAP classes were re-assigned more generic land cover classifications according to the Applied Ecological Services (AES) Crosswalk Classification. This classification is thoroughly discussed above and in the associated technical report. NWI sites were unioned with both developed and undeveloped areas. NWI classifications were reassigned according to the crosswalk classification. NWI sites were assumed to be most accurate data layer and thus override all earlier classifications.

Final classification assignments were coded and are found in the field “Cross_nour” of the data layer: “nri_allcnties”. A few significant errors were found in the NWI data. Changes were made in the final NRI coverage and not in the source NWI files. Of particular interest was a large wetland lake area in Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

southeast Cass County. The lake does not show up on any of the other data sets. We do not have the aerial photography to verify this error. In this area the GAP classifications were reassigned to the area. Other smaller changes were made to the final NRI based on field work.

7.3. NRI Grid Map Option

A grid version of the NRI GIS map was generated with a 10 meter pixel resolution. The map does not replace the vector map but was developed and used strictly for presentation purposes.

8. Hard Drive and Metadata

The GIS metadata for this project is provided in Appendix A-2, as well as on a hard drive submitted to MARC. This is the first version of the GIS data. The hard drive includes all data that was collected and developed during phase 1 and 2 of the Kansas City Natural Resource project.

The data is divided into 2 primary types, qualified and unqualified data. Qualified data is directly related to the deliverable products such as the NRI map. All deliverable product GIS files will include metadata linked to their associated shapefiles. Other supportive data such as US Census Tiger files will include metadata from their original source. These metadata are not linked to shapefiles. An abbreviated metadata addendum will be provided describing any alteration, extraction or manipulation of the data. NRI metadata will be provided for both the NRI composite file as well as the individual county NRI files.

Unqualified data is secondary data that (1) was used in the development process (intermediate files) or (2) remains unrelated to the final products but was collected during phase 1 and 2. Original source metadata will be included when it is available. No additional metadata description or discussion will be provided in the metadata folder other than the source metadata. Examples of unqualified data are US ACOE data that may be useful to MARC, but had no direct application to the deliverable products. Some unqualified data sets may have no metadata. These data can ultimately be culled from the hard drive if they provide no value to MARC.

Developing the metadata is not a trivial process and is very time consuming. We have included an example of the linked metadata in the Cass County NRI section found at: U:\GIS_data\Qualified_Data\ShapeFiles\01AES_data\NRI_Class\County_nri_shape\Cass_NRI

We are including a meta-metadata ACCESS database that lists all files found in the hard drive, their file type and location on the hard drive. Please refer to: (U:\Meta_metadata). A set of queries have been set up to help you better understand and investigate the hard drive contents. These queries identify and list key file types. Description and Use Ranking fields describe the primary aspects of the data and its use in phase 1 and 2 (see below for descriptions of all ACCESS database fields). Of course there are 100s of thousands of files and many gigabytes of data so the descriptions focus on the primary data types (for example SHP files are described and SHX files are not within the qualified data folder). Additional meta-metadata have been added in EXCEL format. This includes a spreadsheet identifying all primary data types and sources. A second spreadsheet includes a more detailed description of the various data that was targeted and/or collected for this project. These files should be very helpful to your GIS analyst.

Final delivery map projects (.mxd) and exploratory data projects are provided in two folders depending upon whether the project was a deliverable or used throughout the project process Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

(for example PowerPoint presentation graphics). If the mxd was used as a deliverable for example the NRI Land Cover Map the mxd will be at:

U:\GIS_data\Qualified_Data\mxd_apr

These mxd’s have been linked to the hard drive and should open without having to reestablish directory links. It will be imperative to maintain the same file structure and drive labels for these projects to work properly. If a project file has simply been used as a process map or used to generate communication graphics it will be found at:

U:\GIS_data\UnQualified_Data\mxd_apr

These files are not directly associated to the hard drive file format however may easily be linked to associated data set within the hard drive. This is an easy process however quite time consuming and remains outside the scope of this project. These files have been provided to MARC however can be culled out and deleted if MARC does not find them valuable. All of the graphics create for communication to this point has been provided as PowerPoint presentations and .PDF files.

We have included an extensions folder and all of the non-proprietary ARCGIS extensions that we used in the project. The watershed extension for example is of particular value. Installation and backup of this first hard drive is not imperative at this time. You can work with the data simply by plugging the hard drive into one of your USB ports. If you have any trouble please contact your computer systems analyst (USB drivers are provided on the CD if necessary). Assign the drive letter of “U” to the external hard drive. Please review the data organization, projects and metadata (meta-metadata) examples.

As stated above this hard drive is a first version of the data and will be updated prior to the training session in the near future. There is an enormous amount of data on this hard drive. Some of the less useful or experimental data may be deleted from the second version. Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Table 1. ACCESS database file headings and their description ACCESS FILE HEADING DESCRIPTION OF HEADING ID Number give to each file PATH Path in which file may be found Description Description of what the file is FILENAME Name of file FILEEXT Extension of file FILETYPE Type of File SIZE_MB Size of file in Megabytes DATE Date file was created TIME Time file was created DATETIME Date and time file was created D1 1st description of file path D2 2nd description of file path D3 3rd description of file path D4 4th description of file path D5 5th description of file path D6 6th description of file path D7 7th description of file path D8 8th description of file path D9 9th description of file path D10 10th description of file path D11 11th description of file path Usefulness Rating Rating 1-3: 3 most useful to NRI, 1 lest useful to NRI Used in NRI YES OR NO whether data was used to generate NRI land cover Data Extent Geographic extent of data Meta Data Is there meta data for file Constraints Is there a signed data sharing agreement associated with data

Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Appendix A-2: Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) Metadata

Metadata also available as

Metadata:

• Identification_Information • Data_Quality_Information • Spatial_Data_Organization_Information • Spatial_Reference_Information • Entity_and_Attribute_Information • Distribution_Information • Metadata_Reference_Information

Identification_Information: Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: (MARC) Mid-America Regional Council Originator: (AES) Applied Ecological Services Publication_Date: June 2004 Title: Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) Edition: Version 1 Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: vector digital data Online_Linkage: Not available on-line Description: Abstract: The Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) for MARC study area is a composite of 8 county NRI GIS maps. The development of this natural resource inventory is a critical first step toward solid environmental planning for watershed management, resource conservation, and restoration at the county level.

