TITLE: INTEGRATED WILDLIFE HABITAT RANKING SYSTEM

Geodataset Name:       IWHRS
Geodataset Type:       SHAPEFILE
Geodataset Feature:    POLYGON

This data contains layers used to identify and rank landscape level habitat areas which are important to a broad array of wildlife species. The ranking system provides a scored, color coded, map which depicts habitat values ranging from 1 to 10 based on a composite score of many important variables which collectively represent quality habitat. The higher the habitat score the higher the quality of habitat.

DATA SOURCE(S):                    Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
SCALE OF ORIGINAL SOURCE MAPS:     N/A
DATE OF AUTOMATION OF SOURCE:      2001
GEODATASET EXTENT:                 State of Florida

FEATURE ATTRIBUTE TABLES:

Datafile Name: IWHRS.DBF

FEATURE ATTRIBUTE TABLES CODES AND VALUES:

Item	Item Description
FID	Internal feature number.
SHAPE	Feature geometry.
ID	GIS identification number
GRIDCODE	Final ranking of habitat quality.

USER NOTES:

GeoPlan relied on the integrity of the attribute information within the original data.

This information is provided as part of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission continuing technical assistance to the Florida Department of Transportation to assist in: (1) determining ways to avoid or minimize project impacts by evaluating alternative alignments and transportation corridors during early planning stages, (2) assessing direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to habitat and wildlife resources, and (3) identifying appropriate parcels for public land acquisition for weland and upland habitat mitigation purposes. The information provided is based on remote sensing data to assist in long-range planning. Onsite surveys, literature reviews, and direct coordination with our agency remain essential steps in documenting the presence or absence of fish and wildlife resources on a particular site prior to project initiation. Species in this documentation include mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles which are considered rare, or focal species, including wildlife which are officially listed by our agency as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern

A note concerning data scale: Scale is an important factor in data usage. Certain scale datasets are not suitablefor some project, analysis, or modelling purposes. Please be sure you are using the best available data. 1:24000 scale datasets are recommended for projects that are at the county level. 1:24000 data should NOT be used for high accuracy base mapping such as property parcel boundaries. 1:100000 scale datasets are recommended for projects that are at the multi-county or regional level. 1:250000 scale datasets are recommended for projects that are at the regional or state level or larger. Vector datasets with no defined scale or accuracy should be considered suspect. Make sure you are familiar with your data before using it for projects or analyses. Every effort has been made to supply the user with data documentation. For additional information, see the References section and the Data Source Contact section of this documentation. For more information regarding scale and accuracy, see our web pages at: http://www.geoplan.ufl.edu/education.html

REFERENCES:

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commision: http://www.floridaconservation.org/ http://www.floridaconservation.org/oes/habitat_sec/hab_rank.pdf

DATA LINEAGE SUMMARY:

