Regionally Significant Ecological Areas and Regional Ecological Corridors - MLCCS derived 2014 / 2020

mlccs_regionally_significant_ecological_areas_2014_2020: This is an analysis of regionally significant Terrestrial and Wetland Ecological Areas n the same extent of the Metro Conservation Corridors (MeCC). The counties include all of Sherburne, Isanti, Chisago, Wright, Anoka, Washington, Henneping, Ramsey, Carver, Scott, Dakota, and partially of Goodhue, Le Sueur, Sibley and Nicollet. Individual forest, grassland and wetland models were integrated to identify and rank the Terrestrial and Wetland Ecological Areas. The scores are determined by examining important ecological attributes of the ecological patches including size, shape, cover type diversity, and adjacent land use. The results represent a probability that the modeled conditions exist in any given area, due to limitations of the data layers. The ecological models were run on the most current Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) data available - currently spring 2014. <br/><br/>In 2024 the 2014 data was updated by removing areas that overlap the Metropolitan Council's developed data layer. An effect was made to remove remaining areas that were too small to be ecological viable. Some area that remain ecological viable may contain long, narrow fingers leftover from removing the developed areas. These areas would normally not be included in an ecological patch analysis<br/><br/>This product was created to support the Metropolitan Council's comprehensive planning process. The long range goal is to update the MLCCS data in the metro region and then rerun the RSEA models.<br/><br/>mlccs_regional_ecological_corridors_2014_2020: Identification of potential ecological corridors between the MLCCS derived ecological patches. This was generated using cost / distance analysis, finding the shortest connection through the best land cover types between the patches. Natural and semi-natural areas were the preferred route, followed by agriculture land, then areas with low imperviousness (little development). Connections through developed areas were made if that was the only choice. Only patches within 5 kilometers of each other were connected.<br/><br/>The corridor layer was not edited with Metropolitan Council's developed areas