The Viewshed analysis layer is used to identify visible areas. You specify the places you are interested in, either from a file or interactively, and the Viewshed service combines this with Esri-curated elevation data to create output polygons of visible areas. Some questions you can answer with the Viewshed task include:What areas can I see from this location? What areas can see me?Can I see the proposed wind farm?What areas can be seen from the proposed fire tower?The maximum number of input features is 1000.Viewshed has the following optional parameters:Maximum Distance: The maximum distance to calculate the viewshed.Maximum Distance Units: The units for the Maximum Distance parameter. The default is meters.DEM Resolution: The source elevation data; the default is 90m resolution SRTM. Other options include 30m, 24m, 10m, and Finest.Observer Height: The height above the surface of the observer. The default value of 1.75 meters is an average height of a person. If you are looking from an elevation location such as an observation tower or a tall building, use that height instead.Observer Height Units: The units for the Observer Height parameter. The default is meters.Surface Offset: The height above the surface of the object you are trying to see. The default value is 0. If you are trying to see buildings or wind turbines add their height here.Surface Offset Units: The units for the Surface Offset parameter. The default is meters.Generalize Viewshed Polygons: Determine if the viewshed polygons are to be generalized or not. The viewshed calculation is based upon a raster elevation model which creates a result with stair-stepped edges. To create a more pleasing appearance, and improve performance, the default behavior is to generalize the polygons. This generalization will not change the accuracy of the result for any location more than one half of the DEM's resolution.By default, this tool currently works worldwide between 60 degrees north and 56 degrees south based on the 3 arc-second (approximately 90 meter) resolution SRTM dataset. Depending upon the DEM resolution pick by the user, different data sources will be used by the tool. For 24m, tool will use global dataset WorldDEM4Ortho (excluding the counties of Azerbaijan, DR Congo and Ukraine) 0.8 arc-second (approximately 24 meter) from Airbus Defence and Space GmbH. For 30m, tool will use 1 arc-second resolution data in North America (Canada, United States, and Mexico) from the USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED), SRTM DEM-S dataset from Geoscience Australia in Australia and SRTM data between 60 degrees north and 56 degrees south in the remaining parts of the world (Africa, South America, most of Europe and continental Asia, the East Indies, New Zealand, and islands of the western Pacific). For 10m, tool will use 1/3 arc-second resolution data in the continental United States from USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) and approximately 10 meter data covering Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Spain, Japan Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Italy, Northern Ireland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein from various authoritative sources.To learn more, read the developer documentation for Viewshed or follow the Learn ArcGIS exercise called I Can See for Miles and Miles. To use this Geoprocessing service in ArcGIS Desktop 10.2.1 and higher, you can either connect to the Ready-to-Use Services, or create an ArcGIS Server connection. Connect to the Ready-to-Use Services by first signing in to your ArcGIS Online Organizational Account:Once you are signed in, the Ready-to-Use Services will appear in the Ready-to-Use Services folder or the Catalog window:If you would like to add a direct connection to the Elevation ArcGIS Server in ArcGIS for Desktop or ArcGIS Pro, use this URL to connect: https://elevation.arcgis.com/arcgis/services. You will also need to provide your account credentials. ArcGIS for Desktop:ArcGIS Pro:The ArcGIS help has additional information about how to do this:Learn how to make a ArcGIS Server Connection in ArcGIS Desktop. Learn more about using geoprocessing services in ArcGIS Desktop.This tool is part of a larger collection of elevation layers that you can use to perform a variety of mapping analysis tasks.

The hypsometric integral (HI) is one of the most commonly used measures that geomorphologists use to describe the shape of the Earth’s surface. A hypsometric integral is usually calculated by plotting the cumulative height and the cumulative area under that height for individual watersheds and then taking the area under that curve to get the hypsometric integral. In a GIS hypsometric integral is calculated by slicing watersheds into elevation bands and plotting the cumulative area for each band. Due to the iterative nature that is required for calculating hypsometric integral it tends to be one of the harder to calculate watershed variables, and thus the need for an automated tool. Although there are instructions online for how to calculate HI in ArcGIS this tool automates the processes and doesn’t require users to do their own plotting or export results to spreadsheets.

This toolbox contains two models. Hypsometric Integral (for shapefiles only) is the main model that most users will want to run. Hypsometric Integral (submodel) is a model that is nested within the Hypsometric Integral (for shapefiles only) model and doesn’t need to be run by itself. The tool computes the hypsometric integral for a given watershed. A new shapefile will be created representing the same watershed the user inputs, but includes a new field, "HI," representing hypsometric integral percentages.

In some instances the Hypsometric Integral (for shapefiles) will show up with a red X and won’t be useable. The workaround for this is to open the Hypsometric Integral (for shapefiles) tool in edit mode (ModelBuilder) delete the Hypsometric Integral (submodel) and drag in your version of the Hypsometric Integral (submodel). Re-connect the following parameters: input DEM, Input Watershed, TempWorkspace, and then connect the output (HI Values for all Watersheds) to the Append tool. Click save.

Building polygons were created in February 2013 by Geoscience Australia by manually digitising the outline of each building off the 2011 orthophotography. Digitisation was done from scratch off the 2011 orthophotography within Quantum GIS. Using the ArcMap 'zonal statistics' tool the minimum, mean and maximum heights were found for each building polygon from the 2011 digital elevation model and the 2011 digital surface model (DSM). This information was then joined to the building polygon attribute table. To find the building height from ground to roof, the difference between the Mean DSM and mean DEM was calculated and added as a field to the attribute table. To find the maximum height of each building the difference between the Maximum DSM and Mean DEM was calculated. Polygon area, perimeter, and x and y coordinates of each building were also attached as attributes. Accuracy is high as the layer was based on the 2011 orthophotography. Error may have been introduced through the digitisation process. Building lean in the orthophotography may also contribute to polygons which are slightly inaccurately placed. Height attribute accuracy is inaccurate for building polygons which have tree cover above them, as the tree elevation would influence the digital surface model. Particularly the Max_height field may include tree heights rather than building heights in some cases. Attribute accuracy could be improved by using the raw 2011 lidar data (.las files) which are classified at 'buildings' to attach heights. This method was tested and was extremely time consuming - only the height_max field was significantly improved. Disclaimer

This resource contains data inputs and an iPython Jupyter Notebook used to simulate semi-distributed variable source area runoff generation in a tributary to the Logan River. This resource is part of the HydroLearn Physical Hydrology learning module available at https://edx.hydrolearn.org/courses/course-v1:Utah_State_University+CEE6400+2019_Fall/about.

