FLORIDA ECOLOGICAL GREENWAYS NETWORK CRITICAL LINKAGES & PRIORITIZATION RESULTS - 2008

Metadata:


Identification_Information:
Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: University of Florida GeoPlan Center
Publication_Date: 20080421
Title:
FLORIDA ECOLOGICAL GREENWAYS NETWORK CRITICAL LINKAGES & PRIORITIZATION RESULTS - 2008
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: SDE raster digital data
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Gainesville, Fl
Publisher: GeoPlan
Other_Citation_Details:
State of Florida
Online_Linkage: http://www.geoplan.ufl.edu
Description:
Abstract:
The Florida Ecological Greenways Network (FEGN) is part of the legislatively 
adopted Florida Greenways Plan administered by the Office of Greenways and 
Trails (OGT) in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Florida 
Statutes, Chapter 260).  The FEGN was delineated as the ecological component 
of a Statewide Greenways System plan developed by the DEP Office of 
Greenways and Trails (OGT) and University of Florida, under guidance from the 
Florida Greenways Coordinating Council and the Florida Greenways and Trails 
Council.  The FEGN guides OGT ecological greenway conservation efforts, and 
promotes public awareness of the need for and benefits of a statewide ecological 
greenways network. It is also used as the primary data layer to inform the Florida 
Forever and other state and regional land acquisition programs regarding the 
location of the most important conservation corridors and large, intact landscapes 
in the state.
Purpose:
The FEGN identifies areas of opportunity for protecting a 
statewide network of ecological hubs and linkages designed 
to maintain large landscape-scale ecological functions 
including focal species habitat and ecosystem services 
throughout the state.  The FEGN aggregates various data 
identifying areas of ecological significance from the 
Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission, existing and proposed conservation 
lands, and other relevant data.  These data were combined to 
identify large, landscape-scale areas of ecological 
significance (ecological hubs), and a network of landscape 
linkages and corridors connecting the hubs into a statewide 
ecological greenways system (ecological greenways and wildlife 
corridors).
Supplemental_Information:
In 2008, for the Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project 
(http://www.centurycommission.org/current_projects.asp), two additional 
priority levels were added to the existing FEGN priority classes as a 
strategic subset of the original Priority 1 and Priority 2 areas.  
These two new highest priority classes, Critical Linkages 1 and Critical 
Linkages 2, were delineated by identifying the areas within Priority 1 
and Priority 2 linkages that were considered most important for 
completing a statewide ecological network of public and private 
conservation lands.  These Critical Linkages were reviewed and accepted 
by the CLIP Technical Advisory Group as part of the development of the 
CLIP database and identification of CLIP statewide conservation priorities.  
These new priorities were also accepted by the Florida Greenways and Trails 
Council in December 2008.  All priority levels within the FEGN are 
potentially important at the regional and local scales for identifying 
large, connected landscapes and wildlife corridors, but Critical Linkages 1 
and 2 and Priority 1 and 2 Linkages collectively are the areas with the 
highest state and regional significance.
Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Single_Date/Time:
Calendar_Date: 20080421
Currentness_Reference:
publication date
Status:
Progress: Complete
Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: As needed
Spatial_Domain:
Bounding_Coordinates:
West_Bounding_Coordinate: -87.429040
East_Bounding_Coordinate: -79.872251
North_Bounding_Coordinate: 30.983191
South_Bounding_Coordinate: 24.492815
Keywords:
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: NONE
Theme_Keyword: Ecological Greenways
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: ISO 19115 Topic Category
Theme_Keyword: environment
Access_Constraints: NONE
Use_Constraints:
1) These data were created using input data consistent with 24,000 to 
1:100,000 map scale resolution.  Such data are of sufficient resolution 
for state and regional scale conservation planning.  They are not appropriate 
for use in high accuracy mapping applications such as property parcel 
boundaries, local government comprehensive plans, zoning, DRI, site 
plans, environmental resource or other agency permitting, wetland  
delineations, or other uses requiring more specific and ground survey 
quality data.
2) The analysis, maps and data on this website were developed for 
state and regional conservation planning purposes and are not 
intended, nor sufficient, to be the basis for local government 
comprehensive plans, environmental resource or agency 
permitting decisions.

3) These data are likely to be regularly updated and it is the 
responsibility of the user to obtain the most recent available 
version of the database.

