Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>The following methods apply for the Rocky Mountians and east. For Califonia methods see: </SPAN><A href="https://omniscape.codefornature.org/" STYLE="text-decoration:underline;"><SPAN><SPAN>https://omniscape.codefornature.org/#/analysis-tour</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN>. For the Pacific Northwest, the base flow was calculated using omniscape and the climate flow was using eastern methods. For more information see: https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/oregon/science/Documents/McRae_et_al_2016_PNW_CNS_Connectivity.pdf</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>The wall to wall results reveal how the human-modified landscape is configured. The results allow you to identify where population movements and potential range shifts may become concentrated or where they are well dispersed, and it is possbile to quantify the importance of an area by measuring how much flow passes through it and how concentrated that flow is. The four prevalent flow types found here each suggest a different conservation strategy: </SPAN></P><UL STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 0;"><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Diffuse flow: areas that are extremely intact and consequently facilitate high levels of dispersed flow that spreads out to follow many different and alternative pathways. A conservation aim might be to keep these areas intact and prevent the flow from becoming concentrated. This might be achievable through land management or broad-scale conservation easements. </SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Concentrated flow: areas where large quantities of flow are concentrated through a narrow area. Because of their importance in maintaining flow across a larger network, these pinch points are good candidates for land conservation. </SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Constrained flow: areas of low flow that are neither concentrated nor fully blocked but instead move across the landscape in a weak reticulated network. These areas present large conservation challanges. </SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>In some cases restoring a riparian network might end up concentrating the flow and creating a linkage that will be easier to maintain over time. </SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Blocked/Low flow: areas where little flow gets through and is consequently deflected around these features. Some of these might be important restoration areas where restoring native vegetation or altering road infrastructure might reestablish a historic connection.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI></UL><P><SPAN>In the national map we use the diffuse and concentated flow areas.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>To create a categorical classification of flow pattern, we applied the following method. First, we calculated the amount and the variation of flow in every local neighborhood (1000 acres) around every cell (The size of the neighborhood was determined by testing a variety of distances and picking the one that best captured flow pattern and still retained local detail). Next, within each neighborhood we calculated the mean amount of flow, and the variation in flow as indicated by the standard deviation. Areas that had high flow and a high standard deviation were considered “concentrated”because they not only channel a large amount of flow but are different from their surrounding cells. Areas that had above-average flow and low standard deviation were considered “diffuse”because they move a lot of flow but are similar to their neighboring cells. We divided the mean and standard deviation into 7 quantiles classes by area and analyzed the combinations to classify the wall-to-wall continuous grid.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;">Climate Flow</SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>For our final model, we weighted the regional flow model with the upslope, downslope and northward models to simulate species populations could flow through the natural landscape finding climate refuge both by moving up or down slopes and mostly in a northward direction. The goal was to approximate a species population expanding locally then northward as allowed by the anthropogenic resistance within its neighborhood. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN>When combining the factors, a challenge was how to weight the influence of each factor in a way that most closely approximates the real world. We wanted to keep the emphasis on the areas that are important for regional flow, while boosting slightly the areas that channel slope-based and northward movements. We accomplished this by using the northward regional flow map as our based dataset and boosted the score of cells if they were important for upslope or downslope movement. For each of the two factors we took the areas that were above-average with respect to their factor. The areas for climate flow are sperate categories in the map.