In this activity, the student learns how to (1) calculate the topographic wetness index using digital elevation models (DEMs) following up on a previous module on DEMs and GIS in Hydrology; (2) apply TOPMODEL concepts and equations to estimate soil moisture deficit and runoff generation across a watershed given necessary watershed and storm characteristics; and (3) critically assess concepts and assumptions to determine if and why TOPMODEL is an appropriate tool given information about a specific watershed.

Please note that this exercise sets up the data needed to estimate runoff in the Spawn Creek watershed using TOPMODEL. Spawn Creek is a tributary of the Logan River, Utah. This exercise uses some of the same data as the Logan River Exercise in Digital Elevation Models and GIS in Hydrology at https://www.hydroshare.org/resource/9c4a6e2090924d97955a197fea67fd72/. If running the TOPMODEL for other study sites, you need to prepare a DEM TIF file and an outlet shapefile for the area of interest. - There are several sources to obtain DEM data. In the U.S., the DEM data (with different spatial resolutions) can be obtained from the National Elevation Dataset available from the national map (http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/). Another DEM data source is the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/), an international research effort that obtained digital elevation models on a near-global scale (search for Digital Elevation at https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/science/usgs-eros-archive-products-overview?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects). - If not already available, you can generate the outlet shapefile by applying basic terrain analysis steps in geospatial information system models such as ArcGIS or QGIS.

Yearly effective energy and mass transfer (EEMT) (MJ m−2 yr−1) was calculated for the Valles Calders, upper part of the Jemez River basin by summing the 12 monthly values. Effective energy and mass flux varies seasonally, especially in the desert southwestern United States where contemporary climate includes a bimodal precipitation distribution that concentrates in winter (rain or snow depending on elevation) and summer monsoon periods. This seasonality of EEMT flux into the upper soil surface can be estimated by calculating EEMT on a monthly basis as constrained by solar radiation (Rs), temperature (T), precipitation (PPT), and the vapor pressure deficit (VPD): EEMT = f(Rs,T,PPT,VPD). Here we used a multiple linear regression model to calculate the monthly EEMT that accounts for VPD, PPT, and locally modified T across the terrain surface. These EEMT calculations were made using data from the PRISM Climate Group at Oregon State University (www.prismclimate.org). Climate data are provided at an 800-m spatial resolution for input precipitation and minimum and maximum temperature normals and at a 4000-m spatial resolution for dew-point temperature (Daly et al., 2002). The PRISM climate data, however, do not account for localized variation in EEMT that results from smaller spatial scale changes in slope and aspect as occurs within catchments. To address this issue, these data were then combined with 10-m digital elevation maps to compute the effects of local slope and aspect on incoming solar radiation and hence locally modified temperature (Yang et al., 2007). Monthly average dew-point temperatures were computed using 10 yr of monthly data (2000–2009) and converted to vapor pressure. Precipitation, temperature, and dew-point data were resampled on a 10-m grid using spline interpolation. Monthly solar radiation data (direct and diffuse) were computed using ArcGIS Solar Analyst extension (ESRI, Redlands, CA) and 10-m elevation data (USGS National Elevation Dataset [NED] 1/3 Arc-Second downloaded from the National Map Seamless Server at seamless.usgs.gov). Locally modified temperature was used to compute the saturated vapor pressure, and the local VPD was estimated as the difference between the saturated and actual vapor pressures. The regression model was derived using the ISOHYS climate data set comprised of approximately 30-yr average monthly means for more than 300 weather stations spanning all latitudes and longitudes (IAEA).

Polygon representation of areas with specific regulations regarding the interpretation of height restrictions for buildings with the Halifax Peninsula Land Use By-Law Area.The data was created by HRM Planning and Development for the purpose of identifying the correct method to calculate the maximum allowable height within a height precinct as defined on map ZM-17 of the Halifax Peninsula Land Use By-Law.This dataset must be interpreted in conjunction with the Height Precincts dataset to determine the maximum allowable building height for a building located within a height precinct. Metadata

This data set represents a series of 502 mixed-species bird flock compositions, and derived taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity indices, that were gathered along a gradient of forest fragment sizes (range = 10-173 ha) in the Colombian Western Andes. We sampled mixed-species flocks using transect surveys along 14 transects in 8 fragments and a continuous forest reference site in the same landscape and at the same elevation (~1900-2200 m.a.s.l.). We also used buffer analysis to quantify the proportion of forest cover and forest edge within 1 km of each transect, and calculated local vegetation density and complexity, as well as distance from edge, for each 100-meter transect segment (n = 70 segments). Flock composition data observed on a transect were used to calculate overall species richness and flock size as well as two indices of functional and phylogenetic diversity; we calculated the stadardized effect size (SES) of each measure to account for the correlation between these measures and species richness. We also provide the raw counts of each species for each flock composition. These data were used for the analyses in Jones and Robinson (2020).

Methods Study System and Sites

We conducted all fieldwork in subtropical humid forests located within the municipality of El Cairo, Valle del Cauca department in Colombia. The study region is part of the Serrania de los Paraguas in the Western Andes mountain range, a center of avian threatened species diversity and endemism within Colombia. The study landscape in this municipality consists of a patchwork of forest fragments embedded in a matrix of cattle pasture, regenerating scrub, and coffee farms. Within this landscape, we selected eight fragments representing a gradient in patch sizes (range 10 to 170 ha). Sites are in the same altitudinal belt (1900-2200 m.a.s.l.) and matrix type (cattle pasture) to control for effects of altitude and matrix type on flock size and composition. Within-patch disturbance is common in fragmented Andean forests in Colombia, particularly illegal selective logging, which in our landscape typically occurred as removal of select old-growth trees for lumber by landowners; logging histories varied considerably from historical to ongoing, and extensive to limited, both within and between patches. We established 500-meter transects through forest interior (n = 14 total transects) which were opportunistically placed on existing trails, at variable distances from the edge of the fragments. We further divided each transect into 100-meter segments to account for heterogeneity in vegetation structure within transects. We accounted for edge effects by measuring the distance to forest edge of each transect segment.

