Southeast Blueprint v3.0 Input Areas
This layer is part of an older version of the Southeast Blueprint. It depicts the best current approximation of the analysis extent for each subregional Blueprint input. It can serve as a resource for determining which of the subregional Blueprint inputs covers a particular area of interest, providing a roadmap for where to look for more detailed information. This layer also illustrates how the various inputs overlap with one another. This layer was also used to assign 0 and NoData values in Southeast Blueprint v3.0.
Extent of Input Areas
The extent of this file originally covered the entire extent of the inputs into the Southeast Blueprint. It was then clipped down to the SECAS boundary to match the Southeast Blueprint final extent.
Input data
The majority of inputs into Southeast Blueprint 3.0 identify the priority areas that are translated into high and medium conservation value in the Blueprint, but do not capture the total extent of each analysis. In other words, these subregional Blueprint inputs do not distinguish between areas that were considered in the analysis and determined to have lower value, and areas that fell outside the analysis extent that were not considered for inclusion in the Blueprint. This layer attempts to capture the total extent of the analysis area for each input into Southeast Blueprint 3.0. This layer was used to assign 0 (areas inside the analysis area that are determined to have lower conservation value) and NoData (areas outside of analysis area) values in Southeast Blueprint 3.0.
For this layer, we used our best approximation of the analysis extent for each input. We reached out to the creators of each input dataset and used the best available data we could find. Below is a list of the analysis extent data that was used in Southeast Blueprint 3.0:
Peninsular Florida analysis extent:
Due to the complexity of Florida’s coastline, a buffered state line (created from the 2015 Tiger line version of U.S. County boundaries) was used to ensure that all portions of the Peninsular Florida Blueprint were included within the extent; however, this extent does include areas of estuaries and open ocean that were not included in the development of the Peninsular Florida Blueprint. This roughly aligns with the inland state boundary of the Peninsular Florida Blueprint input, but is not completely aligned. An updated version of the Peninsular Florida Blueprint is planned for mid-2019, which will include estuarine and marine areas.
South Atlantic analysis extent:
The extent of the South Atlantic Blueprint 2.2 raster reflects the full analysis area. Any areas included in the analysis that are determined to be a lower priority are classified as “not a priority for shared action” rather than left as NoData.
North Atlantic Nature’s Network extent:
A 2015 Tiger line version of U.S. county boundaries for states that are in the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (NEAFWA) was used to approximate this extent. This version of county/state boundaries buffers into the marine environment, so it overestimates the extent of the marine environment included in the analysis. This layer was chosen because it does not cut off any coastal areas due to differences in the digitizing of the coast in different state boundary GIS files (this is not noticeable once the layer is clipped down to the SECAS region). It roughly aligns with the inland extent of the North Atlantic Nature’s Network priority areas, but is not completely aligned.
Appalachian NatureScape extent:
The Appalachian NatureScape Phase II design boundary was approximated by using the full extent of the following layers: a hexagon layer provided by the Appalachian LCC (PU_Boundary*), the non-zero values in the species richness raster (sp_rich_int*), the Appalachian LCC boundary from the 2015 LCC boundary file*, and the NatureScape Design layer itself. Any area that fell into any of those four layers was considered part of the Appalachian NatureScape Phase II design boundary. This extent is a good rough approximation, but likely has some errors.
Gulf Coast Prairie Blueprint extent:
An expert in the GCP Blueprint created a rough approximation of the extent of this input (GCP_BP_footprint_approx*). This extent is a good rough approximation, but likely has some errors, particularly in the marine environment.
Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks (GCPO) Blueprint extent:
This extent was estimated by intersecting the Integrated_Watershed_Ranks* file with the GCPO boundary from the 2015 LCC boundary file*. According to an expert in the GCPO Blueprint, this seems to be a close approximation of the analysis extent.
Gulf Hypoxia Blueprint extent (Missouri only):
We used the spatial extent of the input layer that was provided (sum of priorities for water and conservation interests). This input had values for all pixels in the full state of Missouri.
Caribbean Landscape Conservation Design extent:
An expert in the Caribbean LCD provided an extent layer with the input priorities (Watershed_Ranking_PR*).
Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool extent (Texas and Oklahoma):
Both the Oklahoma CHAT data (WAFWA_CHAT_downloadable_013016*) and Texas CHAT data (TexasCHATHexData*, provided separately by the CHAT State Technical contact for Texas) have vector hexagons that cover the entire area. We used the full extent of hexagons from those two sources.
