Metadata: MNWAP Wildlife Action Network

MNWAP Wildlife Action Network

This page last updated: 01/04/2018
Metadata created using Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines


Go to Section:
  1. Overview
  2. Data Quality
  3. Data Organization
  4. Coordinate System
  5. Attributes
  6. Distribution - Get Data
  7. Metadata Reference

Section 1: Overview

Originator:Minnesota Wildlife Action Plan, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Ecological & Water Resources

Title: MNWAP Wildlife Action Network

Abstract: The Wildlife Action Network (WAN) was developed as part of the 2015-2025 MN Wildlife Action Plan revision. The WAN is made up of ten GIS layers representing quality aquatic and terrestrial habitats across the state of Minnesota. The layers include composite population viability/persistence maps of Species In Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), species richness hotspots of SGCN, spatially prioritizied MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance, cores and corridors of the MN Prairie Conservation Plan, High Conservation Value Forests, Lakes of Biological Significance, and Rivers/Streams with an exceptional index of biological integrity (IBI) score. Five of these layers, chosen because they were entirely or almost entirely statewide in extent and had a score or rank, were used to then rank the areas within the WAN on a 5-level scale from poor to excellent. The layers used for scoring were a) Composite SGCN Population Scores, b) SGCN richness grid used in the hotspot analysis, c) Marxan scores of prioritized Sites of Biodiversity Significance, d) Stream Index of Biological Integrity, and e) Lakes of Biological Significance.

Purpose: The Wildlife Action Network provides a template of significant aquatic and terrestrial biological areas across the state providing focus to conservation efforts to address threats imposed by large scale threats such as climate change, invasive species, habitat loss, among others. Large core areas and connections that facilitate species movement will support the biological diversity already present in the network. Targeting conservation within the network will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of actions to reduce the primary causes of population declines.

Time Period of Content Date: 09/14/2015

Currentness Reference: Time Period of Content date indicates the date which the user can be confident of accuracy and completeness of the dataset. This dataset will be considered current (or will be applicable for conservation and management decision-making) until 2025, by which time the dataset will be updated.

Progress: Complete

Maintenance and Update Frequency: Unknown

Spatial Extent of Data: Statewide

Bounding Coordinates: -96.810586
-89.787973
49.015581
43.436203

Place Keywords: Minnesota

Theme Keywords: Wildlife Action Plan, MNWAP, Wildlife Action Network, WAN, MBS Sites of Biological Significance, Species in Greatest Conservation Need, SGCN, Index of Biological Integrity, IBI, Lakes of Biological Significance, High Conservation Value Forests, HCVF

Theme Keyword Thesaurus:

Access Constraints: None

Use Constraints: Users must include in any product derived from this GIS data set an acknowledgment of the Minnesota County Biological Survey as the source of information. In addition, in order to protect DNR's copyright interest in these data, the user must also include an appropriate copyright notice in the name of the DNR or the user.

Contact Person Information: Daren Carlson, MNWAP Monitoring Coordinator
Minnesota DNR - Ecological and Water Resources
500 Lafayette Rd
Saint Paul, MN  55155
Phone: 651-259-5079
Email: daren.carlson@state.mn.us

Browse Graphic: Click to view a data sample.


Associated Data Sets:

Section 2: Data Quality

Attribute Accuracy:

Logical Consistency:

Completeness: Most of the layers used were complete, albeit with potential updates over time that are not reflected in this layer. The following can be considered incomplete: Spatially prioritized MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance and the SGCN population and hotspot maps. The spatially prioritized MBS Sites of Bioldiversity Significance are in various stages of being complete across the state and preliminary layers were used for the spatial prioritization in some areas. In addition, in the Littlefork-Vermillion Uplands and the north half of the Agassiz Lowlands ECS subsections, mapping of MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance was incomplete and not enough were available to do a Marxan run in those areas. Existing preliminary High and Outstanding Sites were used in these areas. Species population and hotspot maps were incomplete where the MBS Animal Survey Crew had not completed surveys. This included Littlefork-Vermillion Uplands, most of the Agassiz Lowlands, and the western third of the Border Lakes ECS subsections.

Horizontal Positional Accuracy: Various source layers were used in the development of this layer, making it difficult to ascertain positional accuracy.