We stratified forest fragments into large (≥ 100 ha), medium (~30-50 ha), and small (≤ 20 ha) size categories and selected a minimum of two replicates of each; these represent the range of fragment sizes available in our study landscape. We also included a non-fragmented reference site (Reserva Natural Comunitária Cerro El Inglés, ~750 ha) connected to over 10,000 ha of continuous forest to the north and west along the spine of the Serranía de los Paraguas. We only selected fragments with primary or late-successional secondary forest; vegetation structure and canopy height varied substantially between patches based on intensities of selective logging and land-use histories (see above). Fragments were all separated by ≥ 100 meters to minimize among-patch movement of birds, and all transects in different fragments were at least 250 meters apart.

Transect Surveys for Mixed-species Flocks

We performed transect surveys for mixed-species flocks, adapted from Goodale et al. (2014), in forest fragments from June-August 2017 (boreal migrants absent) and January-March 2018 (boreal migrants present). Both sampling periods corresponded to a dry season in the Western Andes, which has a bimodal two-dry, two-wet seasonality pattern. For each transect, we spent two and a half sequential field days performing continuous transect surveys; we conducted surveys in small fragments, large fragments, and continuous forest sites in random order to avoid a temporal bias in sampling. Surveys were distributed across the morning (7:30-11:30) and evening (15:00-17:30) hours. Transects were walked slowly and continuously by 2-3 observers, including local birdwatchers familiar with all species (Harrison Jones present for all surveys); flocking birds were identified by both sight and sound. When we encountered a flock, we noted the time of day and transect segment in which it was observed and spent up to a maximum of 45 minutes characterizing it with 10x binoculars. At least 5 minutes were spent with each flock, following it if possible. Because detection of species in flocks was imperfect, we only included a flock observation in the analysis if we felt that at least 80% of the individuals were observed (e.g. after spending several minutes of continuous observation at the end of the survey period without observing a new species or individual); incomplete flock observations were not included in analyses. We feel that our survey methodology accurately described flock composition because birds moved and called frequently in flocks, leading to high detectability. We noted the start and end time of each survey, and the presence of incomplete flocks to calculate flock encounter rate. We also supplemented the transect surveys with data from flocks opportunistically observed on a transect while performing other fieldwork. Some flocks in the data set represent flock compositions recorded near but not on a transect; these compositions have no associated transect segment.

Calculation of Landscape-level Variables

    We obtained landscape-level variables for analyses using geographic information software (GIS) analysis in ArcGIS (ArcMap 10.3.1; Esri; Redlands, CA). To quantify landscape composition and configuration, we buffered each transect (n = 14) by 1 km; buffers extended from the entire length of the transect. We then calculated measures of landscape composition and configuration using a recent land-cover/use categorization made by the Corporación Autónoma Regional del Valle del Cauca, converted to a 25-m cell-size raster. To quantify landscape composition, we calculated percentages of the forest-cover type within each buffer using the ‘isectpolyrst’ tool in Geospatial Modelling Environment (version 0.7.4.0). We measured landscape configuration for each transect as edge density, or length of all forest edges (in meters) divided by total buffer area (in hectares). The distance to edge was calculated in meters for each 100-meter transect segment (n = 70) as the shortest straight-line distance between the center point of the segment and the nearest edge of the fragment. 

Vegetation Measurements and Principal Component Analysis

    We measured vegetation structure in each 100-m transect segment used for flock sampling. Vegetation measurements were made from June-August 2017; based on our observations of vegetation, we assumed variation between the two sampling periods was minimal. We used the sampling methodology of James and Shugart (1970), following the modifications made by Stratford and Stouffer (2013), and further modified to be used with belt transects. Broadly, the methodology comprises two components for every 100-meter transect segment: (1) the quantification of canopy cover, ground cover, canopy height, and foliage height diversity of vegetation using point sampling every 10 meters and (2) the quantification of shrub, vine, fern, palm, and tree fern and tree density using 3 meter-wide belt sampling.

For the point sampling, we measured eight variables at ten-meter intervals, for 10 points per 100-meter segment. As a measure of foliage height diversity along the transect, we noted the presence or absence of live vegetation at five heights: <0.5 m, >0.5–3 m, >3–10 m, >10–20 m, and >20 m. Above 3 meters, we used a rangefinder to determine heights while sighting through a tube with crosshairs. Canopy and ground cover were calculated to the nearest 1/8th of the field of view by sighting through a vertical canopy densiometer (GRS Densiometer, Geographic Resource Solutions, Arcata, CA). For each segment, we averaged values for canopy cover, and ground cover, and calculated the proportion of points at which vegetation was present for each height category. For the belt transect sampling, we surveyed vegetation along the same transects and calculated densities for each 100-m transect interval. We counted all shrubs, vines, ferns, tree ferns, and palms encountered on 1.5 meters to either side. Secondly, we counted all trees (woody vegetation > 2 m in height) within 1.5 meters of the transect and measured their diameter at breast height (DBH). Trees were later categorized into six DBH size classes for analysis: 1-7 cm, 8-15 cm, 16-23 cm, 24-30 cm, 31-50 cm, and > 50 cm. We additionally recorded the largest tree’s DBH.

    To quantify foliage height diversity, we calculated the Shannon Diversity Index of the proportion of points with vegetation present in each of the five height bands for each segment (n = 70 segments). To reduce redundancy and minimize correlation between variables, we (separately) ordinated our tree DBH and understory plant density data using principal component analysis (PCA: McGarigal et al. 2000) for each 100-meter transect segment. We column (Z score) standardized data prior to ordination to account for differences in the units of measurement and used the covariance matrix to run the PCA. The principal components were interpreted using the significance of the principal component loadings. The PCA was run in R (version 3.5.1) using the princomp function in the stats package. The Shannon Index was calculated using the diversity function of the vegan package

