Geodataset Name:       CRITICAL_LINKAGES_2005
Geodataset Type:       SHAPEFILE
Geodataset Feature:    Polygon
Feature Count:         10

DATA SOURCE(S):                    University of Florida GeoPlan Center
SCALE OF ORIGINAL SOURCE MAPS:     N/A
DATE OF AUTOMATION OF SOURCE:      20051201
GEODATASET EXTENT:                 State of Florida

FEATURE ATTRIBUTE TABLES:

Datafile Name: CRITICAL_LINKAGES_2005.DBF

FEATURE ATTRIBUTE TABLES CODES AND VALUES:

Item	Item Description
OBJECTID	Unique ID added by GeoPlan
PRIORITY	Priority rank where 1 = highest priority
CRIT_LINK	"Yes" indicates that the project area is a Critical Linkage
NAME	Name given to Critical Linkage projects
DESCRIPT	Based on NAME.
FGDLAQDATE	Date GeoPlan downloaded data from source
SHAPE	Feature geometry.
AUTOID	Unique ID added by GeoPlan
SHAPE.AREA	Area in meters
SHAPE.LEN	Length in meters

USER NOTES:

This data is provided "as is". GeoPlan relied on the integrity of the original data layer's topology

It should be noted that some existing conservation lands are included within the Ecological Greenways Network prioritization results. The areas of overlap between Critical Linkages and various priority levels and existing conservation lands is intended to show connectivity to larger conservation lands and the role of smaller conservation lands in priority areas. However, the inclusion of existing conservation lands is not meant to serve as a comprehensive analysis or depiction of the significance of all existing conservation lands to the Ecological Greenways Network. The Ecological Greenways Network prioritization results are intended to help prioritize lands for existing and future conservation land protection (acquisition, easement, and incentive) programs. To best view and use this dataset, the most updated version of existing conservation lands from Florida Natural Areas Inventory (or available through FGDL) should be used as an overlay.

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

Since 1995, The University of Florida has been working with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to assist in the development of the Florida Statewide Greenways Plan. The University of Florida was asked to develop a decision support model to help identify the best opportunities to protect ecological connectivity statewide. Geographic information systems (GIS) software was used to analyze all of the best available data on land use data and significant ecological areas including important habitats for native species, important natural communities, wetlands, roadless areas, floodplains, and important aquatic ecosystems. The original priorities were developed in 2002. However, the boundaries of the Florida Ecological Greenways Network were updated 2004, which required this update to the prioritization completed in 2005. All of this information was then integrated in a process that identified a statewide Ecological Greenways Network containing all of the largest areas of ecological and natural resource significance and the landscape linkages necessary to link these areas together in one functional statewide network. The process was collaborative and overseen by three separate state-appointed greenways councils. During the development of the model, technical input was obtained from the Florida Greenways Commission, Florida Greenways Coordinating Council, state, regional, and federal agencies, scientists, university personnel, conservation groups, planners and the general public in over 20 sessions. When the modeling was completed, the results were thoroughly reviewed in public meetings statewide as part of the development of the Greenways Implementation Plan completed in 1999. In 1999-2000, the Ecological Greenways Network was prioritized, reviewed, and approved by the Florida Greenways and Trails Council. The approved prioritization separated the Network into 6 priority levels to delineate degrees of significance and to support strategic protection efforts. The ecological greenways were prioritized in a two step process. First, two meetings with staff from the Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, the Water Management Districts, and other agencies and groups were conducted to discuss criteria and data for selecting priorities. Based on these meetings, the University of Florida developed a GIS model that refined and modified the original ecological greenways model process to identify features within the ecological greenways model results that were either high, moderate, or lower priorities for protecting statewide connectivity. The next step involved separating areas identified as high and moderate priorities into even more refined classes of priority using a general set of criteria. Though the original prioritization was used to support this effort, more refined priorities were needed to serve as a better planning tool. The following criteria was used to place potential landscape linkage and corridor projects into more refined priority classes: 1) Potential importance for maintaining or restoring populations of wide-ranging species (e.g., Florida black bear and Florida panther) 2) Importance for maintaining a statewide, connected reserve network from south Florida through the panhandle. 3) Other important landscape linkages that provide additional opportunities to maintain statewide connectivity especially in support 4) Importance as a riparian corridor to protect water resources, provide functional habitat gradients, and to possibly provide connectivity to areas within other states. of higher priority linkages. The Florida Greenways Program implementation report (1998) included the identification of critical linkages as the next step following prioritization in the process of protecting an ecological greenways network across the state. Critical linkages serve as more defined project areas that are most important for protecting the Florida Ecological Greenways Network. Such critical linkages are to be approved by the Florida Greenways and Trails Council on an iterative basis as linkages are protected or priorities change over time. Two primary data sets were used to delineate the first iteration of critical linkages. To define linkages that are most critical to the protection of the Florida Ecological Greenways Network, prioritization based on both ecological criteria and level of threat by conversion to development (development pressure) is needed. For ecological-based prioritization, the prioritization process described above that categorized the Florida Ecological Greenways Network into six priority levels was used (Fig. 1; Hoctor et al. 2001). Development pressure was modeled by Jason Teisinger (2002). These analyses were then combined to identify candidate areas for selection as Critical Linkages. Areas were selected that had either very high ecological significance or high ecological significance while also having critical areas threatened by development. Ten areas were selected for Critical Linkage status and these areas will now serve as the highest priorities for protecting landscape connectivity through the Florida Forever Program, Save Our Rivers program, and for other conservation initiatives where state, regional, and local government can work with willing landowners to protect our best remaining large, connected landscapes statewide.