4) Data should not be transferred to a third party, in data or
map form, without noting these disclaimers.
Point_of_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: University of Florida GeoPlan Center
Contact_Person: Tom Hoctor
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing address
Address:
431 Architecture PO Box 115706
City: Gainesville
State_or_Province: Florida
Postal_Code: 32611
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 352-392-5037
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: tomh@geoplan.ufl.edu
Data_Set_Credit:
Florida Ecological Greenways Network Source was created by the  University of 
Florida GeoPlan Center and Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP), 
Office of Greenways & Trails
Native_Data_Set_Environment:
Microsoft Windows XP Version 5.1 (Build 2600) Service Pack 3; ESRI ArcCatalog 9.3.1.3000
Cross_Reference:
Citation_Information:
Other_Citation_Details:
See the CLIP Phase 1 report (available as a pdf document on the web at http://www.collinscenter.org/resource/resmgr/Century_Commission/CLIP_PhaseI_Report_FINAL_May.pdf) for the broader application of the FEGN in the CLIP analysis . Carr, Margaret H., Paul D. Zwick, Thomas S. Hoctor and Mark A. Benedict Final Report, Phase II, Florida Statewide Greenways Planning Project, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Florida, February, 1999. Cox, J., Kautz, R., MacLaughlin, M., and Gilbert, T. 1994. Closing the gaps in Florida's wildlife habitat conservation system. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Office of Environmental Services. Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Greenways Coordinating Council. 1998. Connecting Florida's Communities with Greenways and Trails, The Five Year Implementation Plan for the Florida Greenways and Trails System. Tallahassee, FL. Florida Greenways Commission. 1994. Creating a Statewide Greenways System For People...For Wildlife...For Florida - Florida Greenways Commission Report to the Governor. Tallahassee, FL: 1000 Friends of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 1995. Florida Natural Areas Inventory Datasets. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Harris, L.D. 1985. Conservation Corridors: a highway system for wildlife. ENFO:85-5. Winter Park: FL: Florida Conservation Foundation. Harris, L. D., T. Hoctor, D. Maehr and J. Sanderson. 1996. The role of networks and corridors in enhancing the value and protection of parks and equivalent areas. Pp. 173-198 in Wright, R. G., ed. National Parks and Protected Areas: Their Role in Environmental Areas. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science. Hoctor, T. S., M. H. Carr, P. D. Zwick. 2000. Identifying a linked reserve system using a regional landscape approach: the Florida ecological network. Conservation Biology 14:984-1000. Hoctor, T. S., J. Teisinger, M. H. Carr, P. D. Zwick. 2001. Ecological Greenways Network Prioritization for the State of Florida. Final Report. Office of Greenways and Trails, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL. Hoctor, T. S., J. Teisinger, M. H. Carr, P. D. Zwick. 2002. Identification of Critical Linkages Within the Florida Ecological Greenways Network. Final Report. Office of Greenways and Trails, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL. Noss, R. F. 1987. Protecting natural areas in fragmented landscapes. Natural Areas Journal 7:2-13. Noss, R. F. and L. D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, Networks and MUMs: Preserving Diversity at All Scales. Environment Management 10:299-309. Pritchard, P.C.H., and Kale, H.W. 1994. Saving what's left. Casselberry, FL: Florida Audubon Society. Smith, D.S., and P.C. Hellmund, Eds. 1993. Ecology of Greenways - Design and Function of Linear Conservation Areas. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press. Teisinger, Jason. 2002. Where will we grow? Using Geographic Information Systems to determine Florida statewide residential growth potential. Masters Project. College of Design, Construction and Planning, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Florida. The Nature Conservancy. 1991. Preservation 2000 Charette and Map. Tallahassee, FL: The Nature Conservancy. University of Florida. 1996. Final Report for Phase I of the Statewide Greenways System Planning Project. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Department of Landscape Architecture and GeoPlan Center, Department of Urban and Regional Planning.
Back to Top
Data_Quality_Information:
Attribute_Accuracy:
Attribute_Accuracy_Report:
GeoPlan relied on the integrity of the attribute information within
the original data.
Logical_Consistency_Report:
This data is provided 'as is'. GeoPlan relied on the integrity
of the original data layer's topology
Completeness_Report:
This data is provided 'as is' by GeoPlan and is complete to our
knowledge.
Positional_Accuracy:
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy:
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Report:
This data is provided 'as is' and its horizontal positional accuracy
has not been verified by GeoPlan
Vertical_Positional_Accuracy:
Vertical_Positional_Accuracy_Report:
This data is provided 'as is' and its vertical positional accuracy
has not been verified by GeoPlan
Lineage:
Source_Information:
Source_Scale_Denominator: Unknown
Type_of_Source_Media: Disk
Source_Citation_Abbreviation:
GeoPlan
Source_Contribution:
Spatial and Attribute Information
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
The adoption of new base boundaries of the Florida Ecological Greenways Network 
(FEGN) in 2004 by the Florida Greenways and Trails Council resulted in additions 
to the FEGN that were not prioritized since the first delineation of priorities completed 
in 2002 preceded the boundary update.  There were three primary goals of reprioritization:

1) Delineate priority classes for new additions to the FEGN adopted in 2004.
2) Simplify priority classes to solidify the identity of the areas most important for 
completing a statewide FEGN.
3) Determine whether any changes in priority classes are warranted especially 
regarding  Critical Linkages.