The files linked to this reference are the geospatial data created as part of the completion of the baseline vegetation inventory project for the NPS park unit. Current format is ArcGIS file geodatabase but older formats may exist as shapefiles. were derived from the NVC. NatureServe developed a preliminary list of potential vegetation types. These data were combined with existing plot data (Cully 2002) to derive an initial list of potential types. Additional data and information were gleaned from a field visit and incorporated into the final list of map units. Because of the park’s small size and the large amount of field data, the map units are equivalent to existing vegetation associations or local associations/descriptions (e.g., Prairie Dog Colony). In addition to vegetation type, vegetation structures were described using three attributes: height, coverage density, and coverage pattern. In addition to vegetation structure and context, a number of attributes for each polygon were stored in the associated table within the GIS database. Many of these attributes were derived from the photointerpretation; others were calculated or crosswalked from other classifications. Table 2.7.2 shows all of the attributes and their sources. Anderson Level 1 and 2 codes are also included (Anderson et al. 1976). These codes should allow for a more regional perspective on the vegetation types. Look-up tables for the names associated with the codes is included within the geodatabase and in Appendix D. The look-up tables contain all the NVC formation information as well as alliance names, unique IDs, and the ecological system codes (El_Code) for the associations. These El_Codes often represent a one-to-many relationship; that is, one association may be related to more than one ecological system. The NatureServe conservation status is included as a separate item. Finally, slope (degrees), aspect, and elevation were calculated for each polygon label point using a digital elevation model and an ArcView script. The slope figure will vary if one uses a TIN (triangulated irregular network) versus a GRID (grid-referenced information display) for the calculation (Jenness 2005). A grid was used for the slope figure in this dataset. Acres and hectares were calculated using XTools Pro for ArcGIS Desktop.

River hydraulic geometry is an important input to hydraulic and hydrologic models that route flow along streams, determine the relationship between stage and discharge, and map the potential for flood inundation give the flow in a stream reach. Traditional approaches to quantify river geometry have involved river cross-sections, such as are required for input to the HEC-RAS model. Extending such cross-section based models to large scales has proven complex, and, in this presentation, an alternative approach, the Height Above Nearest Drainage, or HAND, is described. As we have implemented it, HAND uses multi-directional flow directions derived from a digital elevation model (DEM) using the Dinifinity method in TauDEM software (http://hydrology.usu.edu/taudem) to determine the height of each grid cell above the nearest stream along the flow path from that cell to the stream. With this information, and the depth of flow in the stream, the potential for and depth of flood inundation can be determined. Furthermore, by dividing streams into reaches or segments, the area draining to each reach can be isolated and a series of threshold depths applied to the grid of HAND values in that isolated reach catchment, to determine inundation volume, surface area and wetted bed area. Dividing these by length yields reach average cross section area, width, and wetted perimeter. Together with slope (also determined from the DEM) and roughness (Manning's n) these provide all the inputs needed for establishing a Manning's equation uniform flow assumption stage-discharge rating curve and for mapping potential inundation from discharge. This presentation will describe the application of this approach across the continental US in conjunction with NOAA’s National Water Model for prediction of stage and flood inundation potential in each of the 2.7 million reaches of the National Hydrography Plus (NHDPlus) dataset, the vast majority of which are ungauged. The continental US scale application has been enabled through the use of high performance parallel computing at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) and the CyberGIS Center at the University of Illinois.

Presentation at 2018 AWRA Spring Specialty Conference: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Water Resources X, Orlando, Florida, April 23-25, http://awra.org/meetings/Orlando2018/.

This resource contains data inputs and a Jupyter Notebook that is used to introduce Hydrologic Analysis using Terrain Analysis Using Digital Elevation Models (TauDEM) and Python. TauDEM is a free and open-source set of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) tools developed at Utah State University for the extraction and analysis of hydrologic information from topography. This resource is part of a HydroLearn Physical Hydrology learning module available at https://edx.hydrolearn.org/courses/course-v1:Utah_State_University+CEE6400+2019_Fall/about

In this activity, the student learns how to (1) derive hydrologically useful information from Digital Elevation Models (DEMs); (2) describe the sequence of steps involved in mapping stream networks, catchments, and watersheds; and (3) compute an approximate water balance for a watershed-based on publicly available data.

Please note that this exercise is designed for the Logan River watershed, which drains to USGS streamflow gauge 10109000 located just east of Logan, Utah. However, this Jupyter Notebook and the analysis can readily be applied to other locations of interest. If running the terrain analysis for other study sites, you need to prepare a DEM TIF file, an outlet shapefile for the area of interest, and the average annual streamflow and precipitation data. - There are several sources to obtain DEM data. In the U.S., the DEM data (with different spatial resolutions) can be obtained from the National Elevation Dataset available from the national map (http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/). Another DEM data source is the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/), an international research effort that obtained digital elevation models on a near-global scale (search for Digital Elevation at https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/science/usgs-eros-archive-products-overview?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects). - If not already available, you can generate the outlet shapefile by applying basic terrain analysis steps in geospatial information system models such as ArcGIS or QGIS. - You also need to obtain average annual streamflow and precipitation data for the watershed of interest to assess the annual water balance and calculate the runoff ratio in this exercise. In the U.S., the streamflow data can be obtained from the USGS NWIS website (https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis) and the precipitation from PRISM (https://prism.oregonstate.edu/normals/). Note that using other datasets may require preprocessing steps to make data ready to use for this exercise.

