Note: Reporting of new COVID-19 Case Surveillance data will be discontinued July 1, 2024, to align with the process of removing SARS-CoV-2 infections (COVID-19 cases) from the list of nationally notifiable diseases. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, the dataset will no longer be updated.

Authorizations to collect certain public health data expired at the end of the U.S. public health emergency declaration on May 11, 2023. The following jurisdictions discontinued COVID-19 case notifications to CDC: Iowa (11/8/21), Kansas (5/12/23), Kentucky (1/1/24), Louisiana (10/31/23), New Hampshire (5/23/23), and Oklahoma (5/2/23). Please note that these jurisdictions will not routinely send new case data after the dates indicated. As of 7/13/23, case notifications from Oregon will only include pediatric cases resulting in death.

This case surveillance public use dataset has 12 elements for all COVID-19 cases shared with CDC and includes demographics, any exposure history, disease severity indicators and outcomes, presence of any underlying medical conditions and risk behaviors, and no geographic data.

CDC has three COVID-19 case surveillance datasets:

• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data with Geography: Public use, patient-level dataset with clinical data (including symptoms), demographics, and county and state of residence. (19 data elements)
• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data: Public use, patient-level dataset with clinical and symptom data and demographics, with no geographic data. (12 data elements)
• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Restricted Access Detailed Data: Restricted access, patient-level dataset with clinical and symptom data, demographics, and state and county of residence. Access requires a registration process and a data use agreement. (33 data elements)

The following apply to all three datasets:

• Data elements can be found on the COVID-19 case report form located at www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/pui-form.pdf.
• Data are considered provisional by CDC and are subject to change until the data are reconciled and verified with the state and territorial data providers.
• Some data cells are suppressed to protect individual privacy.
• The datasets will include all cases with the earliest date available in each record (date received by CDC or date related to illness/specimen collection) at least 14 days prior to the creation of the current datasets. This 14-day lag allows case reporting to be stabilized and ensures that time-dependent outcome data are accurately captured.
• Datasets are updated monthly.
• Datasets are created using CDC’s Policy on Public Health Research and Nonresearch Data Management and Access and include protections designed to protect individual privacy.
• For more information about data collection and reporting, please see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/about-us-cases-deaths.html.
• For more information about the COVID-19 case surveillance data, please see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/faq-surveillance.html
  

Overview

The COVID-19 case surveillance database includes individual-level data reported to U.S. states and autonomous reporting entities, including New York City and the District of Columbia (D.C.), as well as U.S. territories and affiliates. On April 5, 2020, COVID-19 was added to the Nationally Notifiable Condition List and classified as “immediately notifiable, urgent (within 24 hours)” by a Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) Interim Position Statement (Interim-20-ID-01). CSTE updated the position statement on August 5, 2020, to clarify the interpretation of antigen detection tests and serologic test results within the case classification (Interim-20-ID-02). The statement also recommended that all states and territories enact laws to make COVID-19 reportable in their jurisdiction, and that jurisdictions conducting surveillance should submit case notifications to CDC. COVID-19 case surveillance data are collected by jurisdictions and reported voluntarily to CDC.

For more information: NNDSS Supports the COVID-19 Response | CDC.

The deidentified data in the “COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data” include demographic characteristics, any exposure history, disease severity indicators and outcomes, clinical data, laboratory diagnostic test results, and presence of any underlying medical conditions and risk behaviors. All data elements can be found on the COVID-19 case report form located at www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/pui-form.pdf.

COVID-19 Case Reports

COVID-19 case reports have been routinely submitted using nationally standardized case reporting forms. On April 5, 2020, CSTE released an Interim Position Statement with national surveillance case definitions for COVID-19 included. Current versions of these case definitions are available here: https://ndc.services.cdc.gov/case-definitions/coronavirus-disease-2019-2021/.

All cases reported on or after were requested to be shared by public health departments to CDC using the standardized case definitions for laboratory-confirmed or probable cases. On May 5, 2020, the standardized case reporting form was revised. Case reporting using this new form is ongoing among U.S. states and territories.