There were three major steps undertaken to reprioritize the FEGN.  The first 
step assigned priority classes to the FEGN additions based on the nearest and 
connected existing priority class.  The second step combined the original priority 
classes 2 and 3 into one new priority 2 class.  This resulted in 6 priority classes 
versus the original 7 classes.  The final step included all of the additional 
recommended changes in priority classes based on re-assessment of development 
pressure, logical consolidations or other edits of priority boundaries, and new 
conservation projects relevant to protecting the high priorities within the FEGN.   
A draft set of changes were presented in a technical review meeting in August 
2005 with staff from Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the 
Water Management Districts, and the Florida Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.  
Their recommendations for modifying the draft reprioritization were the primary basis 
for the proposed priority changes.  However, some minor additional changes were 
added based on further analysis by the University of Florida and the Office of 
Greenways and Trails.  The process used to develop the updated Ecological 
Greenways Network priorities is described in much more detail in the prioritization 
update report (Hoctor and Carr 2005), which is available from the Florida Department 
of Environmental Protection Office of Greenways and Trails or can be downloaded 
at www.geoplan.ufl.edu.

This update of the Florida Ecological Greenways Network (FEGN) was needed 
to address changes in the base boundary of the FEGN that was adopted by the 
Florida Greenways and Trails Council in 2004. For more information, see the report 
by the University of Florida for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Office of Greenways and Trails titled "Reprioritization of the Florida Ecological 
Greenways Network based on the New Base Boundaries Adopted in 2004".
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Two additional priority levels were added to the existing FEGN priority classes 
as a strategic subset of the original Priority 1 and Priority 2 areas. These 
two new highest priority classes, Critical Linkages 1 and Critical Linkages 2, 
were delineated by identifying the areas within Priority 1 and Priority 2 linkages 
that were considered most important for completing a statewide ecological network 
of public and private conservation lands.
Process_Date: 12/1/2008
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
GeoPlan QaQc team received this data from Tom Hoctor in May 2008. The data 
was in Albers HPGN projection.

