Ecological Land 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 natural resource 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 land use 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 water 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 forests, savannas, and grasslands can again sustain high numbers of native species. When incorporated into conservation plans, woodlands, grasslands, and shrublands 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 lands also improve the aesthetic character of the landscape, 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 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 natural vegetative communities that contain quality native vegetation 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. Grassland-Savanna-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 agricultural land 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 waters 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: