Review of Information Available for Planning in EastWest Gateway Region Dr. David Diamond (diamondd@missouri.edu) Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership (MoRAP )
Mary Grace Lewandowski, AICP (marygrace.lewandowski@ewgateway.org)
East-West Gateway Council of Governments
East-West Gateway Region
St. Louis, MO Lost 965 square miles to urban development
1972
1999
Situation • East-West Gateway has worked with federal and state partners to develop data on ecological significance to help facilitate planning over the past four years • Wetlands have been a special focus, but both uplands and wetlands have been considered • We would like to have the information used for planning and project review
Develop Improved Current Vegetation Datalayer Regional Ecological Significance
Interpretive Guide; Community Importance Ranking
Project-level Ecological Significance
Applied to Natural and Seminatural Vegetation Patches
Applied to Mapped Current Vegetation, not combined natural and semi-natural patches
Improved Wetland Mapping and Ranking using LiDAR
Wetland Mitigation and Restoration Ranking
Classify Land Cover
Abiotic Site Types
(15 types)
Satellite TM Data for 3 Dates (30 m) Environmental Variables NAIP Photos for “objects” (10 m)”
SSURGO Soil Groups Solar Insolation, %Slope Land Position Hydrology
Modeling: Assign final mapped vegetation from land cover and abiotic site type
Final Mapped Current Vegetation Types (60 types)
Missouri ELT Development Process 4) Potential Natural Communities are then tied to each land unit, resulting in ELTs and ELT Phases.
Land Cover and Ancillary Data Applied to Image Objects to Map 60 Current Vegetation Types Land Cover
ELT’s
“Wettest” Areas
Image Objects from NAIP Generated at 6 m Resolution
30 meter Land Cover from Satellite Imagery
Land Cover from Satellite Image Analysis Applied to Objects
Current Vegetation from ELT’s together with Current Land Cover
Ecological Significance Ranking: Conceptual Underpinning • Coarse filter / fine filter – Coarse filter conservation targets are communities – Fine filter targets are species
• Consider long-term functionality – Most species of conservation concern require fairly large patches to maintain viable populations – Existing public lands offer the opportunity to create larger preserves
Attribution of Patches: Lots of Work! • Size and Shape • Mapped Regionally Significant Species • Area of Large Forest Patches • Maximum Species Diversity from Models • Area of Significant Communities • Number of Springs • Area of Significant • Number of Karst Sinks Stream Buffers • Area of Public Land • Mapped Globally Rare Species All ranked 1-5
Ranking Algorithms • Regional: attributes by natural & semi-natural vegetation patches • Project-level: attributes by community type patches • Wetlands – similar to project-level attributes for significance; croplands ranked for restoration priority
Regional- level Ecological Significance (highest ranks cover about 10% of area)
Project- level Ecological Significance
Initial Wetland Mitigation Model •
Wetland Community Importance Rank
•
Project-level Significance
•
Public Lands
•
Water
•
Roads and Urban land cover
Initial Wetland Restoration Ranking •
Public Lands
•
Proximity to Extant Wetlands
•
Proximity to Water
•
Proximity to Roads and Urban Areas
Big River Floodplain Improvements: DEM from LiDAR 2006 COE 5 meter DEM
2008 – 2010 LiDAR 5 meter DEM
Vegetation Height
LiDAR DSM Grid Oblique
Wetland Classification Codes • System – – – –
P Palustrine L Lacustrine R Riverine U Upland
Water Regime • H Permanently Flooded • C Seasonally Flooded • A Temporarily Flooded
• Sub-system • Vegetation Height • Emergent • Short Scrub Shrub • Tall Scrub Shrub • Forested
– – – –
1 Deciduous 4 Evergreen 1 Persistent UB Unconsolidated Bottom – 1 Limnetic – 2 Lower Perennial – UB Unconsolidated Bottom
Cowardin-style Classification
Improved Wetland Complex Importance Ranking Weighted Patch Size Diversity Distance to Protected Lands Distance to Urban Lands
Improved Wetland Restoration Rank Water Regime Distance to Protected Lands
Distance to Urban Lands Distance to Water Distance to Existing Wetlands
Ranking for All Big River Floodplains
Analysis Area MMRP HGM wetland delineation: how does this compare?