Flood Hatch ShapefilesIn addition to the three sets of rasters (Maximum Wave Heights, Water Surface Elevations, and DFEs) provided, separate shapefiles were also created to overlap and highlight special areas within the raster datasets produced for calculating DFEs. A flood hatch shapefile is not provided for every ACFEP level or for every region, but when it is provided, it encompasses the special areas for that level and region. The same hatch shapefile is applicable for all datatypes for the particular level and region. Flood hatch shapefiles encompass all areas of special values within the data rasters (including areas of 9999, 9998, and 9997 values). All regions have a 0.1% ACFEP level flood hatch shapefile because all 0.1% ACFEP rasters contain 9999 values.The flood hatch shapefiles contain individual polygons that describe the type of special area underlying that polygon’s spatial extent. For 9999 and 9998 values in the value rasters (water surface elevations, waves, and DFEs), the special hatched polygons will have the same extent of those values within those rasters. For 9997 values in the value rasters, the hatch polygon will always encompass the 9997 values, but may be larger in extent than just the location of those value cells. For these areas, water surface elevation, wave heights, and DFEs values may be provided, but they still represent a special zone.The Hatch polygons have 5 fields (Column headers) that describe each polygon within the shapefile. These fields include FID, Shape, Hatch_Type, Zones_txt, Hatch, and Hatch_Txt. The FID field contains an ID number for each polygon within that shapefile, while the Shape fieldlists the type of shapefile contained (polygon in all cases). The Hatch_Type field contains the numerical value that can be found within the value rasters (wave height, water surface, and DFE) underlying that polygon. Zones_txt and Hatch_txt are string type fields that contain descriptors of the polygon type, while the Hatch Field contains a numerical value for the type of hatching (1 for 0.1% Edge Zone, 2 for Wave Overtopping Zones, 3 for Dynamic Zone). The following table is an example of what a flood hatch file’s attribute table might look like.FIDShapeHatch_TypeZones_TxtHatchHatch_Txt0Polygon9999Shallow water flooding during extreme storms10.1% Edge Zone1Polygon9997Influenced by wave overtopping (incl. 9997 areas)2Wave Overtopping Zone2Polygon9998Dynamic Landform Areas3Dynamic ZoneSpecifically, the various hatch shapefiles can be defined as follows:• FID 0 Hatch Type – These represent areas of shallow water flooding during extreme storms. These are locations where flooding can only be expected during the most extreme events (> 1000-year return period) or where there are only minor flood depths (shallow flooding) during 1000-year return period AEP. These values only appear in 0.1% ACFEP level since they only occur at the very upper extent of extreme flooding. Water surface elevation values in these regions can be set to 0.1 foot above the site-specific land elevation to provide an estimate of the water surface elevation. Site-specific survey information may be needed to determine the land elevation. These hatch areas directly match areas with 9999 values within the rasters.• FID 1 Hatch Type – These represent wave overtopping zones. These hatch layers encompass the 9997 areas, but also include areas that have known values. Hatched areas of this type covering 9997 values would be expected to experience flooding caused by intermittent wave spray and overtopping only. Hatched areas of this type covering locations with values indicate that the flooding is caused by both direct sheet flow and wave overtopping. These hatched zones are provided for informational purposes by identifying zones that may require special design considerations for wave overtopping. Site-specific coastal processes analysis may also be required in these areas.• FID 2 Hatch Type – These represent areas where geomorphology is extremely dynamic and as such expected flooding may vary drastically. These values can appear in any ACFEP level. There are minimal locations of this type. These hatch areas directly match areas with 9998 values within the rasters.

Current Effective Date: 0901Z 27 Nov 2025 to 0901Z 22 Jan 2026ClearanceThe Clearance dataset provides information about the highest terrain or obstacle elevation within a quadrant or bin on a chart. Clearance values can be used to determine the lowest recommended altitudes that can be flown within a bin or quadrant when taking terrain and obstacle data into account. Depending on the type of clearance and location of the bin, additional buffers may be used in the calculation. The quadrant or bin sizes vary from product to product. Clearance information is published every 56 days by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration – Aeronautical Information Services.Types of clearance data include:Off Route Obstruction Clearance Altitude (OROCA)OROCAs are depicted on the Enroute (IFR) chart series. They include a 1000 foot vertical buffer over the highest terrain or obstacle feature in non-mountainous areas and a 2000 foot vertical buffer in designated mountainous area within the United States. These values include a horizontal buffer of 4 NM in all directions outside of the bin.Off Route Terrain Clearance Altitude (ORTCA)ORTCAs are shown on the Enroute (IFR) chart series. ORTCAs are depicted for charted areas in Mexico and the Caribbean that are located outside the U.S. Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ). ORTCAs include a 3000 foot vertical buffer over the highest terrain or obstacle feature. These values include a horizontal buffer of 4 NM in all directions outside of the bin.Maximum Elevation Figure (MEF) – Future EnhancementMEFs are depicted on the Visual (VFR) chart series. MEF values include a 100 foot buffer over the highest obstacle feature and a 300 foot buffer over the highest terrain feature in each bin, and are then rounded up to the next 100 foot value. There is no horizontal buffer included in the MEF calculation.

This data was prepared as input for the Selkie GIS-TE tool. This GIS tool aids site selection, logistics optimization and financial analysis of wave or tidal farms in the Irish and Welsh maritime areas. Read more here: https://www.selkie-project.eu/selkie-tools-gis-technoeconomic-model/

This research was funded by the Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) through MaREI, the SFI Research Centre for Energy, Climate and the Marine and by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI). Support was also received from the European Union's European Regional Development Fund through the Ireland Wales Cooperation Programme as part of the Selkie project.

File Formats

Results are presented in three file formats:

tif Can be imported into a GIS software (such as ARC GIS) csv Human-readable text format, which can also be opened in Excel png Image files that can be viewed in standard desktop software and give a spatial view of results

Input Data

All calculations use open-source data from the Copernicus store and the open-source software Python. The Python xarray library is used to read the data.

Hourly Data from 2000 to 2019

• Wind - Copernicus ERA5 dataset 17 by 27.5 km grid
  10m wind speed

• Wave - Copernicus Atlantic -Iberian Biscay Irish - Ocean Wave Reanalysis dataset 3 by 5 km grid

Accessibility

The maximum limits for Hs and wind speed are applied when mapping the accessibility of a site.
The Accessibility layer shows the percentage of time the Hs (Atlantic -Iberian Biscay Irish - Ocean Wave Reanalysis) and wind speed (ERA5) are below these limits for the month.

Input data is 20 years of hourly wave and wind data from 2000 to 2019, partitioned by month. At each timestep, the accessibility of the site was determined by checking if
the Hs and wind speed were below their respective limits. The percentage accessibility is the number of hours within limits divided by the total number of hours for the month.

Environmental data is from the Copernicus data store (https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/). Wave hourly data is from the 'Atlantic -Iberian Biscay Irish - Ocean Wave Reanalysis' dataset.
Wind hourly data is from the ERA 5 dataset.

Availability

A device's availability to produce electricity depends on the device's reliability and the time to repair any failures. The repair time depends on weather
windows and other logistical factors (for example, the availability of repair vessels and personnel.). A 2013 study by O'Connor et al. determined the
relationship between the accessibility and availability of a wave energy device. The resulting graph (see Fig. 1 of their paper) shows the correlation between accessibility at Hs of 2m and wind speed of 15.0m/s and availability. This graph is used to calculate the availability layer from the accessibility layer.

The input value, accessibility, measures how accessible a site is for installation or operation and maintenance activities. It is the percentage time the
environmental conditions, i.e. the Hs (Atlantic -Iberian Biscay Irish - Ocean Wave Reanalysis) and wind speed (ERA5), are below operational limits.
Input data is 20 years of hourly wave and wind data from 2000 to 2019, partitioned by month. At each timestep, the accessibility of the site was determined
by checking if the Hs and wind speed were below their respective limits. The percentage accessibility is the number of hours within limits divided by the total
number of hours for the month. Once the accessibility was known, the percentage availability was calculated using the O'Connor et al. graph of the relationship between the two. A mature technology reliability was assumed.

