Oregon Wildlife Linkages

Frequently-asked questions:


What does this data set describe?

Title:
Oregon Wildlife Linkages

Abstract:
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, under the Oregon Wildlife Movement Strategy and in partnership with other government agencies, has worked to produce this dataset of wildlife linkages, which are key movement areas for wildlife, emphasizing areas that cross paved roads.  The primary goal of this dataset and its related attributes are to address the question: "Where is the best place on the landscape to provide for animal movement needs that are essential to life history function?"

  1. How should this data set be cited?

    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 06/21/2010, Oregon Wildlife Linkages.

    Online links:
  2. What geographic area does the data set cover?

    Bounding coordinates:
    West: -124.804680
    East: -116.756968
    North: 46.257199
    South: 41.912980

  3. What does it look like?

  4. Does the data set describe conditions during a particular time period?

    Calendar date: 2/20/2008
    Currentness reference:
    publication date

  5. What is the general form of this data set?

    Geospatial data presentation form: vector digital data

  6. How does the data set represent geographic features?

    1. How are geographic features stored in the data set?

      This is a Vector data set. It contains the following vector data types (SDTS terminology):
      • G-polygon (723)

    2. What coordinate system is used to represent geographic features?

      The map projection used is Lambert Conformal Conic.

      Projection parameters:
      Standard parallel: 43.000000
      Standard parallel: 45.500000
      Longitude of central meridian: -120.500000
      Latitude of projection origin: 41.750000
      False easting: 1312336.000000
      False northing: 0.000000

      Planar coordinates are encoded using coordinate pair.
      Abscissae (x-coordinates) are specified to the nearest 0.000328.
      Ordinates (y-coordinates) are specified to the nearest 0.000328.
      Planar coordinates are specified in User_Defined_Unit.

      The horizontal datum used is North American Datum of 1983.
      The ellipsoid used is Geodetic Reference System 80.
      The semi-major axis of the ellipsoid used is 6378137.000000.
      The flattening of the ellipsoid used is 1/298.257222.

  7. How does the data set describe geographic features?

    linkage_buffers
    OBJECTID
    Internal feature number.
    (Source:
    ESRI
    )

    Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated.

    Shape
    Feature geometry.
    (Source:
    ESRI
    )

    Coordinates defining the features.

    PolyID
    Unique Polygon ID, which consists of the workshop code, species code, and original workshop link number

    Species
    Common species name

    SpecGroup
    Broader animal category

    Value Definition
    0
    Amphibian and Reptile category
    1
    Small Mammals category
    2
    Large Mammals category

    SpecValue
    The value of a linkage for a focal species.

    Value Definition
    0
    No species value determined for the linkage at the time.
    1
    "relatively low value": Linkage provides some connectivity benefit to this focal species, but there are ample, known alternatives to meet the needs of this species.
    2
    The linkage provides some connectivity benefit for the focal species, but there are some known alternatives to meet the needs of this species.
    3
    "medium value": Linkage provides significant connectivity benefit for the focal species, but other alternatives can be identified to meet the needs of this species.
    4
    Linkage provides significant connectivity benefit for the focal species, and few alternatives can be identified to meet the needs of this species.
    5
    "critical value": Linkage provides critical connectivity benefit for the focal species; may provide known individual and/or population level connectivity for this species.

    SpecThreat
    Overall threat value to linkage connectivity.

    Value Definition
    0
    No threat value determined for the linkage at the time.
    1
    "no threat/secure": Currently no threats to connectivity function are known or identified.  Linkage habitat is healthy, dominated by native species and requires little active management to maintain.
    2
    Potential threat to connectivity is unlikely, or likely to only slightly impair connectivity function in a limited portion of the linkage. Threat is reversible and requires only limited mitigation/restoration. Examples may include cattle grazing in a portion of a linkage or low level, non motorized recreation.
    3
    "moderate threat level": Threat is likely to moderately degrade connectivity function of the linkage; threat abatement is feasible, but may require more active restoration or mitigation techniques. Examples may include some channel alterations or low-density development; roads, high density residential development. Road kills may be common within the linkage.
    4
    Likely to seriously degrade connectivity function of the linkage; abatement is feasible but requires intense intervention. Examples may include development of recreational facilities (ski area, golf course) or road expansion. May observe higher levels of road kill.
    5
    "severe threat/loss imminent": Threat is likely to irreversibly eliminate the linkage; examples may include high density residential or commercial development, highway expansion, or dams in critical locations.