Data are Considered Provisional

• The COVID-19 case surveillance data are dynamic; case reports can be modified at any time by the jurisdictions sharing COVID-19 data with CDC. CDC may update prior cases shared with CDC based on any updated information from jurisdictions. For instance, as new information is gathered about previously reported cases, health departments provide updated data to CDC. As more information and data become available, analyses might find changes in surveillance data and trends during a previously reported time window. Data may also be shared late with CDC due to the volume of COVID-19 cases.
• Annual finalized data: To create the final NNDSS data used in the annual tables, CDC works carefully with the reporting jurisdictions to reconcile the data received during the year until each state or territorial epidemiologist confirms that the data from their area are correct.
• Access Addressing Gaps in Public Health Reporting of Race and Ethnicity for COVID-19, a report from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, to better understand the challenges in completing race and ethnicity data for COVID-19 and recommendations for improvement.

Data Limitations

To learn more about the limitations in using case surveillance data, visit FAQ: COVID-19 Data and Surveillance.

Data Quality Assurance Procedures

CDC’s Case Surveillance Section routinely performs data quality assurance procedures (i.e., ongoing corrections and logic checks to address data errors). To date, the following data cleaning steps have been implemented:

• Questions that have been left unanswered (blank) on the case report form are reclassified to a Missing value, if applicable to the question. For example, in the question “Was the individual hospitalized?” where the possible answer choices include “Yes,” “No,” or “Unknown,” the blank value is recoded to Missing because the case report form did not include a response to the question.
• Logic checks are performed for date data. If an illogical date has been provided, CDC reviews the data with the reporting jurisdiction. For example, if a symptom onset date in the future is reported to CDC, this value is set to null until the reporting jurisdiction updates the date appropriately.
• Additional data quality processing to recode free text data is ongoing. Data on symptoms, race and ethnicity, and healthcare worker status have been prioritized.

Data Suppression

To prevent release of data that could be used to identify people, data cells are suppressed for low frequency (<5) records and indirect identifiers (e.g., date of first positive specimen). Suppression includes rare combinations of demographic characteristics (sex, age group, race/ethnicity). Suppressed values are re-coded to the NA answer option; records with data suppression are never removed.

For questions, please contact Ask SRRG (eocevent394@cdc.gov).

Additional COVID-19 Data

COVID-19 data are available to the public as summary or aggregate count files, including total counts of cases and deaths by state and by county. These