This data was created as part of the Florida Statewide Greenways Planning Process. The Florida Ecological Greenways Network identifies the opportunities to protect large, intact landscapes important for conserving Florida's biodiversity and ecosystem services.

It should also be considered that this dataset is based on a GRID with a resolution of 180 meters (180 m X 180 m cells), which is approximately 8 acre squares. Therefore, users should not expect detailed accuracy at high resolutions. The modeling and identification effort of a statewide ecological network is intended to serve as a general basis for state level conservation planning. It may serve as an adequate framework or guide for regional and local conservation planning efforts, but it should be supplemented by more resolute datasets and analyses especially at the local level. The conservation/land protection process should also always include ground-truthing to evaluate sites in the field. In addition, these data are based on land use information that, by its nature, is outdated. An effort was made to update land use data provided by the Water Management Districts, mostly completed in 1990, by comparing this data with 1994-1995 SPOT 10 meter resolution imagery. All areas that appeared to be converted to development (residential, commercial, industrial but not including conversion to intensive agriculture) were added to avoid identifying areas as ecologically significant that are now developed. However, it should be obvious that development continues at a rapid pace, and areas identified in the model results could now be converted to intensive land uses or could be converted in the near future.

This data is provided 'as is' and its vertical positional accuracy has not been verified by GeoPlan

THE DATA INCLUDED IN FGDL ARE 'AS IS' AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS LEGALLY BINDING. 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

REFERENCES:

See the University of Florida Final Report (available as a pdf document on the web at www.geoplan.ufl.edu) for the modeling process used to create the original Ecological Greenways Network: http://www.geoplan.ufl.edu/projects/greenways/finalreport.html#sect3 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.

DATA LINEAGE SUMMARY:

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. Process Date: 20051201 Geoplan removed numerous slivers using the eliminate tool within arc toolbox. Names were removed from records that were not catergorized as critical linkages. Process Date: 20060405 GeoPlan, during the QAQC process, performed the following: -UPCASED attribute table. -Calculated DESCRIPT field based on NAME -Added FGDLAQDATE. Process Date: 20060721 Metadata imported. Process Date:

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:

University of Florida GeoPlan Center
GeoPlan
431 Architecture PO Box 115706
Gainesville, FL
32611-5706
352-392-5037


http://www.fgdl.org/download/index.html
tomh@geoplan.ufl.edu
Tom Hoctor

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