Great Plains Perennial Grasslands (Southeast Blueprint Indicator ) [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] {2023} Full Details

Full Details

Title:

Great Plains Perennial Grasslands (Southeast Blueprint Indicator ) [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] {2023}

Description:

Reason for Selection The extensive grasslands of the Great Plains once stretched from Canada to Mexico, with a plant community dominated by native perennials and forbs. However, conversion to agriculture and other land uses have significantly reduced their extent, while overgrazing and fire suppression have also increased the amount of invasive and non-native plants. Great Plains grasslands support many rare and unique plant species, pollinators (e.g., the Monarch butterfly), birds, and other grassland-adapted animals (e.g., the prairie chicken). Since grassland birds are experiencing significant declines and are currently off-track for meeting the SECAS 10% goal, it is particularly important that the Blueprint capture known and potential grasslands. Input Data Rangeland Analysis Platform (RAP) vegetation cover v3;download the data (vegetation-cover-v3-2021.tif, last updated 8-1-2022) 2019 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) Base Blueprint 2022 subregions Base Blueprint 2022 extent Southeast Blueprint 2023 extent Mapping Steps Make a raster using only band 4 (perennial forbs and grass) from the RAP vegetation cover data. Remove from the resulting raster areas identified in the 2019 NLCD as water (11), urban (21-24), and crop (82). This removes fewer natural areas and is consistent with how the data are displayed in the RAP viewer. Combine the following subregions from the Base Blueprint 2022 subregions to create a Great Plains extent: Edwards Plateau, High Plains and Tablelands, Plains and Timbers, Southern Texas Plains, and Texas Blackland Prairies & Plains. While the data extended farther east and into southwest Texas, the indicator performed poorly in those places, so we excluded them from the indicator. Clip the previous raster to the created Great Plains extent. Bin the values of the resulting layer into five equal bins of 20% each, seen in the final indicator values below. 20% was chosen as the bin size because, based on comparisons to existing conserved areas and satellite imagery, more detailed classes appeared to correlate less with overall grassland condition, while less detailed classes appeared to miss impacts from woody encroachment. Clip to the spatial extent of Base Blueprint 2022. As a final step, clip to the spatial extent of Southeast Blueprint 2023. Note: For more details on the mapping steps, code used to create this layer is available in the Southeast Blueprint 2023 Data Download under > 6_Code. Final indicator values Indicatorvaluesareassignedasfollows: 5 = 81-100% perennial forbs and perennial grass 4 = 61-80% perennial forbs and perennial grass 3 = 41-60% perennial forbs and perennial grass 2 = 21-40% perennial forbs and perennial grass 1 = 0-20% perennial forbs and perennial grass Known Issues This indicator likely underestimates grassland condition in areas where the natural reference conditions include a high percentage of annual forbs and grasses. This indicator overestimates condition in some urban areas. While there are grasslands in good condition in and around cities, the vegetation model was trained on points that were primarily outside of cities and doesn't perform as well on some grassland features in cities like large, regularly mowed fields. This indicator overprioritizes wetlands, which can appear to be high-scoring perennial grasslands. Disclaimer: Comparing with Older Indicator Versions There are numerous problems with using Southeast Blueprint indicators for change analysis. Please consult Blueprint staff if you would like to do this (email hilary_morris@fws.gov). Literature Cited Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy. 2021. Recent Trends in Southeastern Ecosystems (2021): Measuring Progress toward the SECAS Goal. [https://secassoutheast.org/pdf/SECAS-goal-report-2021.pdf]. Allred, B.W., B.T. Bestelmeyer, C.S. Boyd, C. Brown, K.W. Davies, M.C. Duniway, L.M. Ellsworth, T.A. Erickson, S.D. Fuhlendorf, T.V. Griffiths, V. Jansen, M.O. Jones, J. Karl, A. Knight, J.D. Maestas, J.J. Maynard, S.E. McCord, D.E. Naugle, H.D. Starns, D. Twidwell, and D.R. Uden. 2021. Improving Landsat predictions of rangeland fractional cover with multitask learning and uncertainty. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. [https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13564]. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Published June 2021. National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2019 Land Cover Conterminous United States. Sioux Falls, SD. [https://doi.org/10.5066/P9KZCM54]. Yang, Limin, Jin, Suming, Danielson, Patrick, Homer, Collin G., Gass, L., Bender, S.M., Case, Adam, Costello, C., Dewitz, Jon A., Fry, Joyce A., Funk, M., Granneman, Brian J., Liknes, G.C., Rigge, Matthew B., Xian, George. 2018. A new generation of the United States National Land Cover Database—Requirements, research priorities, design, and implementation strategies: ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, v. 146, p. 108-123. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.09.006].

Creator:

Department of the Interior

Provider:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Open Data

Resource Class:

Imagery and Web services

Resource Type:

Satellite imagery

Temporal Coverage:

2023

Date Issued:

2022-09-06

Place:

United States

Rights:

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. While the Service makes every reasonable effort to ensure the accuracy and completeness of data provided for distribution, it may not have the necessary accuracy or completeness required for every possible intended use. The Service recommends that data users consult the associated metadata record to understand the quality and possible limitations of the data. The Service creates metadata records in accordance with the standards endorsed by the Federal Geographic Data Committee. As a result of the above considerations, the Service gives no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the data. It is the responsibility of the data user to use the data in a manner consistent with the limitations of geospatial data in general and these data in particular. Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the Service, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the utility of the data on another system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. This applies to the use of the data both alone and in aggregate with other data and information.

Access Rights:

Public

Format:

Imagery

Language:

English

Date Added:

2023-08-11