Important Dataset Update 6/24/2020:Summit and Wasatch Counties updated.Important Dataset Update 6/12/2020:MAG area updated.Important Dataset Update 7/15/2019:This dataset now includes projections for all populated statewide traffic analysis zones (TAZs).Projections within the Wasatch Front urban area ( SUBAREAID = 1) were produced with using the Real Estate Market Model as described below.Socioeconomic forecasts produced for Cache MPO (Cache County, SUBAREAID = 2), Dixie MPO (Washington County, SUBAREAID = 3), Summit County (SUBAREAID = 4), and UDOT (other areas of the state, SUBAREAID = 0) all adhere to the University of Utah Gardner Policy Institute's county-level projection controls, but other modeling methods are used to arrive at the TAZ-level forecasts for these areas.As with any dataset that presents projections into the future, it is important to have a full understanding of the data before using it. Before using this data, you are strongly encouraged to read the metadata description below and direct any questions or feedback about this data to analytics@wfrc.org.Every four years, the Wasatch Front’s two metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), collaborate to update a set of annual small area -- traffic analysis zone and ‘city area’, see descriptions below) -- population and employment projections for the Salt Lake City-West Valley City (WFRC), Ogden-Layton (WFRC), and Provo-Orem (MAG) urbanized areas.These projections are primarily developed for the purpose of informing long-range transportation infrastructure and services planning done as part of the 4 year Regional Transportation Plan update cycle, as well as Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan, 2019-2050. Accordingly, the foundation for these projections is largely data describing existing conditions for a 2015 base year, the first year of the latest RTP process. The projections are included in the official travel models, which are publicly released at the conclusion of the RTP process.As these projections may be a valuable input to other analyses, this dataset is made available at http://data.wfrc.org/search?q=projections as a public service for informational purposes only. It is solely the responsibility of the end user to determine the appropriate use of this dataset for other purposes.Wasatch Front Real Estate Market Model (REMM) ProjectionsWFRC and MAG have developed a spatial statistical model using the UrbanSim modeling platform to assist in producing these annual projections. This model is called the Real Estate Market Model, or REMM for short. REMM is used for the urban portion of Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah counties. REMM relies on extensive inputs to simulate future development activity across the greater urbanized region. Key inputs to REMM include:Demographic data from the decennial census;County-level population and employment projections -- used as REMM control totals -- are produced by the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute (GPI) funded by the Utah State Legislature;Current employment locational patterns derived from the Utah Department of Workforce Services;Land use visioning exercises and feedback, especially in regard to planned urban and local center development, with city and county elected officials and staff;Current land use and valuation GIS-based parcel data stewarded by County Assessors;Traffic patterns and transit service from the regional Travel Demand Model that together form the landscape of regional accessibility to workplaces and other destinations; andCalibration of model variables to balance the fit of current conditions and dynamics at the county and regional level.‘Traffic Analysis Zone’ ProjectionsThe annual projections are forecasted for each of the Wasatch Front’s 2,800+ Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) geographic units. TAZ boundaries are set along roads, streams, and other physical features and average about 600 acres (0.94 square miles). TAZ sizes vary, with some TAZs in the densest areas representing only a single city block (25 acres).‘City Area’ ProjectionsThe TAZ-level output from the model is also available for ‘city areas’ that sum the projections for the TAZ geographies that roughly align with each city’s current boundary. As TAZs do not align perfectly with current city boundaries, the ‘city area’ summaries are not projections specific to a current or future city boundary, but the ‘city area’ summaries may be suitable surrogates or starting points upon which to base city-specific projections.Summary Variables in the DatasetsAnnual projection counts are available for the following variables (please read Key Exclusions note below):DemographicsHousehold Population Count (excludes persons living in group quarters)Household Count (excludes group quarters)EmploymentTypical Job Count (includes job types that exhibit typical commuting and other travel/vehicle use patterns)Retail Job Count (retail, food service, hotels, etc)Office Job Count (office, health care, government, education, etc)Industrial Job Count (manufacturing, wholesale, transport, etc)Non-Typical Job Count* (includes agriculture, construction, mining, and home-based jobs) This can be calculated by subtracting Typical Job Count from All Employment Count.All Employment Count* (all jobs, this sums jobs from typical and non-typical sectors).* These variable includes REMM’s attempt to estimate construction jobs in areas that experience new and re-development activity. Areas may see short-term fluctuations in Non-Typical and All Employment counts due to the temporary location of construction jobs.Population and employment projections for the Wasatch Front area can be combined with those developed by Dixie MPO (St. George area), Cache MPO (Logan area), and the Utah Department of Transportation (for the remainder of the state) into one database for use in the Utah Statewide Travel Model (USTM). While projections for the areas outside of the Wasatch Front use different forecasting methods, they contain the same summary-level population and employment projections making similar TAZ and ‘City Area’ data available statewide. WFRC plans, in the near future, to add additional areas to these projections datasets by including the projections from the USTM model.Key Exclusions from TAZ and ‘City Area’ ProjectionsAs the primary purpose for the development of these population and employment projections is to model future travel in the region, REMM-based projections do not include population or households that reside in group quarters (prisons, senior centers, dormitories, etc), as residents of these facilities typically have a very low impact on regional travel. USTM-based projections also excludes group quarter populations. Group quarters population estimates are available at the county-level from GPI and at various sub-county geographies from the Census Bureau.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

Background
The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is a unique source of information using international definitions of employment and unemployment and economic inactivity, together with a wide range of related topics such as occupation, training, hours of work and personal characteristics of household members aged 16 years and over. It is used to inform social, economic and employment policy. The LFS was first conducted biennially from 1973-1983. Between 1984 and 1991 the survey was carried out annually and consisted of a quarterly survey conducted throughout the year and a 'boost' survey in the spring quarter (data were then collected seasonally). From 1992 quarterly data were made available, with a quarterly sample size approximately equivalent to that of the previous annual data. The survey then became known as the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS). From December 1994, data gathering for Northern Ireland moved to a full quarterly cycle to match the rest of the country, so the QLFS then covered the whole of the UK (though some additional annual Northern Ireland LFS datasets are also held at the UK Data Archive). Further information on the background to the QLFS may be found in the documentation.