Weather Window

The weather window availability is the percentage of possible x-duration windows where weather conditions (Hs, wind speed) are below maximum limits for the
given duration for the month.

The resolution of the wave dataset (0.05° × 0.05°) is higher than that of the wind dataset
(0.25° x 0.25°), so the nearest wind value is used for each wave data point. The weather window layer is at the resolution of the wave layer.

The first step in calculating the weather window for a particular set of inputs (Hs, wind speed and duration) is to calculate the accessibility at each timestep.
The accessibility is based on a simple boolean evaluation: are the wave and wind conditions within the required limits at the given timestep?

Once the time series of accessibility is calculated, the next step is to look for periods of sustained favourable environmental conditions, i.e. the weather
windows. Here all possible operating periods with a duration matching the required weather-window value are assessed to see if the weather conditions remain
suitable for the entire period. The percentage availability of the weather window is calculated based on the percentage of x-duration windows with suitable
weather conditions for their entire duration.The weather window availability can be considered as the probability of having the required weather window available
at any given point in the month.

Extreme Wind and Wave

The Extreme wave layers show the highest significant wave height expected to occur during the given return period. The Extreme wind layers show the highest wind speed expected to occur during the given return period.

To predict extreme values, we use Extreme Value Analysis (EVA). EVA focuses on the extreme part of the data and seeks to determine a model to fit this reduced
portion accurately. EVA consists of three main stages. The first stage is the selection of extreme values from a time series. The next step is to fit a model
that best approximates the selected extremes by determining the shape parameters for a suitable probability distribution. The model then predicts extreme values
for the selected return period. All calculations use the python pyextremes library. Two methods are used - Block Maxima and Peaks over threshold.

The Block Maxima methods selects the annual maxima and fits a GEVD probability distribution.

The peaks_over_threshold method has two variable calculation parameters. The first is the percentile above which values must be to be selected as extreme (0.9 or 0.998). The second input is the time difference between extreme values for them to be considered independent (3 days). A Generalised Pareto Distribution is fitted to the selected
extremes and used to calculate the extreme value for the selected return period.

Shrublands have seen large changes over time due to factors such as fire and drought. As the climate continues to change, vegetation monitoring at the county scale is essential to identify large-scale changes and to develop sampling designs for field-based vegetation studies. This dataset contains two raster files that each depict the height of vegetation. The first layer is restricted to actively growing vegetation and the second is restricted to dormant/dead vegetation. Both layers cover open space areas in San Diego County, California. Height calculations were derived from Lidar data collected in 2014 and 2015 for the western two-thirds of San Diego County. Lidar point clouds were pre-classified into ground and non-ground. Rasters for the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and Digital Surface Model (DSM) were calculated using ArcGIS software using ground classified points and last returns for the natural surface (DEM) and non-ground first returns for the surface model (DSM). The spatial resolution for both layers is 1 meter and aligns with 2014 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery. Object height was calculated by subtracting the DEM from the DSM in meters. To remove structures or non-natural objects from the imagery, layers were clipped to open space areas using the National Land Cover Database, building footprints, roads, and railways. This ensures that objects above the natural surface are vegetation, even when Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) numbers are very low. NDVI measures the amount of photosynthetically active vegetation in the raster cell. Healthy vegetation reflects high levels of near-infrared and low levels of red electromagnetic radiation. NDVI ranges from -1 to 1 with low values indicating little or no presence of healthy vegetation and higher values indicating the presence of healthy vegetation. The NDVI was calculated from the 2014 NAIP imagery and a cutoff of 0.1 was used to separate photosynthetically active vegetation from non-vegetated or dormant/dead vegetation areas. The imagery was collected during 2014, an exceptional drought year. It is not possible to separate extremely water-stressed plants from truly dead plants using only NDVI. The natural surface was verified using established National Geodetic Survey (NGS) benchmarks and exceeded 98 percent accuracy. Vegetation structure was validated using visual assessments of high-resolution aerial imagery to verify the vegetation form and greenness. Vegetation form and health (NDVI) had an accuracy of 82 percent.

Yearly effective energy and mass transfer (EEMT) (MJ m−2 yr−1) was calculated for the Catalina Mountains by summing the 12 monthly values. Effective energy and mass flux varies seasonally, especially in the desert southwestern United States where contemporary climate includes a bimodal precipitation distribution that concentrates in winter (rain or snow depending on elevation) and summer monsoon periods. This seasonality of EEMT flux into the upper soil surface can be estimated by calculating EEMT on a monthly basis as constrained by solar radiation (Rs), temperature (T), precipitation (PPT), and the vapor pressure deficit (VPD): EEMT = f(Rs,T,PPT,VPD). Here we used a multiple linear regression model to calculate the monthly EEMT that accounts for VPD, PPT, and locally modified T across the terrain surface. These EEMT calculations were made using data from the PRISM Climate Group at Oregon State University (www.prismclimate.org). Climate data are provided at an 800-m spatial resolution for input precipitation and minimum and maximum temperature normals and at a 4000-m spatial resolution for dew-point temperature (Daly et al., 2002). The PRISM climate data, however, do not account for localized variation in EEMT that results from smaller spatial scale changes in slope and aspect as occurs within catchments. To address this issue, these data were then combined with 10-m digital elevation maps to compute the effects of local slope and aspect on incoming solar radiation and hence locally modified temperature (Yang et al., 2007). Monthly average dew-point temperatures were computed using 10 yr of monthly data (2000–2009) and converted to vapor pressure. Precipitation, temperature, and dew-point data were resampled on a 10-m grid using spline interpolation. Monthly solar radiation data (direct and diffuse) were computed using ArcGIS Solar Analyst extension (ESRI, Redlands, CA) and 10-m elevation data (USGS National Elevation Dataset [NED] 1/3 Arc-Second downloaded from the National Map Seamless Server at seamless.usgs.gov). Locally modified temperature was used to compute the saturated vapor pressure, and the local VPD was estimated as the difference between the saturated and actual vapor pressures. The regression model was derived using the ISOHYS climate data set comprised of approximately 30-yr average monthly means for more than 300 weather stations spanning all latitudes and longitudes (IAEA).