In the 3000 square mile Kansas City Metropolitan Area there is a strong unmet need for a coherent natural resource inventory. The region's many streams are threatened by significant land use change, yet flow across multiple jurisdictional boundaries that prevent unified action. Changes in regional land use are widespread and need to be understood so that the challenge of habitat fragmentation and habitat degradation can be addressed. Finally, an integrated view of the distribution, extent and ecological health of the region's natural resources is fundamental to developing watershed-based policies that maintain the character and function of these resources. One of the major products of this initiative is a regional map depicting ecological land cover and oriented towards natural resource conservation. This map and the fieldwork it incorporates represent a natural resource inventory across a broad region.

This project will result in several other outcomes. With this project the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) will implement the region's first multi-phase, collaborative, community-based initiative to document, map, and ultimately conserve natural resources within the Kansas City Metropolitan Area. The development of a natural resources Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

inventory is a critical first step toward solid environmental planning at the local level, and a systems-based framework for watershed management, resource conservation, and restoration at the regional level.

These other projects have benefited air and water quality, flood damage reduction efforts, critical ecosystem and biodiversity conservation, habitat and wildlife conservation, stream course stabilzation efforts, the creation of neighborhood and development amenities, human health (by providing opportunities for fitness and outdoor recreation), and attempts to create sustainable urban development patterns.

This project builds on past inventory and conservation work for critical ecosystems and valuable natural resources in the region. It will result in an up-to-date assessment of the condition of ecosystems and natural resources; compile consistent baseline information in a usable GIS format for use in local planning processes (e.g., watershed plans, greenway plans); support the identification and implementation of high priority MetroGreen trail segments around the region; and offer opportunities to educate Kansas City audiences about the value of local natural resources and the value of sound environmental planning and stewardship.

Purpose: The purpose for the NRI is to support a variety of natural resource activities related to water quality, flood mitigation, critical ecosystem and biodiversity conservation, habitat and wildlife conservation, stream course stability, creation of neighborhood and development amenities, improved human health with increased opportunities for fitness and outdoor recreation, and more sustainable urban development patterns. Time_Period_of_Content: Time_Period_Information: Range_of_Dates/Times: Beginning_Date: 1971 Ending_Date: 2003 Currentness_Reference: ground condition Status: Progress: Complete Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: None planned Spatial_Domain: Bounding_Coordinates: West_Bounding_Coordinate: -95.203828 East_Bounding_Coordinate: -93.746547 North_Bounding_Coordinate: 39.550778 South_Bounding_Coordinate: 38.431178 Keywords: Theme: Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: NRI Theme_Keyword: Natural Resource Inventory Theme_Keyword: NRI Place: Place_Keyword: Kansas Place_Keyword: Missouri Place_Keyword: Cass County, MO Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Place_Keyword: Clay County, MO Place_Keyword: Jackson County, MO Place_Keyword: Platte County, MO Place_Keyword: Ray County, MO Place_Keyword: Johnson County, KS Place_Keyword: Leavenworth County, KS Place_Keyword: Wyandotte County, KS Temporal: Temporal_Keyword: 1971 Temporal_Keyword: 2003 Access_Constraints: Data is available through Mid-America Regional Council (MARC). For more information about data distribution please call Steve Gay at (816) 474-4240 Ext.493 or stop by the offices located at 600 Broadway, Suite 300, in downtown Kansas City, Missouri, 64105 Use_Constraints: MARC NRI data is a composite of several datasets with different Time_Period_of_Content values and different data resolutions. Use this data for applications requiring map scales of 1:100,000 or smaller.

GAP data Time_Period_of_Content is current as of 1991. A more recent land use and land cover map would be very helpful.

NWI Data Time_Period_of_Content ranges in from Feb. 1971 to Nov. 1997.

Cadastral data Time_Period_of_Content is current to 2003. Cadastral data was used to help identify urban and non-agricultural areas.

Point_of_Contact: Contact_Information: Contact_Organization_Primary: Contact_Organization: Mid-America Regional Council Contact_Person: Steve Gay Contact_Position: GIS Manager Contact_Address: Address_Type: mailing and physical address Address: 600 Broadway Suite 300 City: Kansas City State_or_Province: MO Postal_Code: 64105 Contact_Voice_Telephone: 816/474-4240 Ext.493 Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: [email protected] Browse_Graphic: Native_Data_Set_Environment: Microsoft Windows 2000 Version 5.0 (Build 2195) Service Pack 4; ESRI ArcCatalog 8.3.0.800

Data_Quality_Information: Attribute_Accuracy: Attribute_Accuracy_Report: First Field Reconnaissance Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

The goal of field reconnaissance was to obtain information for revising the ecological land cover classification and resulting mapping, evaluate the condition of selected natural resources, and develop an understanding of the conservation needs in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area. The first field reconnaissance was performed in Jackson County, with the intent of extrapolating the findings to the rest of the region. The intent of field reconnaissance was to visit locations that represented the entire county and region, as well as to locate significant and rare natural resources, such as remnant prairies and undisturbed forests. The results of the field reconnaissance were used to create an initial ecological land cover classification and natural resources inventory for the region.

Field Visits

The first field reconnaissance was completed September 15-18, 2003. Five AES staff and one employee of Patti Banks and Associates formed two teams and visited over 150 locations in Jackson County. The following data were obtained at locations that were used as references for revising the ecological land cover classification:

·County ·Site Number ·AES Type 1 ·AES Type 2 ·Canopy Dominants (trees collectively comprising 90% of highest vegetation layer) ·Subcanopy Dominants (trees/shrubs collectively comprising 90% of layer below canopy) ·Groundlayer Dominants (trees/shrubs/herbs collectively comprising 90% of <1m vegetation) ·Other Species (common species, species that indicate diversity of site, rare species, etc.) ·Condition Rank (see Table 2)

·Notes (remarks that further describe the site) ·Soil Series (from soils map) ·Kansas/Missouri GAP Type (from GAP land cover map) ·Stewardship Problems (invasive species, fire suppression, over-grazing, erosion, etc.)