Household datasets
Up to 2015, the LFS household datasets were produced twice a year (April-June and October-December) from the corresponding quarter's individual-level data. From January 2015 onwards, they are now produced each quarter alongside the main QLFS. The household datasets include all the usual variables found in the individual-level datasets, with the exception of those relating to income, and are intended to facilitate the analysis of the economic activity patterns of whole households. It is recommended that the existing individual-level LFS datasets continue to be used for any analysis at individual level, and that the LFS household datasets be used for analysis involving household or family-level data. From January 2011, a pseudonymised household identifier variable (HSERIALP) is also included in the main quarterly LFS dataset instead.

Change to coding of missing values for household series
From 1996-2013, all missing values in the household datasets were set to one '-10' category instead of the separate '-8' and '-9' categories. For that period, the ONS introduced a new imputation process for the LFS household datasets and it was necessary to code the missing values into one new combined category ('-10'), to avoid over-complication. This was also in line with the Annual Population Survey household series of the time. The change was applied to the back series during 2010 to ensure continuity for analytical purposes. From 2013 onwards, the -8 and -9 categories have been reinstated.

LFS Documentation
The documentation available from the Archive to accompany LFS datasets largely consists of the latest version of each volume alongside the appropriate questionnaire for the year concerned. However, LFS volumes are updated periodically by ONS, so users are advised to check the ONS LFS User Guidance page before commencing analysis.

Additional data derived from the QLFS
The Archive also holds further QLFS series: End User Licence (EUL) quarterly datasets; Secure Access datasets (see below); two-quarter and five-quarter longitudinal datasets; quarterly, annual and ad hoc module datasets compiled for Eurostat; and some additional annual Northern Ireland datasets.

End User Licence and Secure Access QLFS Household datasets
Users should note that there are two discrete versions of the QLFS household datasets. One is available under the standard End User Licence (EUL) agreement, and the other is a Secure Access version. Secure Access household datasets for the QLFS are available from 2009 onwards, and include additional, detailed variables not included in the standard EUL versions. Extra variables that typically can be found in the Secure Access versions but not in the EUL versions relate to: geography; date of birth, including day; education and training; household and family characteristics; employment; unemployment and job hunting; accidents at work and work-related health problems; nationality, national identity and country of birth; occurrence of learning difficulty or disability; and benefits. For full details of variables included, see data dictionary documentation. The Secure Access version (see SN 7674) has more restrictive access conditions than those made available under the standard EUL. Prospective users will need to gain ONS Accredited Researcher status, complete an extra application form and demonstrate to the data owners exactly why they need access to the additional variables. Users are strongly advised to first obtain the standard EUL version of...