The Buildings (BG) layer consists of photogrammetrically interpreted polygons representing roof outlines of manmade structures in Jefferson County, Kentucky in Spring of 2016. A building is a manmade structure which may be habitable by human beings, animals or which stores materials and is at a minimum 10' x 10' in roof surface area. A building may house a variety of activities at one time, or sequentially over its life. A building may also sit vacant, be in a partial state of destruction, or construction. A feature classified as building but not having a roof (silo, tank or water tower) will show outline of the features shape. View detailed metadata.Information on Building Height Attributes:Minimum Height – Feet: Minimum Height Feet calculated from Z_Max height (feet)Maximum Height – Feet: Maximum Height Meters calculated from Z_Max height (feet)Average Height – Feet: Average Height Feet calculated from Z_Max height (feet)SArea or Surface_Area: 3D surface area for the region defined by each polygon.Min_Slope: Slope value closest to zero within the area defined by the polygon.Max_Slope: Highest slope value along the line or within the area defined by the polygon.Avg_slope - Average slope value within the area defined by the polygon.Maximum Height Meters - Max Height Meters calculated from Z_Max height (feet)

USGS is assessing the feasibility of map projections and grid systems for lunar surface operations. We propose developing a new Lunar Transverse Mercator (LTM), the Lunar Polar Stereographic (LPS), and the Lunar Grid Reference Systems (LGRS). We have also designed additional grids designed to NASA requirements for astronaut navigation, referred to as LGRS in Artemis Condensed Coordinates (ACC), but this is not released here. LTM, LPS, and LGRS are similar in design and use to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), Universal Polar Stereographic (LPS), and Military Grid Reference System (MGRS), but adhere to NASA requirements. LGRS ACC format is similar in design and structure to historic Army Mapping Service Apollo orthotopophoto charts for navigation. The Lunar Transverse Mercator (LTM) projection system is a globalized set of lunar map projections that divides the Moon into zones to provide a uniform coordinate system for accurate spatial representation. It uses a transverse Mercator projection, which maps the Moon into 45 transverse Mercator strips, each 8°, longitude, wide. These transverse Mercator strips are subdivided at the lunar equator for a total of 90 zones. Forty-five in the northern hemisphere and forty-five in the south. LTM specifies a topocentric, rectangular, coordinate system (easting and northing coordinates) for spatial referencing. This projection is commonly used in GIS and surveying for its ability to represent large areas with high positional accuracy while maintaining consistent scale. The Lunar Polar Stereographic (LPS) projection system contains projection specifications for the Moon’s polar regions. It uses a polar stereographic projection, which maps the polar regions onto an azimuthal plane. The LPS system contains 2 zones, each zone is located at the northern and southern poles and is referred to as the LPS northern or LPS southern zone. LPS, like is equatorial counterpart LTM, specifies a topocentric, rectangular, coordinate system (easting and northing coordinates) for spatial referencing. This projection is commonly used in GIS and surveying for its ability to represent large polar areas with high positional accuracy, while maintaining consistent scale across the map region. LGRS is a globalized grid system for lunar navigation supported by the LTM and LPS projections. LGRS provides an alphanumeric grid coordinate structure for both the LTM and LPS systems. This labeling structure is utilized in a similar manner to MGRS. LGRS defines a global area grid based on latitude and longitude and a 25×25 km grid based on LTM and LPS coordinate values. Two implementations of LGRS are used as polar areas require a LPS projection and equatorial areas a transverse Mercator. We describe the difference in the techniques and methods report associated with this data release. Request McClernan et. al. (in-press) for more information. ACC is a method of simplifying LGRS coordinates and is similar in use to the Army Mapping Service Apollo orthotopophoto charts for navigation. These data will be released at a later date. Two versions of the shape files are provided in this data release, PCRS and Display only. See LTM_LPS_LGRS_Shapefiles.zip file. PCRS are limited to a single zone and are projected in either LTM or LPS with topocentric coordinates formatted in Eastings and Northings. Display only shapefiles are formatted in lunar planetocentric latitude and longitude, a Mercator or Equirectangular projection is best for these grids. A description of each grid is provided below: Equatorial (Display Only) Grids: Lunar Transverse Mercator (LTM) Grids: LTM zone borders for each LTM zone Merged LTM zone borders Lunar Polar Stereographic (LPS) Grids: North LPS zone border South LPS zone border Lunar Grid Reference System (LGRS) Grids: Global Areas for North and South LPS zones Merged Global Areas (8°×8° and 8°×10° extended area) for all LTM zones Merged 25km grid for all LTM zones PCRS Shapefiles:` Lunar Transverse Mercator (LTM) Grids: LTM zone borders for each LTM zone Lunar Polar Stereographic (LPS) Grids: North LPS zone border South LPS zone border Lunar Grid Reference System (LGRS) Grids: Global Areas for North and South LPS zones 25km Gird for North and South LPS zones Global Areas (8°×8° and 8°×10° extended area) for each LTM zone 25km grid for each LTM zone The rasters in this data release detail the linear distortions associated with the LTM and LPS system projections. For these products, we utilize the same definitions of distortion as the U.S. State Plane Coordinate System. Scale Factor, k - The scale factor is a ratio that communicates the difference in distances when measured on a map and the distance reported on the reference surface. Symbolically this is the ratio between the maps grid distance and distance on the lunar reference sphere. This value can be precisely calculated and is provided in their defining publication. See Snyder (1987) for derivation of the LPS scale factor. This scale factor is unitless and typically increases from the central scale factor k_0, a projection-defining parameter. For each LPS projection. Request McClernan et. al., (in-press) for more information. Scale Error, (k-1) - Scale-Error, is simply the scale factor differenced from 1. Is a unitless positive or negative value from 0 that is used to express the scale factor’s impact on position values on a map. Distance on the reference surface are expended when (k-1) is positive and contracted when (k-1) is negative. Height Factor, h_F - The Height Factor is used to correct for the difference in distance caused between the lunar surface curvature expressed at different elevations. It is expressed as a ratio between the radius of the lunar reference sphere and elevations measured from the center of the reference sphere. For this work, we utilized a radial distance of 1,737,400 m as recommended by the IAU working group of Rotational Elements (Archinal et. al., 2008). For this calculation, height factor values were derived from a LOLA DEM 118 m v1, Digital Elevation Model (LOLA Science Team, 2021). Combined Factor, C_F – The combined factor is utilized to “Scale-To-Ground” and is used to adjust the distance expressed on the map surface and convert to the position on the actual ground surface. This value is the product of the map scale factor and the height factor, ensuring the positioning measurements can be correctly placed on a map and on the ground. The combined factor is similar to linear distortion in that it is evaluated at the ground, but, as discussed in the next section, differs numerically. Often C_F is scrutinized for map projection optimization. Linear distortion, δ - In keeping with the design definitions of SPCS2022 (Dennis 2023), we refer to scale error when discussing the lunar reference sphere and linear distortion, δ, when discussing the topographic surface. Linear distortion is calculated using C_F simply by subtracting 1. Distances are expended on the topographic surface when δ is positive and compressed when δ is negative. The relevant files associated with the expressed LTM distortion are as follows. The scale factor for the 90 LTM projections: LUNAR_LTM_GLOBAL_PLOT_HEMISPHERES_distortion_K_grid_scale_factor.tif Height Factor for the LTM portion of the Moon: LUNAR_LTM_GLOBAL_PLOT_HEMISPHERES_distortion_EF_elevation_factor.tif Combined Factor in LTM portion of the Moon LUNAR_LTM_GLOBAL_PLOT_HEMISPHERES_distortion_CF_combined_factor.tif The relevant files associated with the expressed LPS distortion are as follows. Lunar North Pole The scale factor for the northern LPS zone: LUNAR_LGRS_NP_PLOT_LPS_K_grid_scale_factor.tif Height Factor for the north pole of the Moon: LUNAR_LGRS_NP_PLOT_LPS_EF_elevation_factor.tif Combined Factor for northern LPS zone: LUNAR_LGRS_NP_PLOT_LPS_CF_combined_factor.tif Lunar South Pole Scale factor for the northern LPS zone: LUNAR_LGRS_SP_PLOT_LPS_K_grid_scale_factor.tif Height Factor for the south pole of the Moon: LUNAR_LGRS_SP_PLOT_LPS_EF_elevation_factor.tif Combined Factor for northern LPS zone: LUNAR_LGRS_SP_PLOT_LPS_CF_combined_factor.tif For GIS utilization of grid shapefiles projected in Lunar Latitude and Longitude, referred to as “Display Only”, please utilize a registered lunar geographic coordinate system (GCS) such as IAU_2015:30100 or ESRI:104903. LTM, LPS, and LGRS PCRS shapefiles utilize either a custom transverse Mercator or polar Stereographic projection. For PCRS grids the LTM and LPS projections are recommended for all LTM, LPS, and LGRS grid sizes. See McClernan et. al. (in-press) for such projections. Raster data was calculated using planetocentric latitude and longitude. A LTM and LPS projection or a registered lunar GCS may be utilized to display this data. Note: All data, shapefiles and rasters, require a specific projection and datum. The projection is recommended as LTM and LPS or, when needed, IAU_2015:30100 or ESRI:104903. The datum utilized must be the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Development Ephemeris (DE) 421 in the Mean Earth (ME) Principal Axis Orientation as recommended by the International Astronomy Union (IAU) (Archinal et. al., 2008).