    Shape_Length
    Length of feature in internal units.
    (Source:
    ESRI
    )

    Positive real numbers that are automatically generated.

    Shape_Area
    Area of feature in internal units squared.
    (Source:
    ESRI
    )

    Positive real numbers that are automatically generated.

    Link2Comment
    Link2Barrier
    Link2Feature
    Link2LinkType
    Link2Prospect
    Key2SpecVal
    Key2ThreatValue
Back to Top

Who produced the data set?

  1. Who are the originators of the data set? (may include formal authors, digital compilers, and editors)


  2. Who also contributed to the data set?

  3. To whom should users address questions about the data?

    Miranda Wood
    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
    Conservation Strategy GIS Analyst
    3406 Cherry Ave NE
    Salem, OR 97303

    503-947-6075 (voice)
    Miranda.L.Wood@state.or.us
Back to Top

Why was the data set created?

Wildlife linkages can be used by transportation planners, land use planners and conservation practitioners. Identifying these linkage areas helps to refine and prioritize information in ODFW's Oregon Conservation Strategy (OCS) by addressing one of its Key Statewide Conservation Issues: barriers to animal movement.  This dataset is the compilation of products obtained through a series of four workshops held throughout the state of Oregon in 2007 and 2008. Workshops convened biologists, transportation planners, land use planners, and others - including the public, private and non-profit sectors - to identify these locations on the landscape. The term "linkage" is defined as an area on the landscape that provides for animal dispersal and/or genetic interchange (for example, where they need to move from one location to another to get food, cover or access to mates). A linkage includes a range of habitat configurations; linkage areas are not necessarily uniform in shape. A linkage is identified for a specific population of a species of interest. The locations were identified for individual species, using a list of focal species including large game mammals; small - to medium sized mammals; and, amphibians and reptiles. Information will be updated following a period of peer review in early 2008. Information displayed represents consensus on professional opinion. In many cases, additional surveys to validate the information would be appropriate.

Back to Top

How was the data set created?

  1. Where did the data come from?

  2. What changes have been made?

    Date: 2007 (change 1 of 10)
    Workshops convened biologists, transportation planners, land use planners, and others - including the public, private and non-profit sectors - to identify locations of wildlife linkages on the landscape, with an emphasis on areas that cross paved roads.  For each linkage area they identified, the participants were asked to identify focal species, characterize type of linkage, barriers, and opportunities, and to rank the value and threats to the focal species.  Participants rotated among maps according to geographic and taxonomic expertise and data availability. In some cases, participants brought supporting documentation or other mapping efforts to provide information about the areas they identified.

    Date: 2007-2008 (change 2 of 10)
    Laptops were used on site to digitize course polygon areas, and enter attribute data electronically.  Post workshops, additional polygons were georeferenced from hardcopy maps and mylar transparencies.  Data collection was broken out by 14 ODFW wildlife regions and features classes were created for each.

    Date: 2007-2008 (change 3 of 10)
    Additional attributes were entered from corresponding linkage survey sheets into each regional feature class, by ODFW staff and volunteers.  In several cases, where multiple options were selected in answer to one question, all values were stored in one field separated by semi-colons.  Text and integer values were mixed in one field throughout.

    Date: 2008 (change 4 of 10)
    Polygons were standardized to 500 foot buffers along highways or streams, where applicable.  Each polygon was validated for its location on the map and a corresponding data sheet by ODFW staff and volunteers.

    Date: 2008 (change 5 of 10)
    Attribute data was manually checked for quality assurance by volunteers and ODFW staff.

    Date: 7/30/2008 (change 6 of 10)
    Feature classes were merged into one statewide feature class and metadata was created.