Important Dataset Update 6/24/2020:Summit and Wasatch Counties updated.Important Dataset Update 6/12/2020:MAG area updated.Important Dataset Update 7/15/2019: This dataset now includes projections for all populated statewide traffic analysis zones (TAZs). Projections within the Wasatch Front urban area ( SUBAREAID = 1) were produced with using the Real Estate Market Model as described below. Socioeconomic forecasts produced for Cache MPO (Cache County, SUBAREAID = 2), Dixie MPO (Washington County, SUBAREAID = 3), Summit County (SUBAREAID = 4), and UDOT (other areas of the state, SUBAREAID = 0) all adhere to the University of Utah Gardner Policy Institute's county-level projection controls, but other modeling methods are used to arrive at the TAZ-level forecasts for these areas.As with any dataset that presents projections into the future, it is important to have a full understanding of the data before using it. Before using this data, you are strongly encouraged to read the metadata description below and direct any questions or feedback about this data to analytics@wfrc.org. Every four years, the Wasatch Front’s two metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), collaborate to update a set of annual small area -- traffic analysis zone and ‘city area’, see descriptions below) -- population and employment projections for the Salt Lake City-West Valley City (WFRC), Ogden-Layton (WFRC), and Provo-Orem (MAG) urbanized areas. These projections are primarily developed for the purpose of informing long-range transportation infrastructure and services planning done as part of the 4 year Regional Transportation Plan update cycle, as well as Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan, 2019-2050. Accordingly, the foundation for these projections is largely data describing existing conditions for a 2015 base year, the first year of the latest RTP process. The projections are included in the official travel models, which are publicly released at the conclusion of the RTP process. As these projections may be a valuable input to other analyses, this dataset is made available at http://data.wfrc.org/search?q=projections as a public service for informational purposes only. It is solely the responsibility of the end user to determine the appropriate use of this dataset for other purposes. Wasatch Front Real Estate Market Model (REMM) ProjectionsWFRC and MAG have developed a spatial statistical model using the UrbanSim modeling platform to assist in producing these annual projections. This model is called the Real Estate Market Model, or REMM for short. REMM is used for the urban portion of Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah counties. REMM relies on extensive inputs to simulate future development activity across the greater urbanized region. Key inputs to REMM include:Demographic data from the decennial census;County-level population and employment projections -- used as REMM control totals -- are produced by the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute (GPI) funded by the Utah State Legislature;Current employment locational patterns derived from the Utah Department of Workforce Services; Land use visioning exercises and feedback, especially in regard to planned urban and local center development, with city and county elected officials and staff;Current land use and valuation GIS-based parcel data stewarded by County Assessors;Traffic patterns and transit service from the regional Travel Demand Model that together form the landscape of regional accessibility to workplaces and other destinations; andCalibration of model variables to balance the fit of current conditions and dynamics at the county and regional level.‘Traffic Analysis Zone’ ProjectionsThe annual projections are forecasted for each of the Wasatch Front’s 2,800+ Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) geographic units. TAZ boundaries are set along roads, streams, and other physical features and average about 600 acres (0.94 square miles). TAZ sizes vary, with some TAZs in the densest areas representing only a single city block (25 acres). ‘City Area’ ProjectionsThe TAZ-level output from the model is also available for ‘city areas’ that sum the projections for the TAZ geographies that roughly align with each city’s current boundary. As TAZs do not align perfectly with current city boundaries, the ‘city area’ summaries are not projections specific to a current or future city boundary, but the ‘city area’ summaries may be suitable surrogates or starting points upon which to base city-specific projections.Summary Variables in the DatasetsAnnual projection counts are available for the following variables (please read Key Exclusions note below):DemographicsHousehold Population Count (excludes persons living in group quarters)Household Count (excludes group quarters)EmploymentTypical Job Count (includes job types that exhibit typical commuting and other travel/vehicle use patterns)Retail Job Count (retail, food service, hotels, etc)Office Job Count (office, health care, government, education, etc)Industrial Job Count (manufacturing, wholesale, transport, etc)Non-Typical Job Count* (includes agriculture, construction, mining, and home-based jobs) This can be calculated by subtracting Typical Job Count from All Employment Count.All Employment Count* (all jobs, this sums jobs from typical and non-typical sectors).* These variable includes REMM’s attempt to estimate construction jobs in areas that experience new and re-development activity. Areas may see short-term fluctuations in Non-Typical and All Employment counts due to the temporary location of construction jobs.Population and employment projections for the Wasatch Front area can be combined with those developed by Dixie MPO (St. George area), Cache MPO (Logan area), and the Utah Department of Transportation (for the remainder of the state) into one database for use in the Utah Statewide Travel Model (USTM). While projections for the areas outside of the Wasatch Front use different forecasting methods, they contain the same summary-level population and employment projections making similar TAZ and ‘City Area’ data available statewide. WFRC plans, in the near future, to add additional areas to these projections datasets by including the projections from the USTM model.Key Exclusions from TAZ and ‘City Area’ ProjectionsAs the primary purpose for the development of these population and employment projections is to model future travel in the region, REMM-based projections do not include population or households that reside in group quarters (prisons, senior centers, dormitories, etc), as residents of these facilities typically have a very low impact on regional travel. USTM-based projections also excludes group quarter populations. Group quarters population estimates are available at the county-level from GPI and at various sub-county geographies from the Census Bureau.