Vertical Positional Accuracy: Various source layers were used in the development of this layer, making it difficult to ascertain positional accuracy.

Lineage: Two main steps developed the Minnesota Wildlife Action Network (WAN). Step 1: Merging of layers, Step 2: Ranking areas in merged layer. See Appendix E of the Minnesota Wildlife Action Plan for more information found at:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mnwap/index.html

A summary of the two steps is described bielow:

Step 1. Merging of layers: Ten GIS layers (listed and described below) were merged to together to create the base of the WAN.

A. Composite Species in Greatest Conservation Need Populations Map (Top 95%) - layer was created internally for MN Wildlifife Action Plan (MNWAP) revision, and is available upon request. Layer is a merged and scored composite of ranked populations for156 species in greatest conservation need (SGCN). The bottom 5 percent of composite population scores were ommitted to capture only areas with good- or excellent-ranked populations of more than one SGCN, and to omit areas with only one SGCN population or multiple SGCN with poor-ranked populations.

B. Good or excellent populations of state or federally endangered species - layer was created internally for MNWAP revision, and is available upon request. Some good or excellent populations of state or federally endangered and threatened species were not represented in the top 95 percent of composite population scores because they were the only species mapped in a particular area. To ensure that these important populations of rare species were included in the network, all good or excellent mapped populations of state or federally endangered and threatened species were added to the network.

C. Richness hotspots falling outside the top 95% populations - layer was created internally for MNWAP revision, and is available upon request. This layer used occurrence records for all 346 SGCN (and not just the 156 which had mapped populations. Its intention was to fill gaps where the mapped populations described in A and B did not capture. The number of SGCN species were summed in 2.5 km x 2.5 km grids across the state. "Hot spot" clusters that fell outside of mapped population areas were identified using the following rules:

- A single 2.5 km X 2.5 km block comprising ten or more species or
- A cluster of at least 4 contiguous blocks each comprising 5 or more species or
- A cluster of at least 8 contiguous blocks each comprising 3 or more species. This cluster must also contain a hotspot already defined in 1 or 2 above.

D. Cores and Corridors from Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan - V:\gdrs\data\pub\us_mn_state_dnr\env_mn_prairie_conservation_plan\env_mn_prairie_conservation_plan.gdb

E. Marxan outputs from the Scientific and Natural Area strategic plan - V:\gdrs\data\pub\us_mn_state_dnr\env_sna_conserv_opportunity_area\fgdb\env_sna_conserv_opportunity_area.gdb

F. New Marxan runs of additional final and preliminary sites of biodiversity significance in remaining ecological subsections not analyzed for the SNA strategic plan - layer was created internally for MNWAP revision, and is available upon request.

G. Sites of Biodiversity Significance that intersect with Marxan outputs and high and outstanding sites where Marxan runs were not completed (Littlefork-Vermillion Uplands and the north half of the Agassiz Lowlands subsections) - specific layer was developed in 2015 and is available by request. It is derived derived from (although these have changed since used in 2015): V:\gdrs\data\pub\us_mn_state_dnr\biota_mcbs_sites_of_biodiversity\biota_mcbs_sites_of_biodiversity.gdb and V:\gdrs\data\org\us_mn_state_dnr\biota_mbs_sites_of_biodiversity_significance_prelim\fgdb\biota_mbs_sites_of_biodiversity_significance_prelim.gdb

H. High conservation value forests - V:\gdrs\data\org\us_mn_state_dnr\biota_hcvf\fgdb\biota_hcvf.gdb

I. Lakes of Biological Significance - V:\gdrs\data\pub\us_mn_state_dnr\env_lakes_of_biological_signific\fgdb\env_lakes_of_biological_signific.gdb

J. Streams with an exceptional index of biological integrity (IBI) score - derived from Stream IBI developed by the MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). We extracted all streams that met the draft index of biological integrity (IBI) “exceptional” score for fish (varies by stream type and location) or a non-mussel invertebrate IBI score of 80 or higher using the normalized Watershed Health Assessment Framework (WHAF) IBI values. We then added stream reaches downstream to the next confluence, or upstream to the source or next confluence, if the stream reach met the general use threshold or if no IBI data were available and if the stream was not ditched and if no other tributaries with low IBI scores (below general use threshold) flowed into the selected stream reach. Streams were then buffered based on average stream width (diameter = ½ width) by stream order (from Downing et al. 2012).