Locations of visited sites were digitized and the field information entered into a database.

Prior to visiting sites in the field, field maps were prepared. Separate maps showed AES Type 2 ecological land cover, GAP land cover, and soils data on a base of streams, roads, municipal boundaries, and contours. These maps initially were produced on paper at 1:4,000 scale. In the second field reconnaissance, all data were placed in digital form on laptops carried in the field. Digital information could be displayed on ortho-photographs, and field staff selected sites and navigated using this information. When visiting a site, staff digitized its location and entered data in the database linked to that digital location. Other data were written on field for later data entry in the office.

At each site in Jackson County the GAP type was checked and the edge of the GAP polygon was examined relative to the aerial photographs. This provided a further understanding of the limitations of the GAP classification and the changes necessary to improve its quality.

The greatest challenge in field reconnaissance was to correlate the field information on ecological conditions of natural resources to the aerial photography available for the Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

region. To accomplish this, ecological conditions were ranked at many locations using a pre-determined ranking system (Table 2). Aerial photography was then examined to determine if the ecological conditions seen in the field were readily apparent on the aerial photography.

Table 2. Ecological Condition Ranks (letters may be combined to suggest a range of conditions) A Excellent: The plant community is intact and fully functional. Its soils, vegetation structure, plant diversity, and ecosystem functions have not changed substantially for decades, if not centuries. B Good: The plant community is intact and functional, but soils, vegetation structure and plant diversity were slightly modified by land use in the past century or more. C Fair: The plant community is damaged and has lost species and ecosystem functions as a result of incompatible land use in the past century or more. Its vegetation structure can be quite different from that existing in the plant community over a century ago. D Poor: The plant community is highly damaged by long-term incompatible land use, but is still recognizable as a plant community of the type. Soils are usually intact, but vegetation structure has changed greatly, and many species have been lost and replaced by non-native invasive species. NR Not Ranked. The location is culturally created (e.g., residences, cropland, orchard, pasture, impoundment).

The general conclusion was that the condition of natural resources in the field was not readily apparent on aerial photography, except for the more mature forests and remnant prairies. The more mature forests were in general classified as forests in GAP, while less mature forests were classified by GAP as woodlands. It was also determined, using soils information, that most of the GAP woodlands in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area have developed where prairie grew 150 years ago. As such, they represent forests of poorer ecological conditions compared to forests which have existed at the same location for several thousand years, as is the case for the more mature forests of the region. The soils on which such forests grew were generally hapludalfs, or soils that are transitional between typical grassland and typical forest soils. It was also found that some GAP forests located on these soils were recovering from severe cutting decades ago. These forest contained large honey-locust (Gleditsia tricanthos), an indicator of disturbance, rather than large oak (Quercus) trees encountered in the more mature forests on forest soils of the region. A predominance of oak in a forest of the Kansas City region indicates better ecological conditions.

Remnant prairies were also evident on the aerial photography by the color and the texture of the photograph. The GAP classification and inventory work did not accurately locate remnant prairies. Remnant prairies visited during AES field reconnaissance were already known through previous inventories or were discovered by AES staff. While AES staff could identify potential remnant prairies from their color-texture signature, it was not feasible given the project budget to locate and visit all remnant prairies in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area.

Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Second Field Reconnaissance

Two AES teams assembled in Kansas City during the period November 18-21, 2004 to complete the second field reconnaissance. Staff sought to represent all habitats, slopes, aspects, and geographical locations in the Kansas City region for those natural communities where classification questions remained. In addition, AES searched for natural communities in good ecological condition. AES planned to add these better condition natural communities to the reference sites already assembled from previous inventories in order to, at a later time, identify conservation hotspots in the Kansas City region.

AES teams checked over 150 locations outside Jackson County. AES digitized these locations and entered field data in the spatial database. These field data were combined with previous field data, Heritage program field data, and Natural Resources Inventory data collected by others. These digitized field data establish a set of reference stands to aid future classification and inventory work, and help to establish conservation priorities in the Kansas City region.

Results from the second field reconnaissance were used to refine the initial ecological land cover (ELC) classification (Table 4). The natural resources of the 8-county Kansas City region were mapped using the ELC classification

Accuracy Issue in Spatial data in Jackson and Johnson Counties are more recent and accurate than the other six counties. This is due to the special procedures used to refine the existing GAP data. The method provided great detail and accuracy, but requires additional resources. For example, the unsupervised forest classification followed by hand-editing in Jackson County required approximately 40 hours of labor. The high labor requirement made this method too costly to employ in the other counties, but provided a model that could be followed in other counties.

As mentioned above, rare communities-prairies, limestone glades, oak savannas-were not accurately identified in existing GAP inventories, and while AES staff located remnants of these communities, by no means were all remnants identified. In

Using parcel (cadastral) data helped to improve the accuracy of the spatial data, but may also have introduced errors into the data in rural lands. This is because the small parcel criteria AES used (<5 acres) to identify potentially developed lands may also have included small undeveloped tracts used as recreation land. These parcels, nevertheless, have a greater potential to be developed in the future because they have been subdivided from larger agricultural ownership blocks.

Due to the lack of detailed work in counties outside Jackson and Johnson, the information must be interpreted with care. For example, in Leavenworth County it appears that there are many locations of "Grassland." As defined in the ecological land use classification and used in the natural resource inventory work for this project, "Grassland" is a nearly treeless expanse that likely contains native plant species, and may also include Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Conservation Reserve Program lands. However, in Leavenworth County these areas are not pristine prairies, and in many cases may have been significantly altered by over- seeding with the non-native tall fescue, and herbiciding to kill broad-leaved prairie plants. Nevertheless, these locations have a greater chance of containing warm-season prairie grasses and native prairie plants than those locations which the GAP classification identified as "Cultural Grassland." Therefore "Grassland" is used despite the potential for inaccuracy. As already mentioned, identifying all the remnant native prairies in the Kansas City region would require special inventory work outside the scope of this project.