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN /><SPAN /></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN /><SPAN /></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>We created categorical classification of the climate flow patterns, using the similar method described previously for the regional flow. The amount of flow was calculated by looking at the mean flow within a 1000-acre circle of each cell (Figure 7.22 & Figure 7.23). We used the anthropogenic regional flow weighted towards northward movement (66%) as the base map and added in the areas of upslope and downslope flow wherever those areas had higher flow than the base flow. The outcome looks superficially like the regional flow map but has higher flow along gradients important for temperature and moisture relief. This allowed us to parse out more levels of diffuse flow and identify key climate pathways within the relatively intact landscape. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN /></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Service Item Id: 91ad3042aec64b3dbeccfd3ab5ca8015
Copyright Text: The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Resource Office, Eastern Conservation Science (ECS), Boston, MA
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Geophyscial settings clasified the study area into distinct geophysical “stages” based on the elevation, geology and soils. Our premise is that the characteristics of a geophysical setting represent enduring features that influence biotic differences in the flora, fauna, and natural communities (e.g. due to differences in pH, nutrients, drainage, erodibility) now, and these differences will continue to favor or select against different subsets of species under future climates. In addition, geophysical environments tend to share topographic characteristics and land use properties, both of which are key components of our site resilience metrics. Typically, bedrock-based environments are more topographically complex and have more intact natural landcover than deep soil environments, which are flatter and more likely to be converted to agriculture. Within these deep soil settings, remaining natural areas often have poorer soils or more topographic diversity than the surrounding farmlands due to the conversion of sites that are easiest to farm. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN /><SPAN /></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN>Because geophysical settings are key drivers of biological diversity, a representation of the full range of settings is a critical conservation goal. To ensure this representation in our analysis, our final resilience scores are stratified by each geophysical setting to ensure the most resilient portions of each geophysical setting are identified. </SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN /></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN>For more information on the setting types, please see the individual regional reports which will describe the settings in more detail. Each region used specific elevation zones and geology types relevant to those sets of ecoregions and the reports will describe how ecological processes and patterns in biodiversity are associated with the specific substrate and elevational settings in those regions. For example, the Pacific-Northwest and California defined substrate classes using soil order given its influence on biota in this region. Other areas of the country defined geologic settings using the underlying bedrock type in shallow soil areas while using soil texture to define geologic settings in the very deep surficial sediment areas. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Service Item Id: 91ad3042aec64b3dbeccfd3ab5ca8015
Copyright Text: The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Resource Office, Eastern Conservation Science (ECS), Boston, MA
Source Reports from which this national dataset was created:
Anderson, M.G., A. Barnett, M. Clark, C. Ferree, A. Olivero Sheldon, J. Prince. 2016. Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Conservation in Eastern North America. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science. Anderson, M.G., M. M. Clark, M.W. Cornett, K.R. Hall, A. Olivero Sheldon, J. Prince. 2018. Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Conservation in the Great Lakes and Tallgrass Prairie. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science and North America Region. Anderson, M.G., M.A. Ahlering, M. M. Clark, K.R. Hall, A. Olivero Sheldon, J. Platt and J. Prince. 2018. Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Conservation in the Great Plains. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science and North America Region.
Anderson, M.G., M. M. Clark, A. Olivero, and J. Prince. 2019. Resilient Sites and Connected Landscapes for Terrestrial Conservation in the Lower Mississippi-Ozark Region. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science.
Anderson, M.G., M. M. Clark, A. Olivero, and J. Prince. 2019. Resilient Sites and Connected Landscapes for Terrestrial Conservation in the Rocky Mountains and Southwest Desert Region. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science.