The following QaQc procedures were carried out:
- Added DESCRIPT field based on VALUE.
- Added FGDLAQDATE based on date received
Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:
GeoPlan
Process_Date: 2009128
Back to Top
Spatial_Data_Organization_Information:
Direct_Spatial_Reference_Method: Raster
Raster_Object_Information:
Raster_Object_Type: Pixel
Row_Count: 24534
Column_Count: 24898
Vertical_Count: 1
Back to Top
Spatial_Reference_Information:
Horizontal_Coordinate_System_Definition:
Planar:
Map_Projection:
Map_Projection_Name: Albers Conical Equal Area
Albers_Conical_Equal_Area:
Standard_Parallel: 24.000000
Standard_Parallel: 31.500000
Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: -84.000000
Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: 24.000000
False_Easting: 400000.000000
False_Northing: 0.000000
Planar_Coordinate_Information:
Planar_Coordinate_Encoding_Method: coordinate pair
Coordinate_Representation:
Abscissa_Resolution: 0.002048
Ordinate_Resolution: 0.002048
Planar_Distance_Units: meters
Geodetic_Model:
Horizontal_Datum_Name: D_North_American_1983_HARN
Ellipsoid_Name: Geodetic Reference System 80
Semi-major_Axis: 6378137.000000
Denominator_of_Flattening_Ratio: 298.257222
Vertical_Coordinate_System_Definition:
Altitude_System_Definition:
Altitude_Resolution: 1.000000
Altitude_Encoding_Method: Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates
Back to Top
Entity_and_Attribute_Information:
Detailed_Description:
Entity_Type:
Entity_Type_Label: GWECO_2008
Entity_Type_Definition:
GWECO_2008
Entity_Type_Definition_Source:
GeoPlan
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: OBJECTID
Attribute_Definition:
Internal feature number.
Attribute_Definition_Source:
ESRI
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Unrepresentable_Domain:
Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated.
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: VALUE
Attribute_Definition:
Priority Rank
Attribute_Definition_Source:
GeoPlan
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: 1
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition:
Critical Linkages 1: These Critical Linkages, which are a subset of the original Priority 1 linkages, are critical for completing a connection between existing conservation lands. Critical Linkages 1 are defined as areas with very high ecological significance while also being most threatened by development.
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source:
GeoPlan
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: 2
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition:
Critical Linkages 2: These Critical Linkages, which are a subset of the original Priority 2 linkages, are critical for completing a connection between existing conservation lands.  Critical Linkages 1 and 2 together would complete a statewide ecological network containing the most important large intact landscapes and best connection opportunities
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source:
GeoPlan
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: 3
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition:
Priority 1: These are the remaining areas of Priority 1 linkages not included within Critical Linkages 1
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source:
GeoPlan
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: 4
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition:
Priority 2: These are the remaining areas of Priority 2 linkages not included within Critical Linkages 2.
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source:
GeoPlan
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: 5
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition:
Priority 3: Priority 3 linkages provide significant alternate routes to higher priority linkages.
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source:
GeoPlan
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: 6
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition:
Priority 4: Most Priority 4 linkages provide important riparian corridors within Florida and to other states.  One Priority 4 linkage is needed to protect the northern half of the St. Johns Florida black bear population.
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source:
GeoPlan
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: 7
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition:
Priority 5: Priority 5 linkages represent other regionally significant opportunities to protect large intact landscapes.
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source:
GeoPlan
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: 8
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition:
Priority 6: Includes all other areas of large intact landscapes that support protection of a statewide ecological network.
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source:
GeoPlan
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: COUNT
Attribute_Definition:
Number of cells within the priority level
Attribute_Definition_Source:
GeoPlan
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: DESCRIPT
Attribute_Definition:
GeoPlan added field based on Value
Attribute_Definition_Source:
GeoPlan
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: FGDLAQDATE
Attribute_Definition:
Date GeoPlan acquired data from source.
Attribute_Definition_Source:
GeoPlan
Overview_Description:
Back to Top
Distribution_Information:
Distributor:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL)
Contact_Person:
Contact_Position:
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing address
Address:
431 Architecture PO Box 115706
City: Gainesville
State_or_Province: Florida
Postal_Code: 32611-5706
Country: United States
Contact_Voice_Telephone:
Contact_TDD/TTY_Telephone:
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone:
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: Web site: http://www.fgdl.org
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: Technical Support: http://www.fgdl.org/fgdlfeed.html
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: For FGDL Software: http://www.fgdl.org/software.html
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: FGDL Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.fgdl.org/fgdlfaq.html
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: Mailing list for FGDL: http://www.fgdl.org/fgdl-l.html
Hours_of_Service:
Contact Instructions:


Resource_Description: DOWNLOADABLE DATA
Distribution_Liability:
The Florida Geographic Data Library is a collection of Geospatial Data
compiled by the University of Florida GeoPlan Center with support from
the Florida Department of Transportation. GIS data available in FGDL is
collected from various state, federal, and other agencies (data sources)
who are data stewards, producers, or publishers. The data available in
FGDL may not be the most current version of the data offered by the
data source. University of Florida GeoPlan Center makes no guarantees
about the currentness of the data and suggests that data users check
with the data source to see if more recent versions of the data exist.

Furthermore, the GIS data available in the FGDL are provided 'as is'.
The University of Florida GeoPlan Center makes no warranties, guaranties
or representations as to the truth, accuracy or completeness of the data
provided by the data sources. The University of Florida GeoPlan Center
makes no representations or warranties about the quality or suitability
of the materials, either expressly or implied, including but not limited
to any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular
purpose, or non-infringement. The University of Florida GeoPlan Center
shall not be liable for any damages suffered as a result of using,
modifying, contributing or distributing the materials.

A note about data scale: 

Scale is an important factor in data usage.  Certain scale datasets
are not suitable for some project, analysis, or modeling 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.
1:125000 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 analysis. 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 webpage at:
http://geoplan.ufl.edu/education.html
Standard_Order_Process:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Transfer_Size: 15.594
Technical_Prerequisites:
This data is intended for use with a Geographic Information Systems or Remote Sensing software package.
Back to Top
Metadata_Reference_Information:
Metadata_Date: 20100302
Metadata_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: University of Florida GeoPlan Center; Florida Natural Areas Inventory
Contact_Person: Tom Hoctor and Jon Oetting
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing address
Address:
431 Architecture PO Box 115706
Address:
PO Box 115706
City: Gainesville
State_or_Province: FL
Postal_Code: 32611
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 352-392-5037
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: tomh@geoplan.ufl.edu
Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata
Metadata_Standard_Version: FGDC-STD-001-1998
Metadata_Time_Convention: local time
Metadata_Use_Constraints:
These data are likely to be regularly updated and it is the responsibility of the user to obtain the most recent available version of the database.
Metadata_Extensions:
Online_Linkage: http://www.esri.com/metadata/esriprof80.html
Profile_Name: ESRI Metadata Profile
Back to Top