California Department of Fish and Wildlife 20140617 vector digital data ftp://ftp.dfg.ca.gov/BDB/GIS/BIOS/Public_Datasets http://bios.dfg.ca.gov The northern Sierra Nevada foothills wildlife connectivity project modeled wildlife corridors for 9 focal species between 238 landscape blocks within the northern Sierra Nevada foothills and neighboring ecoregions. We followed the least-cost corridor techniques described by Beier et al. (2007). This analysis identified the least-cost corridor, or the best potential route for each species, between neighboring landscape blocks. The data needed for a least-cost corridor analysis are a resistance raster and landscape blocks. The resistance raster is the inverse of the species distribution model (SDM) output (i.e., Maxent or BioView habitat models, which rank habitat suitability across the landscape from 0-100 for each species). We identified habitat patches for each focal species within each landscape block, and connected those habitat patches using the least-cost corridor models. The least-cost corridor model does not identify barriers, risk and dispersal. We removed urban areas and areas of unsuitable/non-restorable habitat from the corridors and then inspected the corridor to make sure they were continuous. We examined the amount of predicted suitable habitat in each corridor, and measured the distance between habitat patches within each corridor to make sure it was within the maximum dispersal distance for that focal species. If the corridors did not meet these rules then habitat patches on the border of the corridor were added to meet the selection requirements. For more information see the project report at [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=85358]. The least-cost corridors identify the best swath of habitat available for focal species to move from one landscape block to another based on predicted suitable habitat as identified by the northern Sierra Nevada foothills wildlife connectivity project. 20140617 publication date Complete None planned -122.550400 -119.579919 40.949370 37.090500 None Gray Fox connectivity northern Sierra Nevada foothills None California None The user accepts sole responsibility for the correct interpretation of this report and the correct use of its accompanying data sets in environmental documents. The northern Sierra Nevada foothills wildlife connectivity project linkage data delineates lands likely important to the 30 focal species movement between large, mostly protected areas across the study area. It is a decision-support tool to be refined by field work and local linkage designs. DO NOT assume that lands outside Landscape Blocks or Least-Cost Corridors or Linkages are unimportant to wildlife populations or movements. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Data and Technology Division, Biogeographic Data Branch Melanie Gogol-Prokurat Conservation Analysis Unit Coordinator 916-324-9265 Melanie.Gogol-Prokurat@Wildlife.ca.gov Beier, P., D. R. Majka, and J. S. Jenness. 2007. Conceptual steps for designing wildlife corridors. Microsoft Windows 7 Version 6.1 (Build 7601) Service Pack 1; Esri ArcGIS 10.3.1.4959 Vector GT-polygon composed of chains 85 NAD 1983 California Teale Albers 34.0 40.5 -120.0 0.0 0.0 -4000000.0 coordinate pair 0.000000003754707655900803 0.000000003754707655900803 meter D North American 1983 GRS 1980 6378137.0 298.257222101 ds1013 FID Internal feature number. Esri Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated. Shape Feature geometry. Esri Coordinates defining the features. CorridorID ID number of corridor BlockA ID number of landscape block BlockB ID number of landscape block Area_ac Area of corridor Length_m Length of corridor patch_area Area of habitat patches within the corridor pc_patch Percentage of the corridor with habitat patches pc_1km Percentage of the corridor width greater than 1 km pc_2km Percentage of the corridor width greater than 2 km pc_high Percentage of the corridor classified as high predicted suitable habitat (Values 75-100) pc_med Percentage of the corridor classified as medium predicted suitable habitat (Values 50-75) pc_low Percentage of the corridor classified as low predicted suitable habitat (Values threshold-50) elev_mean Mean elevation of corridor elev_min Minimum elevation of corridor elev_max Maximum elevation of corridor elev_std Standard deviation of elevation of corridor elev_range Range of elevation of corridor pc_protect Percentage of the corridor protected as GAP 1, GAP2, GAP3 or conservation easements pc_gap12e Percentage of the corridor protected as GAP 1, GAP2 or conservation easements pc_gap3 Percentage of the corridor protected as GAP 3 pc_gap4 Percentage of the corridor protected as GAP 4 pc_priv Percentage of the corridor in private, unprotected status pc_blmacec Percentage of the corridor in BLM ACEC pc_crithab Percentage of the corridor in USFWS designated Critical Habitat for federally listed species n_crithab Number of species with critical habitat in corridor n_CNDDB_p Number of special status plant taxa (species or subspecies or varieties) occuring in corridor according to ??? n_CNDDB_a Number of special status animal taxa (species or subspecies) occuring in corridor according to ??? pc_hotspt Percentage of corridor in amphibian, reptile, mammal, or plant rarity hotspot pc_wtvp Pecentage of corridor in vernal pools mjrd_cross Number of major road crossing the corridor mjrd_dens Density of major roads in the corridor n_ecoreg Number of ecoregions in the corridor Ecoregs List of ecoregions in the corridor n_subsect Number of ecoregion subsets in the corridor Subsect List of ecoregion subsets in the corridor n_HU Number of hydrologic units in the corridor based on HUName Calw221 HU_name List of hydrologic units in the corridor based on HUName Calw221 n_counties Number of counties in the corridor counties List of counties in the corridor pc_urban Percentage of corridor classified as urban based on vege_15 vegetation raster pc_chprl Percentage of corridor classified as chaparral based on vege_15 vegetation raster pc_cnfr Percentage of corridor classified as conifer based on vege_15 vegetation raster pc_ccnfr Percentage of corridor classified as coastal conifer based on vege_15 vegetation raster pc_grslnd Percentage of corridor classified as grassland based on vege_15 vegetation raster pc_hrdwd Percentage of corridor classified as hardwood based on vege_15 vegetation raster pc_juniper Percentage of corridor classified as juniper based on vege_15 vegetation raster pc_mx_cnfr Percentage of corridor classified as mixed conifer based on vege_15 vegetation raster pc_oak Percentage of corridor classified as oak woodland based on vege_15 vegetation raster pc_orchard Percentage of corridor classified as orchard based on vege_15 vegetation raster pc_crop Percentage of corridor classified as crop based on vege_15 vegetation raster pc_shrub Percentage of corridor classified as shrub based on vege_15 vegetation raster pc_wet Percentage of corridor classified as water or wetland based on vege_15 vegetation raster 20160419 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Data and Technology Division, Biogeographic Data Branch Melanie Gogol-Prokurat 916-324-9265 Melanie.Gogol-Prokurat@Wildlife.ca.gov FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998 local time