Some data gathered for use in Jackson County stream and watershed assessment work were not used in the development of the ELC classification. These data include floodplain boundaries, stream stability models, and stream buffers. These data will be used in future work to establish conservation priorities in the Kansas City region.

AES employed its field data and that of the Kansas and Missouri Heritage Programs and Biological Surveys in order to test the accuracy with which the classification and inventory could predict ground conditions. These field data represent a small fraction of the surface area of the Kansas City region, and therefore provide only a sample of what can be expected from the classification and inventory work when it is used throughout the region.

In general, deciduous forest and woodland data most accurately predict conditions on the ground. AES estimates that in Jackson and Johnson County, the classification and natural resources inventory is greater 90% accurate in correctly identifying land as forested or wooded, and in correctly representing the boundary of those forests. In the other counties, because GAP was used, the accuracy of the boundary is greatly reduced, and the accuracy of the identity of a forest patch was less than 90%.

The classification and inventory are less accurate in predicting Lowland Hardwood Forest and Woodland in Jackson and Johnson County, and lower still in the other counties. This lower performance is due to the fact that the trees which comprise lowland hardwood forest are also capable of invading upland draws and ravines throughout the region. Therefore sites which might be classified as deciduous woodland/immature forest can appear to be lowland hardwood forest and woodland; often these sites were prairie or savanna prior to 1850. In addition, in many locations intentional damming of stream segments saturates upland soils, creating lowland hardwood forest where upland forest existed previously.

As already discussed, detecting prairies, limestone glades, and oak savannas in good condition will required additional detailed inventory work outside this project's scope. This classification and inventory will not predict the existing of good examples of these communities with great certainty, perhaps with an accuracy of less than 10%. However, in Jackson and Johnson Counties, the classification and inventory data identified thin-soil areas and southern forested slopes which have the greatest potential to support these Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

communities. Good examples of these communities could be located with additional inventory work using the concepts inherent in the classification and inventory.

The classification and inventory predict wetland occurence in the field with a fair degree of accuracy due to the use of National Wetland Inventory mapping. However, these data are at least a decade or more old. The classification does not match wetland boundaries to field conditions as well as it identifies the existence of a wetland.

Logical_Consistency_Report: No report Completeness_Report: No report Positional_Accuracy: Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy: Vertical_Positional_Accuracy: Lineage: Source_Information: Source_Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership (MoRAP) Publication_Date: 1999 Title: Missouri GAP Data Other_Citation_Details: James D. Harlan Geographic Resources Center Assistant Program Director Contact_Address: Address_Type: mailing address Address: #16 Stewart Hall City: University of Missouri-Columbia State_or_Province: Missouri Postal_Code: 65211 Country: USA Contact_Voice_Telephone: (573) 882-1404 Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: [email protected] Online_Linkage: Source_Information: Source_Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS) Program Publication_Date: 2001-03-04 Title: Kansas GAP Data Other_Citation_Details: Contact_Organization: Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS) Program Contact_Person: Stephen Egbert Contact_Position: Project Manager Contact_Address: Address_Type: mailing address Address: 2335 Irving Hill Road City: Lawrence State_or_Province: Kansas Postal_Code: 66045-7612 Country: USA Contact_Voice_Telephone: (785) 864-7720 Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: (785) 864- 0392 Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: [email protected] Online_Linkage: Online_Linkage: Source_Scale_Denominator: from 1;24,000 to 1:100,000 Type_of_Source_Media: raster Source_Time_Period_of_Content: Time_Period_Information: Range_of_Dates/Times: Beginning_Date: 1995 Ending_Date: 2000 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Source_Information: Source_Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: USFWS Publication_Date: varies Title: National Wetland Inventory Online_Linkage: Source_Information: Source_Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: US Census Bureau Publication_Date: 2002 Title: TIGER Line Files Online_Linkage: Online_Linkage: Source_Information: Source_Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: Obtained through Mid America Regional Council for specific counties Publication_Date: 2003 Title: Cadastral Data Source_Time_Period_of_Content: Time_Period_Information: Single_Date/Time: Calendar_Date: 2003 Source_Information: Source_Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), EROS Data Center Publication_Date: 1999 Title: National Elevation Dataset (NED) Other_Citation_Details: Publication_Information: Publication_Place: Sioux Falls, SD Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey Online_Linkage: Source_Scale_Denominator: 1:24000 Type_of_Source_Media: raster digital data Source_Time_Period_of_Content: Time_Period_Information: Single_Date/Time: Calendar_Date: 1999 Source_Citation_Abbreviation: NED Source_Information: Source_Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: Mid-America Regional Council Publication_Date: 2003 Title: 911 Road Centerline Data Other_Citation_Details: Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Mid-America Regional Council 600 Broadway, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64105 816/474-4240 Fax 816/421-7758 Online_Linkage: Source_Time_Period_of_Content: Time_Period_Information: Single_Date/Time: Calendar_Date: 2003 Source_Information: Source_Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication_Date: 1999 Title: National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Other_Citation_Details: Publication Place: Reston, Virginia Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey Online_Linkage: Source_Information: Source_Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Publication_Date: 2000-05-07 Title: NLCD- National Land Cover Data Set (Kansas and Missouri) Edition: 1 Other_Citation_Details: Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: raster digital data Publication_Place: Sioux Falls, SD USA Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey Online_Linkage: Source_Information: Source_Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: Applied Ecological Services Publication_Date: 2003 Title: Field Data Online_Linkage: none Source_Time_Period_of_Content: Time_Period_Information: Single_Date/Time: Calendar_Date: 2003 Source_Information: Source_Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: AerialsExpress Publication_Date: 2001 Title: Aerial Imagery 2001 Other_Citation_Details: Source: Aerials-Express Contact Info: AerialsExpress, Email [email protected] Telephone 1-888-482-2336 State: MO/KS Area: Kansas City Resoulution: 1 meter Data: 2001-11 Sq Miles: 3639 Type: Natural Color Photography Coordinate System: UTM-15 Online_Linkage: Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Source_Time_Period_of_Content: Time_Period_Information: Single_Date/Time: Calendar_Date: 2001 Source_Information: Source_Citation: Citation_Information: Title: SSURGO Soils Online_Linkage: Online_Linkage: Online_Linkage: Online_Linkage: Source_Time_Period_of_Content: Time_Period_Information: Single_Date/Time: Calendar_Date: varies Process_Step: Process_Description: Digital NRI for the 8 county study area were generated. County files were prepared and merged together. Each county file was reference from it source file by a combine county abbreviation and file record number. Attribute data from each file was collected in a linked ACCESS table. Small manipulations were made in the Access database to accomodate the various requests of the AES ecologic review team. Final classifications were assigned.