Mapping steps
Many of the input layers listed above were already in vector form. We converted any rasters to vectors. We unioned together all input extent areas using the union tool in ArcGIS. We then converted the vector file to a raster, using the same 30 meter cell size as the Southeast Blueprint (and snapping to Southeast Blueprint). This step helped more accurately capture which areas were covered by the vector inputs once they were rasterized in the Southeast Blueprint raster. We added attributes to document which polygons were covered by each input extent. We then converted the layer back to a vector (without simplifying the polygons) to make the file size more manageable. We performed a dissolve to reduce the total number of polygons by creating multipart features. This produced a layer where each area covered by a unique combination of input layers is represented by only one polygon.
We then calculated the percent of each class of the Southeast Blueprint contained inside each polygon in this dataset using the tabulate area tool in ArcGIS. This helped quantify the known issue of the Blueprint over prioritizing areas where multiple input datasets overlap.
Attributes
-- SECAS: If this field contains the value “yes,” it is inside the SECAS boundary and is covered by Southeast Blueprint 3.0.
-- Overlap: if this field contains the world “no,” then this polygon represents an area that is only covered by one input in Southeast Blueprint 3.0. If this field contains the world “yes,” then this polygon represents and area that is covered by two or more inputs in Southeast Blueprint 3.0.
-- SeBp: Lists all of the Southeast Blueprint input files that overlap in this area. The inputs are abbreviated in this field.
-- SEBlueprintInputAll: Lists all of the Southeast Blueprint input files that overlap in this area. The inputs are not abbreviated in this field.
-- PF_B: If this field contains the word “yes,” the area is inside the estimation of the Peninsular Florida Blueprint analysis extent.
-- SA_BP: If this field contains the word “yes,” the area is inside the South Atlantic Blueprint analysis extent.
-- NA_NNCD: If this field contains the word “yes,” the area is inside the estimation of the North Atlantic Nature’s Network analysis extent.
-- App_NS: If this field contains the word “yes,” the area is inside the estimation of the Appalachian NatureScape analysis extent.
-- GCPO_BP: If this field contains the word “yes,” the area is inside the estimation of the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Blueprint analysis extent.
-- GCP_BP: If this field contains the word “yes,” the area is inside the estimation of the Gulf Coast Prairie Blueprint analysis extent.
-- GH_PCB: If this field contains the word “yes,” the area is inside the estimation of the Gulf Hypoxia Precision Conservation Blueprint v1.5 analysis extent.
-- Car_LCD: If this field contains the word “yes,” the area is inside the estimation of the Caribbean Landscape Conservation Design analysis extent.
-- TX_CHAT: If this field contains the word “yes,” the area is inside the estimation of the Texas CHAT analysis extent.
-- CHAT: If this field contains the word “yes,” the area is inside the estimation of the WAFWA CHAT analysis extent.
-- PercentHigh: The percent of this polygon that is covered by “high conservation value” pixels in Southeast Blueprint 3.0.
-- PercentMed: The percent of this polygon that is covered by “medium conservation value” pixels in Southeast Blueprint 3.0.
-- PercentHighOrMed: The percent of this polygon that is covered by either “high conservation value” or “medium conservation value” pixels in Southeast Blueprint 3.0.
Known issues
-- Providing this information on input areas is an improvement over the previous version of the Blueprint, but work remains to be done to improve the accuracy and completeness of this layer. Since most of the subregional Blueprint inputs did not formally record the extent of the analysis, most of the inputs represent our best estimate. We will continue to work with the data providers of each subregional input to improve this layer over time.
-- As described in more detail in the “Input data” section above, we have lower confidence in the accuracy of the spatial extent of the Appalachian NatureScape Design and the Peninsular Florida Blueprint. The issue in the Appalachian produces a gap between the Appalachian and South Atlantic input extents, where a few scattered pixels are not covered by either plan and therefore not considered in the Southeast Blueprint. These pixels are not very noticeable at the Southeast scale and add up to area of approximately 24 acres.
-- At the time of the creation of Blueprint 3.0, the Texas CHAT data were not yet incorporated into the full Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency FWA CHAT data. The copy of the Texas CHAT data used in Southeast Blueprint 3.0 was provided by the CHAT State Technical contact for Texas. As a result, some hexagons were duplicated in the Texas CHAT layer and the full CHAT layer. This also caused a slight hexagon mismatch between the two CHAT layers. These issues will be resolved in future versions when the entire CHAT is downloaded together.
-- This layer overestimates the extent of nearshore and marine environments included in the analysis. This overestimation is especially noticeable in the Chesapeake Bay near Virginia and around Florida and the Gulf coast.
*These file names refer to local copies of layers that are not all publicly available. They are included in the metadata for transparency and for reference by Southeast Blueprint staff. These layers are available on request by emailing Amy Keister at amy_keister@fws.gov.