Step 2. Ranking areas in merged layer:
Five of the layers listed above were used to apply a score and then a rank of the scores to the Wildlife Action Network. This exercise used five layers that were entirely or almost entirely statewide in extent and had a score that was either a continuous variable or an ordinal categorical variable. The five layers were also chosen for their complementarity (i.e. captured different aspects of biological value, e.g. streams, lakes, terrestrial habitats, and SGCN species).

Each of the five layers were given prioritization scores (see below) and then converted to a raster file with a cell size of 90 by 90m. (Note: for stream orders 3–7, the buffer was increased to 90m to ensure that the raster cell captured the score.) Within each raster layer, each cell contained an individual value representing the highest value of any or all polygons that fell within (i.e. intersected) the cell. These raster files were then added together using the raster calculator in ArcMap, resulting in a single raster file with each cell containing the sum of the scores of the five individual raster files. Reclassification reflected the skewed nature of the distribution of data points and was classified as follows:
High = the top 50 percent of scores
Medium-high = 25–50 percent
Medium = 15–25 percent
Low-medium = 5–15 percent
Low = the bottom 5 percent of the distribution of scores.

This reclassified raster was then converted back into a vector shapefile showing the score score cutoffs as well as the scores for each of the five scoring layers. The resulting vector layer was then clipped to the Wildlife Action Network boundary.

Description of the five layers used for scoring follows:

a) Composite SGCN Population Scores: The composite population map including all levels of composite scores (not just the top 95 percent ) was rasterized with a cell size of 90m and then multiplied by 10 to create an integer raster with an attribute table. The count of cells was added cumulatively for each value, resulting in a sum field capturing the amount of area (in raster cells) occupied for a particular value. This sum field was then reclassified by 5 natural breaks (Jenks) and then converted back to a vector shapefile. Within this new shapefile, the lowest break was scored as a 0.2, the second lowest break was scored as a 0.4, the middle break was scored as a 0.6, the second highest break was scored as a 0.8, and the highest break (i.e., the areas with the highest summed values) were scored as a 1.0.

b) SGCN richness grid used in the hotspot analysis: The score for each block in the grid was divided by the maximum number of species found among all blocks, such that the block with the maximum number of species was given a score of 1.

c) Marxan scores of prioritized Sites of Biodiversity Significance: An area with a rank of 5 was given a score of 0.8; with a rank of 4, a score of 0.6; with a rank of 3, a score of 0.4; with a rank of 2, a score of 0.2; and with a rank of 1, a score of 0. For the Littlefork-Vermillion Highlands subsection in which the Marxan analysis was not run for reasons given in section g on page E12, preliminary and survey priority Sites of Biodiversity Significance were scored as follows: “outstanding” sites were given a score of 0.8, and “high” sites were given a score of 0.6. “Moderate” sites and below were not included in the scoring scheme.

d) Stream Index of Biological Integrity: All stream orders 3 and above were buffered using the stream width guidelines from Downing et al. (2012) and intersected with the DNR Level 08 catchments basins. The maximum IBI score for the stream (out of the fish, non-mussel invertebrate, and the corresponding extrapolated IBI scores from the WHAF) was divided by the maximum score among all the stream IBIs, such that the stream with the highest IBI score was given a score of 1.

e) Lakes of Biological Significance: A lake identified as "outstanding" was given a score of 0.8, a lake identified as "high", a score of 0.6, and a lake identified as "moderate", a score of 0.4.






Section 3: Spatial Data Organization (not used in this metadata)


Section 4: Coordinate System

Horizontal Coordinate Scheme: Universal Transverse Mercator

UTM Zone Number: 15

Horizontal Datum: NAD83

Horizontal Units: meters

Vertical Datum: not applicable

Vertical Units: Not Applicable

Depth Datum: not applicable

Depth Units: Not Applicable

Section 5: Attributes

Overview: Attributes include a five-level rank (Low to High) of areas within the Wildlife Action Network. Ranks were derived from five metric scores. These metric scores are included as additional fields. Ranks reflected the skewed nature of the distribution of data points and was classified as follows

High = the top 50 percent of scores
Medium-high = 25–50 percent
Medium = 15–25 percent
Low-medium = 5–15 percent
Low = the bottom 5 percent of the distribution of scores.