The following notes generally address the classification process and issues. "Developed" or "Undeveloped" classification 1. Cadastral (parcel size)was used to identify developed and undeveloped land in Cass and Clay counties. Parcels less than or equal to 10 acres are defined as "urban area" by NRCS. Parcels greater than 10 acres are considered undeveloped unless use or tax codes show otherwise. 2. Cadastral (use codes and/or tax codes were used defining agricultural, exempt, residential, other-developed or undeveloped) were used to identify developed and undeveloped land in Cass and Johnson counties. 3. Parcel "use codes" are the most accurate method for the identification of developed and undeveloped land. Smaller parcels that are identified as residential, commercial, industrial, etc are easily classified as "developed." Larger parcels with these classifications are more suspect as a single larger parcel may support more than 1 land use. Most tax offices report only the primary use of the land for tax purposes. For example, an industrial property may use 10 acres of a 100 acre parcel very intensively while the remaining 90 acres is temporarily left undeveloped. However, a ¼ acre lot with a building is, without a doubt, intensively developed. 4. If use codes are not available "parcel size" is still a very accurate method of defining developed and undeveloped land. Parcel size directly expresses the intensity of land use for a parcel. NRCS defines parcels of 10 acres or less as "urban area." 5. Because parcel information is developed and maintained for tax assessment purposes the information is highly resolved, use data is accurate and the data is updated annually. Thus change in "urban area" can be tracked accurately annually. 6. The "roadless polygon method" to classify developed and Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

undeveloped land is less accurate than parcel data, however it is adequate for small scale mapping such as the development of the NRI maps. Roadless areas strongly suggest the intensity of land use within the roadless polygon. However the resolution of roadless areas is less precise cadastral methods. Also variables such as changes in road width do suggest changes in land use intensity, these changes are not often recorded in road data or easily quantified in the roadless polygon metrics. Road data may vary in its quality and reporting period between administrative areas. · Roadless area polygons are bounded by roads and railroads generated from road and railroad GIS line data. Smaller roadless areas imply more intensively utilized land. Small parcel size (where cadastral data is available) also implies more intensive land use. One variation to this metric that incorporates dead end roads into the metric is to summarize "grid distance from roads" by roadless polygon. · Methods used to classify land as "developed" or "undeveloped" by county. i. Cadasral: Use Codes and Parcel Size (Cass) ii. Cadastral: Parcel Size (Clay, Johnson) iii. Roadless Polygon: (Jackson, Platte, Ray, Leavenworth, Wyandotte)

High Resolution Forest Cover 1. In Jackson and Johnson County we have accurate forested themes. This data was generated from the aerial photo interpretation process in Jackson County. 2. Forest cover data was provided by Johnson County GIS department for their county. 3. AES provided a more detailed analysis for forested lands based on hydric and soil origin chracteristics, aspect (north/south). Gap data was used to help define non-forested undeveloped areas. This classification is refined by GAP data where appropriate or considered unclassified. This non-forested, undeveloped class is one of the least reliable classes based on conflicts within the source information. 4. Were cadastral information was not available roadless polygons were used to identify developed and undeveloped lands in Jackson, Platte, Ray, Leavenworth, Wyandotte. Many tests were done to identify developed from undeveloped lands. Visual interpretations from aerial photos were used in this process.

Forest Cover In Johnson and Jackson Counties

1. Forested area was derived from aerial photo interpretation via remote sensing methods in Jackson County. 2. Johnson County forested lands of similar quality were provided by Johnson County. In either case these boundaries represent the most highest resolved and most recent data used in the NRI mapping project. 3. Further refinements in the forested classifaction were made using GAP, Hydric Soils, Aspect, and Soil Origin data. 4. Urban Woodlands in Jackson County: Urban Forests are areas found within developed areas where aerial photo classification methods indicate forests. These urban forests are generally small in size and often capture areas of the city that are more wooded than others. In many cases these areas may represent a clustering of trees in residential areas and in some cases tree lines along property boundaries. The quality of these wooded areas may be very poor ecologically.

Non-Forested Assignments in Jackson and Johnson Counties "Forested" or "Unforested" classification The county was initially divided into "forested" and "non-forested lands." Forest cover was derived from aerial photo interpretation via remote sensing methods in Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Jackson County. These forest boundaries represent the highest resolution and most recent data used in this classification process.

"Non-Forested" further classified Non-forested hydric soils were classified as "Marshland and Herbacious Vegetation" Non-forested and non-hydric were classified as "developed."

"Forested" further classified Forested areas that coincide with any of the GAP "non- forested" classifications the areas were classified as "Deciduous Woodland, Immature Forest." These same forested areas with hydric soils were classified as "Hydric Lowland Hardwood Forest & Woodland." These same forested areas with non-hydric soils were further classified. Those areas with north aspects were classified as "Deciduous Forest." Those areas with south aspects were further classified by soil origins. Areas with soils from forest origin were classified as "Deciduous Woodland and Immature Forest." Areas with soils that are thin-to-bedrock were classified as "Mixed Evergreen Decidious." Areas with soils from Grassland Origin were classified as "Grassland."