Ma dis on St. C h arle s
St. L ou is
St. L ou is City
St. C la ir
Fra nk lin
Jeffe rso n
HGM Area
Mo nr oe
MoRAP Wetlands !! !
!! !! !! !!
St. C h arle s
St. L ou is
Fra nk lin
Jeffe rso n
Ma dis on
Ma dis on
!! !! !!! !! St. L ou is !!City !! !! !! ! !! !! St. C la ir !!! !! !! !! !!! !!! !! Mo nr oe !! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!
St. C h arle s
St. L ou is
St. L ou is City
St. C la ir
Fra nk lin
Jeffe rso n
!!
!
Mo nr oe
Horseshoe Lake State Park
Horseshoe Lake State Park
Âľ
0
0
0.5
0.25 0.5
1
2 Kilometers
1 Miles
Horseshoe Lake State Park
MMRP Vegetation 2006
Protected Areas
EWG Wetlands 2013 Barren Pondshore Emergent Marsh, Permanently Flooded Emergent Marsh, Seasonally Flooded Emergent Marsh, Temporarily Flooded Deciduous Forested Wetland, Permanently Flooded Deciduous Forested Wetland, Seasonally Flooded Deciduous Forested Wetland, Temporarily Flooded Deciduous Short Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Permanently Flooded Deciduous Short Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Seasonally Flooded Deciduous Short Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Temporarily Flooded
Deciduous Tall Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Permanently Flooded Deciduous Tall Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Seasonally Flooded Deciduous Tall Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Temporarily Flooded Evergreen Forested Wetland, Seasonally Flooded Evergreen Forested Wetland, Temporarily Flooded Evergreen Short Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Permanently Flooded Evergreen Short Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Seasonally Flooded Evergreen Short Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Temporarily Flooded Evergreen Tall Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Permanently Flooded Evergreen Tall Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Seasonally Flooded Evergreen Tall Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Temporarily Flooded Water
Bottomland Lake Bottomland Prairie Ridge Bottomland Prairie Swale Bottomland Prairie Urban Floodplain Forest Ridge Floodplain Forest Swale Floodplain Forest Urban Riverfront Forest Slope Forest
Riverfront Forest 23,280 ha. in MMRP • 6,427 ha. in the study area St. C h arle s
St. C h arle s
Ma dis on
St. L ou is St. L ou is City
St. C la ir
Mo nr oe Jeffe rso n
Types of MoRAP Wetland data in Riverfront Forest • 2,796 ha. are Deciduous Forested Wetland, Seasonally Flooded • 742 ha. are Not Natural Vegetation • 468 ha. are Deciduous Tall Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Seasonally Flooded • 417 ha. Are Deciduous Short Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Seasonally Flooded • 360 ha. are Emergent Marsh, Seasonally Flooded • 271 ha. are Upland Forested Vegetation • 1,373 ha. other
Bottomland Lake 5,702 ha. in MMRP • 2,925 ha. in the study area St. C h arle s
St. C h arle s
Ma dis on
St. L ou is St. L ou is City
St. C la ir
Mo nr oe Jeffe rso n
Types of MoRAP Wetland data in Bottomland Lake • 970 ha. are Water • 414 ha. are Not Natural Vegetation • 321 ha. are Emergent Marsh, Permanently Flooded • 295 ha. are Emergent Marsh, Seasonally Flooded • 255 ha. are Deciduous Forested Wetland, Seasonally Flooded • 148 ha. are Deciduous Short Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Seasonally Flooded • 522 ha. other