The following datasets were used in the construction of the model's data layers. Land Cover: The land cover image was created by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission using Landsat Thematic Mapper data collected from 1987 to 1989. The image includes 22 classes that correspond to habitat descriptions outlined by Davis (1967), Hartman (1978), and the Soil Conservation Service (1979). Kautz et al. (1993) give detailed descriptions on the methods of image preparation. Public Lands: A comprehensive accounting of conservation lands in Florida is compiled and updated by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) (Jue et al. 2001). FNAI is the primary source for current boundary information for Florida conservation lands. Management practices can vary widely but all sites are potentially significant areas for wildlife conservation. The coverage utilized was current in April of 2001. Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas (SHCA): The results of a study conducted by Cox et al. (1994). The SHCA identify privately owned lands needed to adequately protect 40 vertebrate species of wildlife, high quality rare habitats of Florida, roosting areas for bats, wetlands important to wading birds, and land important to the survival of 105 globally rare plant species. Wildlife Potential Habitat Models: Based on known locations of species of wildlife, information on the land cover and vegetation types used by each species, and published or well documented information on the life-history requirements of the species potential habitat models were constructed on a species level (Cox et al. 1994, Cox and Kautz 2000). These models identify those areas that could serve as potential habitat for the species. Florida Greenways Project: Results from an analysis of potential ecological connectivity using land-use data such as important habitats for target species, priority ecological communities, wetlands, roadless areas, floodplains, and important aquatic systems to identify areas with priority conservation significance and potential landscape linkages (Hoctor et al. 2000). Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL): Lands identified to conserve and protect unique natural areas, endangered species, unusual geologic features, wetlands, and archaeological and historical sites. The lands acquired under the program are maintained as parks, recreation areas, wildlife management areas, wilderness areas, forests and greenways. Funding source comes primarily through the sale of bonds. Save Our Rivers (SOR) Lands: Using monies from the Water Management Lands Trust Fund and Preservation 2000, the SOR program enables the water management districts to acquire lands necessary for water management, water supply, and the conservation and protection of water resources including wildlife. Process Date: Unknown Coverage Methods: Landscape Diversity floridavar: The land cover image was reclassified using a Variety neighborhood statistic with a radius of one mile. This analysis identified the number of different land cover types within a one-mile radius of a pixel. Variety of habitat types within a one mile radius ranged from 1-16. Roadless Habitat Patch Size habitatpatch: The land cover image was reclassed so that only categories representing native habitat were retained with a value of 1, all other areas were given a value of 0. Next, to ensure that all major roads were accurately represented as sectioning the landscape, The Florida Geographic Data Library's Major Road Coverage was converted into a grid where all road networks were given a value of "no data" and all other areas were given a value of 0. Next, using the map calculator, the reclassed landcover image was added to the road network grid and then a Region Group on the image was performed to group the continuous blocks of habitat. Due to the size and scale of analysis a minimum habitat patch size of 0.15 km2 was used. This size was chosen because Mykytka and Pelton (1989) found that habitat patches >0.152 km (37 acres) were important components of black bear habitat in the Osceola National Forest. The Florida black bear represents an integral species in the model. The history of black bear roadkills in Florida is well documented (Gilbert and Wooding 1996, Wooding and Brady 1987), and this topic is an important component for this model to address. Additionally, the black bear is a habitat generalist and is considered an umbrella species whose conservation requirements will meet the needs of other species. Following this, the image was reclassed based on the size of habitat parcels. Due to the extreme range of size of the parcels (from 0.15 km2 to 6059 km2) the areas were classed into quantiles and the habitat patches were scored based on which quartile they fell into. The scoring of patch sizes is given below: Value Criteria 0. < 0.15 km2 1. 0.15 km2 - 2.12 km2 2. 2.12 km2 - 9.65 km2 3. 9.65 km2 - 24.05 km2 4. 24.05 km2 - 52.25 km2 5. 52.25 km2 - 94.50 km2 6. 94.50 km2 - 170.30 km2 7. 170.30 km2 - 298.00 km2 8. 298.00 km2 - 562.50 km2 9. 562.50 km2 - 3030.50 km2 10. > 3030.50 km2 Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas shcafinal: All strategic habitat conservation areas were given a value of 1 with all other areas being 0. Listed Species listsplocs: Wildlife potential habitat models created by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for listed species were joined together. The image was classed based on the presence and listing status of species present and the species were then grouped and scored accordingly. The ranking system of the coverage is given below: Value Criteria 1. 1 Species of Special Concern 2. 2-3 Species of Special Concern 3. 4-5 Species of Special Concern 4. 6-7 Species of Special Concern 5. 8-9 Species of Special Concern 6. 1 Threatened Species 7. 2-3 Threatened Species 8. 4-5 Threatened Species 9. 6-7 Threatened Species 10. >0 Endangered Species Species Richness sp_rich: This coverage represents the wildlife potential habitat models of 130 focal species overlaid together into one coverage. A cell's value represents the number of species identified as having potential habitat at that site. The range of values was 0 (representing no species) to 26 species overlapping in a single cell. Scored Black Bear Potential Habitat Model scaledbear: The resulting image from the analysis of the habitat needs for black bear (wildlife potential habitat model) (Cox et al. 1994). Habitat scores were based on proximity to existing conservation areas, size of roadless areas, diversity of cover types, and the presence of specific cover types. The range of values was from 1-10 with 10 being the most favorable habitat for black bears, one being the least favorable. Public Lands publandfinal: FNAI Public Lands Coverage from April 2001. All public lands were given a value of 1. All other areas were classed 0. Distance to Public Lands distopub: Performed a Find Distance query on the Public Lands within the study area. From the results, the range of values was divided into 10 discreet categories using equal intervals. Values assigned to cells were inversely proportional to the distance to public lands, (e.g. a cell with a value of 10 falls in the closest interval to public land, 9 is the next interval outward from public land, and so forth until the outermost interval). The ranking system of the coverage is given below: Value Criteria 1. > 29.88 km 2. 26.56 km - 29.88 km 3. 23.24 km - 26.56 km 4. 19.92 km - 23.24 km 5. 16.6 km - 19.92 km 6. 13.28 km - 16.6 km 7. 9.96 km - 13.28 km 8. 6.64 km - 9.96 km 9. 3.32 km - 6.64 km 10. < 3.32 km Habitat Connectivity greenway: The final image from the Florida Greenways Project. Greenway areas were given a value of 1 and all other areas were classed 0. CARL/SOR Lands carl_sorgrid: Lands identified for both the CARL program and SOR that have not yet been purchased were merged together and given a value of one. All other areas were classed 0. Process Date: Unknown The model was accomplished in three steps: (1) identification of variables to include in the model, (2) scoring and standardization of all variables, and (3) the final addition of all the variables to produce the final image. All work was conducted in raster format using the Spatial Analyst Extension of the ArcView software package (ESRI, Redlands CA). The cell, or pixel, size used for the analysis was 30 x 30 m. The variables used to identify areas important for wildlife were obtained by utilizing various datasets that were in the form of preexisting GIS data layers, or coverages. The coverages were selected by their ability to accurately represent the natural vegetation of the study area, represent areas currently and potentially protected for wildlife, model wildlife habitats and locations, and identify other areas critical to wildlife (see Data Sets above). In order to obtain all of the variables needed to identify areas important to wildlife, the original coverages were manipulated to identify those data needed for the model (see File Descriptions above). Depending on the type of data, scores were developed for each variable that were either binary or scaled. In order to standardize each coverage so that all coverages were equally represented in the model, a value range of 0-1 was imposed. For binary coverages this resulted in the value of 1 representing the landscape feature the coverage is modeling and a value of 0 representing all other areas. For scaled coverages, a cell's value was calculated by normalizing the range of values found in the data set. For example, if distance to public lands had a range of values from 0-10, the coverage was divided by 10, resulting in a new range of values from 0-1. The final image was constructed by simply adding all standardized coverages together. The resulting values assigned to the cells were proportional to its importance to wildlife, (e.g. the higher the value of a cell the more important it is to wildlife). Process Date: Unknown GeoPlan obtained this dataset from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission via CDROM. The data was recieved in grid format in the projection: Albers HPGN. The dataset was then converted from grid format to shapefile format. Process Date: Unknown