"Urban Woodlands" discussion Urban Forests are areas found within developed areas where aerial photo classification methids indicate forests. These urban forests are generally small in size and often capture areas of the city that are more wooded than others. In many cases these areas may represent a clustering of trees in residential areas and in some cases tree lines along property boundaries. The quality of these wooded areas may be very poor ecologically.

Assignments of other counties. "Undeveloped" areas further classified. Undeveloped lands were unioned with GAP land cover data generating a land cover map of the undeveloped areas. GAP classes were re-assigned more generic land cover classifications according to the Applied Ecological Services Crossover assignments.

Hydric Soil refinements NWI sites were unioned with the entire county coverage. NWI classifications were reassigned according to more generic AES classifications. NWI sites were assumed to be most accurate data layer and thus overrode all earlier classifications.

Final assignments "Final_Clas."

Note: Reduction of file size and complexity. The polygon count was extremely high from all of the intersections and unions required in the development of this map. "Dissolve" was initially used to try and merge adjacent polygons with the same classification. Because the file size and the number of polygons was so large the process failed. Instead the polygon file was converted into a 10 meter grid and grid cells were assigned values based on the polygon classes. Grid data was then converted back to a polygon format. Any reduction in accuracy or resolution is negated by the lower resolution of the original data.

Process_Date: June 2003 Process_Contact: Contact_Information: Contact_Organization_Primary: Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Contact_Organization: Applied Ecological Services Contact_Person: Jason Carlson/Neil Thomas Contact_Position: GIS Analyst Contact_Address: Address_Type: mailing and physical address Address: 17921 Smith Road, P. O. Box 256 City: Brodhead State_or_Province: WI Postal_Code: 53520 Contact_Voice_Telephone: 608.897.8641 Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: [email protected] Process_Step: Process_Description: Metadata imported. Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation: C:\WINNT\Profiles\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\xml77.tmp Process_Step: Process_Description: Metadata imported. Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation: C:\WINNT\Profiles\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\xml11C.tmp Process_Step: Process_Description: Metadata imported. Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation: C:\WINNT\Profiles\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\xmlA9.tmp

Spatial_Data_Organization_Information: Direct_Spatial_Reference_Method: Vector Point_and_Vector_Object_Information: SDTS_Terms_Description: SDTS_Point_and_Vector_Object_Type: G-polygon Point_and_Vector_Object_Count: 588082

Spatial_Reference_Information: Horizontal_Coordinate_System_Definition: Planar: Grid_Coordinate_System: Grid_Coordinate_System_Name: Universal Transverse Mercator Universal_Transverse_Mercator: UTM_Zone_Number: 15 Transverse_Mercator: Scale_Factor_at_Central_Meridian: 0.999600 Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: -93.000000 Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: 0.000000 False_Easting: 500000.000000 False_Northing: 0.000000 Planar_Coordinate_Information: Planar_Coordinate_Encoding_Method: coordinate pair Coordinate_Representation: Abscissa_Resolution: 0.000256 Ordinate_Resolution: 0.000256 Planar_Distance_Units: meters Geodetic_Model: Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Horizontal_Datum_Name: North American Datum of 1983 Ellipsoid_Name: Geodetic Reference System 80 Semi-major_Axis: 6378137.000000 Denominator_of_Flattening_Ratio: 298.257222