Table Detail:
env_wildlife_action_network.gdb
Field NameValid ValuesDefinitionDefinition Source
OBJECTID
-
Unique number
Shape
-
Polygon
rank_textenumeratedText description of the 5 rank categories
High50-100 percent of score distribution.
Medium-high25–50 percent of score distribution
Medium15–25 percent Medium-high 25–50 percent of score distribution
Low-Medium5–15 percent of score distrib
Low0-5 percent of score distribution.
rankenumeratedNumerical depiction of rank_text (see rank_text for more info)
5High
4Medium-high
3Medium
2Low-medium
1Low
SGCN_populationsenumerated1 of 5 components used to score and rank areas within the wildlife action network. Scores are from the composite Species in Greatest Conservsation Need population/viability map. The rank levels can represent several different combinations of species populations from representation across several taxa, lower ranked populations of several SGCN species, or representation of a few highly ranked SGCN populations. As such, it is not possible to define each rank level.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
SGCN_richness0 to 1Sum of the number of SGCN species in a 2.5x2.5 km block, divided by the maximum number of species, which totaled 38, recorded across all blocks in the state.
lakes_of_biological_significanceenumeratedScore of lakes of biological significance based on the rank identified in that layer.
0No Lake of biological significance present
0.4Moderate ranked lake of biological significance
0.6High ranked lake of biological significance
0.8Outstanding ranked lake of biological significance
Sites_of_Biodiversity_significanceenumeratedAn area with a rank of 5 was given a score of 0.8; with a rank of 4, a score of 0.6; with a rank of 3, a score of 0.4; with a rank of 2, a score of 0.2; and with a rank of 1, a score of 0. For the Littlefork-Vermillion Highlands subsection in which the Marxan analysis was not run for reasons given in section g on page E12, preliminary and survey priority Sites of Biodiversity Significance were scored as follows: “outstanding” sites were given a score of 0.8, and “high” sites were given a score of 0.6. “Moderate” sites and below were not included in the scoring scheme.env_sna_conserv_opportunity_area.gdb
0Marxan output rank of 1 or no Marxan rank exists for this area
0.2Marxan output rank of 2 or
0.4Marxan output rank of 3
0.6Marxan rank of 4 or "high" preliminary/survey priority sites in the Littlefork-Vermillion Highlands subsection.
0.8Marxan output rank of 5 or "outstanding" preliminary/survey priority sites in the Littlefork-Vermillion Highlands subsection.
stream_index_of_biotic_integrityenumeratedAll stream orders 3 and above were buffered using the stream width guidelines from Downing et al. (2012) and intersected with the DNR Level 08 catchments basins. The maximum IBI score for the stream (out of the fish, non-mussel invertebrate, and the corresponding extrapolated IBI scores from the WHAF) was divided by the maximum score among all the stream IBIs, such that the stream with the highest IBI score was given a score of 1.
0No stream IBI available

Section 6: Distribution

Publisher: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

Publication Date: 12/01/2017

Contact Person Information: Daren Carlson, MNWAP Monitoring Coordinator
Minnesota DNR - Ecological and Water Resources
500 Lafayette Rd
Saint Paul, MN  55155
Phone: 651-259-5079
Email: daren.carlson@state.mn.us

Distributor's Data Set Identifier: env_mnwap_wildlife_action_netwrk

Distribution Liability: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources General Geographic Data License Agreement is online: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/sitetools/data_software_license.html

Ordering Instructions: Please visit the download page for this dataset on the Minnesota Geospatial Commons website using the web link below (Online Linkage).

Online Linkage: I AGREE to the notice in "Distribution Liability" above. Clicking to agree will either begin the download process, link to a service, or provide more instructions. See "Ordering Instructions" above for details.

Section 7: Metadata Reference

Metadata Date: 01/04/2018

Contact Person Information: Daren Carlson, MNWAP Monitoring Coordinator
Minnesota DNR - Ecological and Water Resources
500 Lafayette Rd
Saint Paul, MN  55155
Phone: 651-259-5079
Email: daren.carlson@state.mn.us

Metadata Standard Name: Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines

Metadata Standard Version: 1.2



This page last updated: 01/04/2018
Go back to top

Created with MGMG stylesheet version 2017.04.25.1