MAP PROJECTION PARAMETERS:

Projection                          ALBERS
Datum                               HPGN
Units                               METERS
Spheroid                            GRS1980
1st Standard Parallel               24  0  0.000
2nd Standard Parallel               31 30  0.000
Central Meridian                   -84 00  0.000
Latitude of Projection's Origin     24  0  0.000
False Easting (meters)              400000.00000
False Northing (meters)             0.00000

DATA SOURCE CONTACT (S):

Name:
Abbr. Name:
Address:


Phone:

Web site:
E-mail:
Contact Person:
         Phone:
        E-mail:

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
FFWCC
620 South Meridian St.
Tallahassee, FL
32399-1600



http://www.floridaconservation.org/

Mark Endries

Name:                   FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY
Abbr. Name:             FGDL
Address:                Florida Geographic Data Library
                        431 Architecture Building
                        PO Box 115706
                        Gainesville, FL  32611-5706
Web site:               http://www.fgdl.org

Contact FGDL: 

      Technical Support:	        http://www.fgdl.org/fgdlfeed.html
      FGDL Frequently Asked Questions:  http://www.fgdl.org/fgdlfaq.html
      FGDL Mailing Lists:		http://www.fgdl.org/fgdl-l.html
      For FGDL Software:                http://www.fgdl.org/software.html