Entity_and_Attribute_Information: Detailed_Description: Entity_Type: Entity_Type_Label: NRI Attribute: Attribute_Label: FID Attribute_Definition: Internal feature number. Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI Attribute_Domain_Values: Unrepresentable_Domain: Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated. Attribute: Attribute_Label: Shape Attribute_Definition: Feature geometry. Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI Attribute_Domain_Values: Unrepresentable_Domain: Coordinates defining the features. Attribute: Attribute_Label: CNTY Attribute_Definition: County Name Attribute_Definition_Source: US Census TIGER Attribute: Attribute_Label: RECORD Attribute_Definition: Record Number from each contributing database Attribute_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Attribute_Domain_Values: Beginning_Date_of_Attribute_Values: 2003 Ending_Date_of_Attribute_Values: 2003 Attribute: Attribute_Label: FINAL_CLAS Attribute_Definition: First Classification includes most detail Attribute_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Agriculture Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Used as farmland (specific to Jackson and Johnson Counties) Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Cultivated Land Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Used as cropland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Cultural Grassland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Grassland of planted domesticated grasses, or formerly cultivated land reverting to grassland and sometimes brush Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Deciduous Forest Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Mostly closed canopy of deciduous trees, often mature; includes former savannas on south to west slopes Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Deciduous Forest (Urban) Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Mostly closed canopy of deciduous trees, often mature; includes former savannas on south to west slopes (urban areas) Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Deciduous Woodland and Immature Forests Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Open canopy of decudous trees; often immature; may contain former savannas, or glades on soils with bedrock close to surface Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Deciduous Woodland and Immature Forests (Urban) Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Open canopy of decudous trees; often immature; may contain former savannas, or glades on soils with bedrock close to surface (urban) Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Developed Land Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Urban and suburban land uses, including homes, businesses, roads Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Forested Wetland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Wetlands with an NWI code for forests Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: USFWS NWI Coding Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Forested Wetland (Urban) Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Wetlands with an NWI code for forests in an urban area Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: USFWS NWI and Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Grassland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Grassland, often containing native wild plants; may include CRP plantings Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Lowland Hardwood Forest and Woodland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Open to closed forest canopy in flooded or wetland areas Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Lowland Hardwood Forest and Woodland (Hydric) Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Open to closed forest canopy in flooded or wetland areas on hydric soils Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Lowland Hardwood Forest and Woodland (non-Hydric) Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Open to closed forest canopy in flooded or wetland areas on non-hydric soils Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Lowland Hardwood Forest and Woodland (Urban) Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Open to closed forest canopy in flooded or wetland areas in an urban area Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Marsh and Wet Herbaceous Vegetation Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Wetlands without a closed forest canopy; includes brush and scattered trees Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Mixed Evergreen Deciduous Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Open to mostly closed canopy of junipers and deciduous trees; often oaks; may include former savannas Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Mixed Evergreen Deciduous (Urban) Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Open to mostly closed canopy of junipers and deciduous trees; often oaks; may include former savannas in an urban area Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Oak Woodland and Savanna (Urban) Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Open Water Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Standing water for a significant part of the year Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Other Wetland (Urban) Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: All other NWI sites not already classified in an urban area Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Sand/Gravel Bar Wetland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: NWI coded as "UB" or unconsolidated bottom Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Unclassified Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Insufficient data to classify Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Beginning_Date_of_Attribute_Values: 1991 Ending_Date_of_Attribute_Values: 1993 Attribute: Attribute_Label: CROSS_URBF Attribute_Definition: Classification with Urban Forest Class Attribute_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Agriculture Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Used as farmland (specific to Jackson and Johnson Counties) Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Cultivated Land Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Used as cropland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Cultural Grassland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Grassland of planted domesticated grasses, or formerly cultivated land reverting to grassland and sometimes brush Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Deciduous Forest Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Mostly closed canopy of deciduous trees, often mature; includes former savannas on south to west slopes Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Deciduous Woodland and Immature Forest Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Open canopy of decudous trees; often immature; may contain former savannas, or glades on soils with bedrock close to surface Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Developed Land Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Urban and suburban land uses, including homes, businesses, roads Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Grassland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Grassland, often containing native wild plants; may include CRP plantings Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Lowland Hardwood Forest and Woodland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Open to closed forest canopy in flooded or wetland areas Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Enumerated_Domain_Value: Marsh and Wet Herbaceous Vegetation Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Wetlands without a closed forest canopy; includes brush and scattered trees Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Mixed Evergreen Deciduous Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Open to mostly closed canopy of junipers and deciduous trees; often oaks; may include former savannas Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Open Water Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Standing water for a significant part of the year Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Unclassified Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Insufficient data to classify Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Attribute: Attribute_Label: CROSS_NOUR Attribute_Definition: Classification without Urban Forest class Attribute_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Agriculture Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Used as farmland (specific to Jackson and Johnson Counties) Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Cultivated Land Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Used as cropland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Cultural Grassland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Grassland of planted domesticated grasses, or formerly cultivated land reverting to grassland and sometimes brush Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Deciduous Forest Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Mostly closed canopy of deciduous trees, often mature; includes former savannas on south to west slopes Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Developed Land Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Urban and suburban land uses, including homes, businesses, roads Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Deciduous Woodland and Immature Forest Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Open canopy of deciduous trees; often immature; may contain former savannas, or glades on soils with bedrock close to surface Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Lowland Hardwood Forest and Woodland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Open to closed forest canopy in flooded or wetland areas Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Grassland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Grassland, often containing native wild plants; may include CRP plantings Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Appied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Marsh and Wet Herbaceous Vegetation Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Wetlands without a closed forest canopy; includes brush and scattered trees Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Mixed Evergreen Deciduous Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Open to mostly closed canopy of junipers and deciduous trees; often oaks; may include former savannas Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Open Water Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Standing water for a significant part of the year Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Unclassified Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Insufficient data to classify Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Applied Ecological Services Beginning_Date_of_Attribute_Values: 1971 Ending_Date_of_Attribute_Values: 2003 Attribute: Attribute_Label: ACRES Attribute_Definition: Acreage of polygon Attribute_Definition_Source: calculated Attribute: Attribute_Label: AREA Attribute_Definition: Area in meters Attribute_Definition_Source: calculated Attribute_Domain_Values: Attribute: Attribute_Label: PERIMETER Attribute_Definition: Perimeter in meters Attribute_Definition_Source: calculated Attribute_Domain_Values: Beginning_Date_of_Attribute_Values: 1991 Ending_Date_of_Attribute_Values: 2003 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Overview_Description:

Distribution_Information: Resource_Description: ESRI GIS shape file Distribution_Liability: All GIS and electronic database materials, and any services which may be provided related thereto, are provided "as-is" without any warranty of any kind, and all warranties on merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are hereby disclaimed. In no event shall the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) be liable to the recipient or any other party for damages of any type, including but not limited to incidental, consequential or exemplary damages arising out of the use or inability to use these materials. This agreement shall be governed by the law of Kansas/Missouri, where any litigation arising hereunder shall take place. The agreement is the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement between the parties and may be modified only by a written agreement. Standard_Order_Process: Digital_Form: Digital_Transfer_Information: Transfer_Size: 40.528 Ordering_Instructions: Contact: Steve Gay Mid-America Regional Council 600 Broadway Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64105 816/474-4240 Ext.493 Custom_Order_Process: Contact: Steve Gay Mid-America Regional Council 600 Broadway Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64105 816/474-4240 Ext.493 "Steve Gay"

Metadata_Reference_Information: Metadata_Date: 20040908 Metadata_Contact: Contact_Information: Contact_Organization_Primary: Contact_Organization: Applied Ecological Services (Wisconsin Office) Contact_Person: Jason Carlson/Neil Thomas Contact_Position: GIS Manager Contact_Address: Address_Type: mailing and physical address Address: 17921 Smith Road, P. O. Box 256 City: Brodhead State_or_Province: Wisconsin Postal_Code: 53520 Country: USA Contact_Voice_Telephone: 608.897.8641 Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 608.897.8486 Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: [email protected] Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata Metadata_Standard_Version: FGDC-STD-001-1998 Metadata_Time_Convention: local time Metadata_Extensions: Online_Linkage: Profile_Name: ESRI Metadata Profile Metadata_Extensions: Online_Linkage: Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Profile_Name: ESRI Metadata Profile Metadata_Extensions: Online_Linkage: Profile_Name: ESRI Metadata Profile Metadata_Extensions: Online_Linkage: Profile_Name: ESRI Metadata Profile

Generated by mp version 2.7.33 on Wed Sep 08 20:27:57 2004 Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

A-3: Shape Files Used for the Kansas City NRI GIS Program (To be Inserted at a later date) Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

APPENDIX B

USDA Soil Units and Corresponding AES Soil Types in the Kansas City Region

Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Appendix B: USDA Soil Units and Corresponding AES Soil Types in the Kansas City Region.