    Date: 12/28/2009 - 06/21/2010 (change 7 of 10)
    To improve dataset structure quality and useability, polygon geometry, table fields, and attributes were updated from previous structure.  Overlapping polygons were converted to half-mile buffers per revision by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Department of Transportation recommendation.

    Date: 12/28/2009 - 06/21/2010 (change 8 of 10)
    Several related tables were created using PolyID as the key field.  In the original dataset, where multiple values had been combined in one field, each value was selected, and calculated into the corresponding field of the related table, resulting in one row for each code and duplicating the PolyID, to better conform with normalised database rules.  Integer values were split from text comments and assigned separate fields, where appropriate.  Seven related database tables were created to store the attributes: Barriers, Comments, Features, LinkTypes, Prospects, Species, and WorkshopInfo.  Two related database tables, SpecValueKey and ThreatValueKey, were created as key tables to define the SpecThreat and SpecValue fields in the feature class.

    Date: 06/21/2010 (change 9 of 10)
    Revised metadata created.

    Date: 20100622 (change 10 of 10)
    Metadata imported.

    Data sources used in this process:
    • H:\My Documents\Wildlife_Linkages\linkages_revamp2010\linkages2010.xml

Back to Top

How reliable are the data; what problems remain in the data set?

  1. How well have the observations been checked?

    This is a first step in the information gathering process, and areas identified will need additional surveys or on-site assessment before appropriate remedial actions are taken to improve habitat connectivity and wildlife passage across state highways.  Although this project is only a ‘first step’ towards addressing landscape level habitat connectivity in Oregon, these results are the best information currently available through professional consensus.

  2. How accurate are the geographic locations?

  3. How accurate are the heights or depths?

  4. Where are the gaps in the data? What is missing?

    There are 723 linkage buffers digitized total.  All linkage buffers are assigned a unique polygon ID (PolyID field), which serves as the key identifier for on-the-fly relationships to other attribute tables, including Barriers, Comments, Features, LinkTypes, Prospects, Species, and WorkshopInfo.  Also, all linkage buffers are assigned attributes for species type (in the Species field), broad animal category (in the SpecGroup field) and buffer distance (in the BuffDist field).  All other attributes in the dataset (SpecValue or SpecTheat fields) or related tables may or may not be assigned.  Unassigned values are recorded as 0 (short integer field) or blank (text field).

  5. How consistent are the relationships among the observations, including topology?

    All linkage areas were created as overlapping half-mile buffers with consistent distances from linear center (highway or stream).

Back to Top

How can someone get a copy of the data set?

Are there legal restrictions on access or use of the data?

Access constraints: Dataset is accessible to the public at http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/DataClearinghouse/default.aspx?p=202&XMLname=806.xml. This spatial data layer was developed based on a variety of sources. Care was taken in the creation of this layer, but it is provided "as is." The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital data or underlying records. There are no warranties, expressed or implied, including the warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, accompanying any of these products. Notification of any errors would be appreciated, please e-mail: miranda.l.wood@state.or.us.
Use constraints:
Dataset is publically available for use without restriction.  Due to the complex content of the dataset, metadata should always remain with the dataset.

Distributor 1 of 1

  1. Who distributes the data set?

  2. What's the catalog number I need to order this data set?

    Downloadable Data

  3. What legal disclaimers am I supposed to read?

  4. How can I download or order the data?

    • Availability in digital form:


    • Data format:
      Size: 16.905

  5. Is there some other way to get the data?

  6. What hardware or software do I need in order to use the data set?

    Requires ESRI ArcGIS Desktop 8.3 or 9.x, ArcGISExplorer, other software packages that can read the .shp format

Back to Top

Who wrote the metadata?

Dates:
Last modified: 20100729

Metadata author:
Miranda Wood
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Strategy GIS Analyst
3406 Cherry Ave NE
Salem, OR 97303

503-947-6075 (voice)
Miranda.L.Wood@state.or.us

Metadata standard:
FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata (FGDC-STD-001-1998)

Metadata extensions used:
  • http://www.esri.com/metadata/esriprof80.html

  • Back to Top