Buttrick, S., K. Popper, M. Schindel, B. McRae, B. Unnasch, A. Jones, and J. Platt. 2015. Conserving Nature’s Stage: Identifying Resilient Terrestrial Landscapes in the Pacific Northwest. The Nature Conservancy, Portland Oregon. 104 pp. Available online at: http://nature.ly/resilienceNW March 3, 2015
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Canadian ecologist Stanley Rowe called landform "the anchor and control of terrestrial ecosystems." It breaks up broad landscapes into local topographic units, and in doing so provides for more detailed meso- and micro-climatic expression of general macroclimatic character. It is largely responsible for local variation in solar radiation, soil development, moisture availability, and susceptibility to wind and other disturbance. As one of the five "genetic influences" in the process of soil formation, it is tightly tied to rates of erosion and deposition, and therefore to soil depth, texture, and nutrient availability. These are, with moisture, the primary edaphic controllers of plant productivity and species distributions. If the other four influences on soil formation (climate, time, parent material, and biota) are constant over a given space, it is variation in landform that drives variation in the distribution and composition of natural communities.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Landform is a compound measure, which can be deconstructed into the primary terrain attributes of elevation, slope, aspect, surface curvature, and upslope catchment area. The wide availability and improving quality of digital elevation data has made the quantification of primary terrain attributes a simple matter. Compound topographic indices have been derived from these primary attributes to model various ecological processes. We adopted the Fels and Matson (1997) approach to landform modeling. They describe a metric that combines information on slope and landscape position to define topographic units such as ridges, sideslopes, coves, and flats on the landscape. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>The current 30m resoluation grid landform dataset is a base 17-part model comprising cliffs, flat summits/ridge tops, slope crests, steep slopes warm aspect and cool aspect, sideslopes warm aspect and cool aspect, cove slopes warm aspect and cool aspect, flats at the bottom of steep slopes, hilltop flats, hill gentle slopes, valley/toe slopes, dry flats, wet flats, moist flats, and large open water bodies. Topographic landforms were developed using 30m digital elevation data where landposition, slope, and moisture accumulation were calculated and integrated to define landforms. For open water and wetflats, vector and raster wetlands and water data were compiled for this analysis region and integrated into the landforms as well. Please see the source report documents for more information on landform detailed methods.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>This dataset was downloaded for the City of Fayetteville of October 19th 2022. It was then clipped and reclassified to show only areas within the planning area.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Service Item Id: 91ad3042aec64b3dbeccfd3ab5ca8015
Copyright Text: The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Resource Office, Eastern Conservation Science (ECS), Boston, MA. Source reports from which this national dataswet was compiled:
Anderson, M.G., A. Barnett, M. Clark, C. Ferree, A. Olivero Sheldon, J. Prince. 2016. Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Conservation in Eastern North America. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science. Anderson, M.G., M. M. Clark, M.W. Cornett, K.R. Hall, A. Olivero Sheldon, J. Prince. 2018. Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Conservation in the Great Lakes and Tallgrass Prairie. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science and North America Region. Anderson, M.G., M.A. Ahlering, M. M. Clark, K.R. Hall, A. Olivero Sheldon, J. Platt and J. Prince. 2018. Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Conservation in the Great Plains. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science and North America Region.
Anderson, M.G., M. M. Clark, A. Olivero, and J. Prince. 2019. Resilient Sites and Connected Landscapes for Terrestrial Conservation in the Lower Mississippi-Ozark Region. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science.
Anderson, M.G., M. M. Clark, A. Olivero, and J. Prince. 2019. Resilient Sites and Connected Landscapes for Terrestrial Conservation in the Rocky Mountains and Southwest Desert Region. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science.
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>To identify network of sites that could likely sustain biological diversity into the future, we wanted the network to be composed of climate resilience sites that contained the maximum amount of current biodiversity. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>To identify areas of high biodiversity value we compiled the results of two sets of intensive, multi-year studies on the locations of exemplary habitats and rare species populations: 1) Ecoregional Plans from The Nature Conservancy and Nature Conservancy of Canada, and 2) Conservation Opportunity Area maps developed as part of State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) or similar state-based biodiversity assessments. We assessed how well these two sets of maps represented the full suite of geophysical settings. In cases where specific geophysical settings were not well represented in these mapped priorities, we supplemented these maps with known occurrences of rare species and communities (NatureServe element occurrences, or EOs) when available; otherwise, for those settings, we identified the largest areas of very high estimated resilience within the relevant ecoregion. We also supplemented these maps by including lands secured from conversion to development under protected GAP1 or GAP 2 level management for nature conservation. This was an important step because in some of the TNC Ecoregional portfolios already protected land (such as Yosemite National Park) were excluded from the portfolio map to focus on new protection. We added all GAP1 and 2 secured lands to the recognized biodiversity values areas given their primary management goals to maintain high quality habitat, natural processes, and thriving species populations. GAP 1 managed lands have as their intent "Nature conservation, with little human interference”. Examples include Research Natural Areas (RNA), Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study areas, Forever Wild easements, and some TNC preserves where TNC controls management. GAP 2 lands have as their intent "Nature conservation, with heavy management where needed". Examples include National Wildlife Refuges, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, some National Park land or National Monuments, US Forest Service Special Interest Areas, and some TNC conservation easement lands and preserves.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>The final Recognized Biodiversity Value dataset is a 30m raster which includes the following four values:</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>1: Ecoregion-based</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>2: Ecoregion and State-based</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>3: State-based</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>4: Additional Habitat and Species Areas, not already included in the above categories of Ecoregion or State-based </SPAN></P><P /><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Service Item Id: 91ad3042aec64b3dbeccfd3ab5ca8015
Copyright Text: The Nature Conservancy created this dataset from multiple publically available source datasets. All data are provided as is. This is not a survey quality dataset. The Nature Conservancy makes no warranty as to the currency, completeness, accuracy or utility of any specific data. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other data. It is strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the contents of the metadata file associated with these data.