Digital Elevation Models (DEM) are widely used to derive information for the modeling of hydrologic processes. The basic model for hydrologic terrain analysis involving hydrologic conditioning, determination of flow field (flow directions) and derivation of hydrologic derivatives is available in multiple software packages and GIS systems. However as areas of interest for terrain analysis have increased and DEM resolutions become finer there remain challenges related to data size, software and a platform to run it on, as well as opportunities to derive new kinds of information useful for hydrologic modeling. This presentation will illustrate new functionality associated with the TauDEM software (http://hydrology.usu.edu/taudem) and new web based deployments of TauDEM to make this capability more accessible and easier to use. Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND) is a special case of distance down the flow field to an arbitrary target, with the target being a stream and distance measured vertically. HAND is one example of a general class of hydrologic proximity measures available in TauDEM. As we have implemented it, HAND uses multi-directional flow directions derived from a digital elevation model (DEM) using the Dinifinity method in TauDEM to determine the height of each grid cell above the nearest stream along the flow path from that cell to the stream. With this information, and the depth of flow in the stream, the potential for, and depth of flood inundation can be determined. Furthermore, by dividing streams into reaches or segments, the area draining to each reach can be isolated and a series of threshold depths applied to the grid of HAND values in that isolated reach catchment, to determine inundation volume, surface area and wetted bed area. Dividing these by length yields reach average cross section area, width, and wetted perimeter, information that is useful for hydraulic routing and stage-discharge rating calculations in hydrologic modeling. This presentation will describe the calculation of HAND and its use to determine hydraulic properties across the US for prediction of stage and flood inundation in each NHDPlus reach modeled by the US NOAA’s National Water Model. This presentation will also describe two web based deployments of TauDEM functionality. The first is within a Jupyter Notebook web application attached to HydroShare that provides users the ability to execute TauDEM on this cloud infrastructure without the limitations associated with desktop software installation and data/computational capacity. The second is a web based rapid watershed delineation function deployed as part of Model My Watershed (https://app.wikiwatershed.org/) that enables delineation of watersheds, based on NHDPlus gridded data anywhere in the continental US for watershed based hydrologic modeling and analysis.

Presentation for European Geophysical Union Meeting, April 2018, Vienna. Tarboton, D. G., N. Sazib, A. Castronova, Y. Liu, X. Zheng, D. Maidment, A. Aufdenkampe and S. Wang, (2018), "Hydrologic Terrain Analysis Using Web Based Tools," European Geophysical Union General Assembly, Vienna, April 12, Geophysical Research Abstracts 20, EGU2018-10337, https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2018/EGU2018-10337.pdf.

Succeeds and combines earlier versions of the tools - Topography Toolbox for ArcGIS 9.x - http://arcscripts.esri.com/details.asp?dbid=15996Riparian Topography Toolbox for calculating Height Above River and Height Above Nearest Drainage - http://arcscripts.esri.com/details.asp?dbid=16792PRISM Data Helper - http://arcscripts.esri.com/details.asp?dbid=15976Tools:UplandBeer’s AspectMcCune and Keon Heat Load IndexLandform ClassifcationPRISM Data HelperSlope Position ClassificationSolar Illumination IndexTopographic Convergence/Wetness IndexTopographic Position IndexRiparianDerive Stream Raster using Cost DistanceHeight Above Nearest DrainageHeight Above RiverMiscellaneousMoving Window Correlation