Bottomland Prairie Swale 1,629 ha. in MMRP • 1,319 ha. in the study area St. C h arle s
St. C h arle s
Ma dis on
St. L ou is St. L ou is City
St. C la ir
Mo nr oe Jeffe rso n
Types of MoRAP Wetland data in Bottomland Prairie Swale • 398 ha. are Not Natural Vegetation • 270 ha. are Deciduous Forested Wetland, Seasonally Flooded • 89 ha. are Deciduous Short Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Seasonally Flooded • 72 ha. are Deciduous Forested Wetland, Temporarily Flooded • 65 ha. are Emergent Marsh, Seasonally Flooded • 60 ha. are Deciduous Tall Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Seasonally Flooded • 365 ha. other
Floodplain Forest Swale 8,299 ha. in MMRP • 1,113 ha. in the study area St. C h arle s
St. C h arle s
Ma dis on
St. L ou is St. L ou is City
St. C la ir
Mo nr oe Jeffe rso n
Types of MoRAP Wetland data in Floodplain Forest Swale • 355 ha. are Not Natural Vegetation • 177 ha. are Deciduous Forested Wetland, Seasonally Flooded • 82 ha. are Emergent Marsh, Temporarily Flooded • 75 ha. are Emergent Marsh, Seasonally Flooded • 66 ha. are Water • 55 ha. are Deciduous Short Shrub/Scrub Wetland, Seasonally Flooded • 303 ha. are other
What is 'Floodplain Forest Swale‘ in HGM and 'Not Natural Vegetation' in MoRAP Wetlands? • Cropland 259 ha. • Low Density Urban 90 ha. • High Density Urban 6 ha.
MoRAP “Not Natural Vegetation” Riverfront Forest
Bottomland Lake
• Cropland 487 ha. • Low Density Urban 227 ha. • High Density Urban 27 ha.
• Low Density Urban 215 ha. • Cropland 158 ha. • High Density Urban 40 ha.
Bottomland Prairie Swale
Floodplain Forest Swale
• Low Density Urban 218 ha. • Cropland 163 ha. • High Density Urban 18 ha.
• Cropland 259 ha. • Low Density Urban 90 ha. • High Density Urban 6 ha.
Deciduous Forested Wetland, Seasonally Flooded 15,175 ha. in MoRAP wetlands
• 4,093 ha. in the study area St. C h arle s
St. C h arle s
Ma dis on
St. L ou is St. L ou is City
St. C la ir
Mo nr oe Jeffe rso n
Types of HGM wetlands in Deciduous Forested Wetland, Seasonally Flooded
• 2,796 ha. in Riverfront Forest • 394 ha. not in HGM • 270 ha. in Bottomland Prairie Swale • 255 ha. in Bottomland Lake • 177 ha. in Floodplain Forest Swale • 82 ha. in Slope Forest • 15 ha. in other
Emergent Marsh, Seasonally Flooded 5,440 ha. in MoRAP wetlands • 2,043 ha. in the study area St. C h arle s
St. C h arle s
Ma dis on
St. L ou is St. L ou is City
St. C la ir
Mo nr oe Jeffe rso n
Types of HGM wetlands in Emergent Marsh, Seasonally Flooded
• • • •
1,197 ha. not in HGM 360 ha. in Riverfront Forest 295 ha. in Bottomland Lake 75 ha. in Floodplain Forest Swale • 65 ha. in Bottomland Prairie Swale • 16 ha. in Bottomland Prairie Urban • 34 ha. in other
SHRP Pilot Areas - 2012 NAIP Imagery: Improvements in urban areas
Vegetation
2011 6� Imagery - Columbia
High Resolution Vegetation Mapping
From Ecological Significance Rankings to Project Scores: Being Done by E-W Gateway Staff Step 1: Protect the areas of highest significance, even if they have a very small footprint. Buffer each proposed project by ¼ mile. Check to see if any patches valued 8 or 9 are within the buffer. If any 8 or 9 patches are found, project receives a score of zero. If no 8 or 9 patches are found, project moves on to Step 2.