Oregon Priority Wildlife Linkages

Frequently-asked questions:


What does this data set describe?

Title:
Oregon Priority 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?"  This data set prioritizes the wildlife linkage and breaks them out into contiguous areas based on the following criteria: 1). whether the area falls within a Conservation Opportunity Area 2). whether the area falls within Federal, State/County or Private ownership 3). whether the area contains multiple species' linkages 4). whether the area is designated by ODOT as a wildlife collision hotspot 5). whether the area has a medium or high threat value 6). and whether the area has a medium or high species value.

Supplemental information:
For some linkage areas, priority status may be underestimated, especially for linkage areas where no information was recorded at the time for species value or threat value.  For consistency, linkages with a rank of 0 (no information recorded) were included in the prioritization but the rank might not reflect actual species or threat value.  For linkages where underestimation may occur, additional surveys to validate the information would be appropriate.

  1. How should this data set be cited?

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

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

    Bounding coordinates:
    West: -124.804584
    East: -116.756968
    North: 46.257199
    South: 41.912983

  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 (14071)

    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_priorities
    OBJECTID
    Internal feature number.
    (Source:
    ESRI
    )

    Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated.

    Shape
    Feature geometry.
    (Source:
    ESRI
    )

    Coordinates defining the features.

    TotalRank
    Total priority rank for linkage (low-high, 0-10)

    OwnRank
    Priority rank by ownership status

    Owner
    Description of owner

    CrashRank
    Priority rank by ODOT wildlife collision hotspot values

    Value Definition
    0
    Polygons intersecting low crash density or no hotspots
    1
    Polygons intersecting medium/med-low hotspots
    2
    Polygons intersecting high/med-high hotspots

    CrashDens
    High frequency wildlife carcass incidents (from the Oregon Department of Transportation dispatch records of carcass reports, 1995 - 2006, all state highways). Includes only records of deer and elk, with reported precision of >= 0.5 mile. Hot spots were derived from a kernel density probability analysis, and mapped using the Jenks Natural Breaks method to rank the values into five continuous categories.
    (Source:
    ODOT
    )

    COARank
    Rank by location within a Conservation Opportunity Area

    COAName
    Conservation Opportunity Areas were developed for the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy to help identify priority areas for conservation actions that directly benefit wildlife and habitats. The purpose is to show areas in which conservation actions would best meet the needs of Strategy species and habitats. These areas are generally either areas of high biodiversity or areas with unique habitat values. Please refer to Oregon's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for methodology, intended usage, and datasets used in the formation of COAs.
    (Source:
    ODFW
    )

    SpecRank
    Priority rank by the value of a linkage for a focal species

    SpecVal
    the value of a linkage for a focal species

    Value Definition
    0
    No species value or value 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.
    1
    Species value 2 or 3.   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;  2 = the linkage provides some connectivity benefit for the focal species, but there are some known alternatives to meet the needs of this species.
    2
    Species value 4 or 5.  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.

    ThreatRank
    Priority rank by overall threat value to linkage connectivity

    ThreatVal
    Overall threat value to linkage connectivity

    Value Definition
    0
    No threat value or value 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.
    1
    Threat value 2 or 3.  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; 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.
    2
    Threat value 4 or 5.  4 = threat is likely to seriously degrade connectivity function of the linkage; threat 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.

    Overlap
    Priority rank assigned if multiple linkage areas overlap

    Value Definition
    0
    No polygons overlap - single species only
    1
    Two or more polygons overlap - multiple species within boundary

    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.

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 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?

    (source 1 of 3)

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

    Online links:
    Source scale denominator: 1:24,000

    (source 2 of 3)

    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2005, Conservation Opportunity Areas.

    Online links:
    Source scale denominator: 1:200,000

    (source 3 of 3)

    Oregon Department of Transportation, 2006, Wildlife Hotspot Collision Kernel Density.

    Source scale denominator: unknown

  2. What changes have been made?

    (change 1 of 13)
    Test buffers were combined with Goal 2 county taxlot GIS data (2007-2009 dates) using the ArcToolbox Identify tool. Counties without Goal 2 taxlot GIS data available were Grant, Lake, Morrow, and Wheeler and instead ownership for these counties was derived from the BLM OR/WA Surface Management Ownership dataset. Once ownership data was clipped to the linkage boundaries, parcels were assigned a generic value of 'federal', 'state', 'county', and 'other'. Ownership data was quality checked against BLM and USFS ownership coverages for blank spots, or duplicate parcels with conflicting ownership.  Road boundaries were also removed and parcel boundaries generalized.  Corrections were made on a case by case basis. The data set was then dissolved by the generic values into more contiguous blocks of ownership.  Eliminate was run to remove tiny parcels and errors in the data.

    (change 2 of 13)
    Oregon Wildlife Linkages, 1st edition (07/30/2008) buffered 2140 feet for a total of 2640 feet or a half mile.

    (change 3 of 13)
    Merged and Clipped polygons (starting with species value 5) so that buffers containing highest specvalue were represented only (no overlap with lower species values).  Selected polygons under 729,000 sq. ft (manually selected acceptable sliver size range) and ran Eliminate to clean up and remove slivers from data.

    (change 4 of 13)
    Merged and Clipped polygons (starting with threat value 5) so that buffers containing highest threatval are represented only (no overlap with lower threat values).  Selected polygons under 792,000 sq. ft (manually selected acceptable sliver size range) and ran Eliminate to clean up and remove slivers from data.

    (change 5 of 13)
    Ran topology validation on specval and threatval datasets to ensure no remaining overlaps.

    (change 6 of 13)
    Reclassed the ODOT wildlife hotspot collision kernel densities raster from double decimal values to single integer categories (0-5) using Spatial Analyst and converted to vector format.  Removed 0 values and added field with high-med-low delineations.

    (change 7 of 13)
    Used Union to combine criteria datasets: ownership, threat value, species value, conservation opportunity areas, and crash density.

    (change 8 of 13)
    To determine overlapping buffers, validated topology with rule "no overlap" from original linkages dataset.  Subtracted features from overlapping topology areas.  Deleted slivers in buffer data smaller than 500,000 sq. ft.  Manually deleted long slivers.  Polygons remaining indicate buffers with no overlap.

    (change 9 of 13)
    Used Union to combine overlap criteria to the other six criteria for final criteria layer.

    (change 10 of 13)
    Merged buffers from original linkages dataset to eliminate overlap.  Clipped unioned layer to buffer outline layer. Exploded multi-part features and ran Eliminate to remove slivers and errors in data, less than 195 sq. ft.

    (change 11 of 13)
    Deleted unneeded fields and kept necessary fields to determine criteria.  Added new fields to attribute table, copied values to new field schema; deleted old fields and calculated ranks for each criteria based on value.

    (change 12 of 13)
    Created metadata.

    Date: 20100622 (change 13 of 13)
    Metadata imported.

    Data sources used in this process:
    • H:\My Documents\Wildlife_Linkages\linkages_revamp2010\priorities2010.xml

Back to Top

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

  1. How well have the observations been checked?

    Cells are blank where criteria values were not applicable.  All records have ranks assigned a value of 0-2.  Records for the TotalRank field all have a value assigned 0-10.

  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?

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

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

    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.

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?

    Dataset is accessible to the public at http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/DataClearinghouse/default.aspx?p=202&XMLname=806.xml.

  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: 27.137

  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?

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

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