Please see the file Distribute Recognized Biodiversity Value_Data Sources_2020_7_2.xls for a full listing of all the ecoregions, state-based, and additional biodiversity data sources integrated into the Recognized Biodiversity Value 7/2/2020 grid dataset.
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN>UPDATED 5/16/2022: Includes updates to Local Connectedness and Landscape Diversity</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN /></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The following is a general summary for detailed methods see the regional reports: </SPAN></SPAN><A href="http://easterndivision.s3.amazonaws.com/Resilient_and_Connected_Landscapes_For_Terrestial_Conservation.pdf"><SPAN><SPAN>Eastern US</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN><SPAN>, </SPAN></SPAN><A href="https://tnc.app.box.com/s/50r22xaf7aaxhs5tx4ep1hsuc24pfg0c"><SPAN><SPAN>Great Lakes and Tallgrass Prairie</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN><SPAN>, </SPAN></SPAN><A href="https://tnc.app.box.com/s/50r22xaf7aaxhs5tx4ep1hsuc24pfg0c"><SPAN><SPAN>Great Plains</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN><SPAN>, </SPAN></SPAN><A href="https://tnc.box.com/s/q0kwq3r4aqi5ytl128o5m0rye4z01rtg"><SPAN><SPAN>Lower Mississippi and Ozarks</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN><SPAN>, </SPAN></SPAN><A href="https://tnc.box.com/s/cqz4dp69e34mptqml7anfr5ezy94hcyu"><SPAN><SPAN>Rocky Mountains and Desert Southwest</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN><SPAN>, </SPAN></SPAN><A href="https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/oregon/science/Documents/McRae_et_al_2016_PNW_CNS_Connectivity.pdf"><SPAN><SPAN>Pacific Northwest</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN><SPAN>, </SPAN></SPAN><A href="https://omniscape.codefornature.org/"><SPAN><SPAN>California</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN><SPAN>. Additional information and data sources are </SPAN></SPAN><A href="https://tnc.app.box.com/s/uam36v5v04wrac8o9jljx4atlpc4hfqv"><SPAN><SPAN>available here</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN><SPAN>.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 6 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>We combined the sites and linkages identified by the combination of resilience, flow, and biodiversity into a single network. The network is designed to represent resilient examples all the characteristic environments of the region while maximizing amount of diversity contained within in them and the natural flow that connects them. By building the network around the natural flows and pathways that allow species populations to shift and expand and then identifying representative resilient sites situated within those pathways, the network is specifically configured to sustain biological diversity while allowing nature to adapt and change.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Key Fields:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Resilience_D: Field value=resilience if the cell is resilient</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Recognized_Biodiversity_D: Field value = Recognized Biodiveristy if the cell has recognized biodiveristy</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Secured_Land_D: description of the secured land value and GAP status</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Climate Connectivity_D: description of the climate connectivity value</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Marsh_Migration_D: Decription of Marsh Migration Value</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Region_D: a description of what analysis region the cell is in (ECS, PNW or CA)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>RCN_DESC_NEW: The full detailed RCN legend</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>RCN_Simp_legend: The simple three category RCN legend</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>RCN_1: a flag for if the cell is in teh rcn or not</SPAN></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Service Item Id: 91ad3042aec64b3dbeccfd3ab5ca8015
Copyright Text: Center for Resilient Conservation Science, The Nature Conservancy