Soil Unit AES Soil Type Soil Unit Name (MUNAME) (MUSYM) Forest KNOX COMPLEX, 18 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES Kn Forest KNOX SILT LOAM, 14 TO 20 PERCENT SLOPES 54E Forest KNOX SILT LOAM, 20 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES 54F Forest KNOX SILT LOAM, 5 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES 54C Forest KNOX SILT LOAM, 7 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES Kh Forest KNOX SILTY CLAY LOAM, 5 TO 14 PERCENT SLOPES, 55D3 SEVERELY ERODED Forest KNOX-URBAN LAND COMPLEX, 5 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES 61C Forest KNOX-URBAN LAND COMPLEX, 9 TO 14 PERCENT SLOPES 61D Forest LADOGA SILT LOAM, 8 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES 091LB Forest MANDEVILLE SILT LOAM, 5 TO 14 PERCENT SLOPES 47D Forest MENFRO SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES 15B Forest MENFRO SILT LOAM, 5 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED 15C2 Forest MENFRO SILTY CLAY LOAM, 9 TO 14 PERCENT SLOPES, 16D3 SEVERELY ERODED Forest URBAN LAND-HARVESTER COMPLEX, 2 TO 9 PERCENT 100C SLOPES Forest WELLER SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES 19B Thin-to- OSKA SILTY CLAY LOAM, 5 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED 22C2 Bedrock Thin-to- OSKA-MARTIN COMPLEX, 4 TO 8 PERCENT SLOPES 7462 Bedrock Thin-to- SNEAD-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX, 14 TO 30 PERCENT 10F Bedrock SLOPES Thin-to- SNEAD-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX, 5 TO 14 PERCENT 10D Bedrock SLOPES Thin-to- SNEAD-URBAN LAND COMPLEX, 9 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES 65F Bedrock Thin-to- SOGN-VINLAND COMPLEX, 3 TO 25 PERCENT SLOPES 4752 Bedrock Thin-to- NO NAME 103 Bedrock Grassland CHASE SILT LOAM, RARELY FLOODED 4015 Grassland COTTER SILT LOAM, RARELY FLOODED 92 Grassland GREENTON SILTY CLAY LOAM, 5 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES 11C Grassland GREENTON-URBAN LAND COMPLEX, 5 TO 9 PERCENT 64C SLOPES Grassland GRUNDY SILT LOAM, 1 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES 7251 Grassland HIGGINSVILLE SILT LOAM, 5 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES 2C Grassland HIGGINSVILLE-URBAN LAND COMPLEX, 5 TO 9 PERCENT 63C SLOPES Grassland MACKSBURG SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES 5B Grassland MACKSBURG-URBAN LAND COMPLEX, 2 TO 5 PERCENT 62B Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Soil Unit AES Soil Type Soil Unit Name (MUNAME) (MUSYM) SLOPES Grassland MARTIN SILTY CLAY LOAM, 3 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES 7302 Grassland NAPIER SILT LOAM, 0 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES 91A Grassland POLO SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES 17B Grassland POLO SILT LOAM, 5 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED 7525 Grassland POLO SILT LOAM, 5 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED 17C2 Grassland SHARPSBURG SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES 6B Grassland SHARPSBURG SILT LOAM, 5 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED 6C2 Grassland SHARPSBURG-URBAN LAND COMPLEX, 3 TO 8 PERCENT 091SB SLOPES Grassland SHARPSBURG-URBAN LAND COMPLEX, 4 TO 8 PERCENT 7545 SLOPES Grassland SIBLEY SILT LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES 1B Grassland SIBLEY SILT LOAM, 5 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES 1C Grassland SIBLEY-URBAN LAND COMPLEX, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES 60B Grassland SIBLEY-URBAN LAND COMPLEX, 5 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES 60C Grassland WIOTA SILT LOAM, RARELY FLOODED 38 Occas. GILLIAM SILTY CLAY LOAM, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED 88 Flooded Occas. HAYNIE SILT LOAM, 0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES, Hy Flooded OCCASIONALLY FLOODED Occas. HAYNIE SILT LOAM, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED 83 Flooded Occas. KENNEBEC SILT LOAM, 0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES, 7050 Flooded OCCASIONALLY FLOODED Occas. KENNEBEC SILT LOAM, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED 30 Flooded Occas. KENNEBEC SILT LOAM, FREQUENTLY FLOODED 7051 Flooded Occas. LETA SILTY CLAY, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED 73 Flooded Occas. MODALE SILT LOAM, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED 87 Flooded Occas. PARKVILLE SILTY CLAY, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED 82 Flooded Occas. SARPY FINE SAND, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED 89 Flooded Occas. NO NAME 102 Flooded Occas. NO NAME 69A Flooded Hydric BREMER SILT LOAM, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED 36 Hydric COLO SILTY CLAY LOAM, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED 31 Hydric MCGIRK SILT LOAM, 5 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED 20C2 Hydric SAMPSEL SILTY CLAY LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES 13B Hydric SAMPSEL SILTY CLAY LOAM, 5 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES 13C Ecological Land Cover and Natural Resources Inventory for the Kansas City Region

Soil Unit AES Soil Type Soil Unit Name (MUNAME) (MUSYM) Hydric WABASH SILTY CLAY, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED 90 Hydric ZOOK SILTY CLAY LOAM, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED 33 Water MISCELLANEOUS WATER M-W Water WATER 9999 Water WATER W Disturbed ALTERED LAND - ORIGINAL SOIL TYPE INDETERMINATE 8 Disturbed ARENTS, EARTHEN DAM AED Disturbed FILLED LAND - ORIGINAL SOIL TYPE INDETERMINATE 68C Disturbed FILLED LAND - ORIGINAL SOIL TYPE INDETERMINATE 68D