Identifying the specific environmental features and associated density-dependent processes that limit population growth is central to both ecology and conservation. Comparative assessments of sympatric species allow for inference into how ecologically similar species differentially respond to their shared environment, which can be used to inform community-level conservation strategies. Comparative assessments can nevertheless be complicated by interactions and feedback loops among the species in question. We developed an integrated population model based on sixty-one years of ecological data describing the demographic histories of Canvasbacks (Aythya valisineria) and Redheads (Aythya americana), two species of migratory diving ducks that utilize similar breeding habitats and affect each other’s demography through interspecific nest parasitism. We combined this model with a transient life table response experiment to determine the extent that demographic rates, and their contributions to population growth, were similar between these two species. We found that demographic rates and, to a lesser extent, their contributions to population growth covaried between Canvasbacks and Redheads, but the trajectories of population abundances widely diverged between the two species during the end of the 20th century due to inherent differences between the species life-histories and sensitivities to both environmental variation and harvest pressure. We found that annual survival of both species increased during years of restrictive harvest regulations; however, recent harvest pressure on female Canvasbacks may be contributing to population declines. Despite periodic, and often dramatic, increases in breeding abundance during wet years, the number of breeding Canvasbacks declined by 13% whereas the number of breeding Redheads has increased by 37% since 1961. Reductions in harvest pressure and improvements in submerged aquatic vegetation throughout the wintering grounds have mediated the extent to which populations of both species contracted during dry years in the Prairie Pothole Region. However, continued degradation of breeding habitats through climate-related shifts in wetland hydrology and agricultural conversion of surrounding grassland habitats may have exceeded the capacity for demographic compensation during the non-breeding season. Methods DATA COLLECTION We combined a series of long-term data sets into a single integrated population model that provided insights into how variation in seasonal survival (band releases and recoveries) and offspring production (harvest age-ratios) contributed to fluctuations in population growth (breeding survey, harvest estimates) for Canvasbacks and Redheads from 1961–2021. Banding Data – Information regarding the banding and subsequent harvest of ducks was acquired from the GameBirds Database CD (Bird Banding Lab, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel MD, USA, version August 2022). Male and female Canvasbacks and Redheads were captured following breeding but prior to the hunting season (Pre-Hunting) as ducklings (Local) or hatch year (HY; fledged juvenile) individuals as well as after hatch year (AHY; adult) individuals or following the hunting season (Post-Hunting) as an undifferentiated mixture of second year (SY) and after second year (ASY) individuals captured and released across North America from 1961–2022. We limited the pre-harvest banding data for both species to include all individuals banded and released alive in areas within the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, as well as the states of Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota within the USA (Fig. 1). For the pre-hunting banding group, we retained individuals captured between 1961–2021 during the late summer (Jul 15th – Sep 15th) with a known sex (M or F) and age-class (local, HY or AHY) that were released without any additional markers considered to meaningfully affect survival of an individual (e.g., nasal saddles or dual banding were permissible but telemetered individuals were excluded; Lameris & Kleyheeg, 2017). For post-hunting banding, we limited the spatial boundary of banding efforts to only consider individuals released from the Atlantic, Central, or Mississippi Flyways (Fig. 1). We followed the same data selection procedures, but limited releases to occur between Jan. 1st – March 15th from 1962–2022. Because too few banders differentiated SY from ASY at time of banding, we treated all post-hunting samples as AHY adults. Individuals banded during this period that were reported to be harvested during the winter they were originally banded were censored from the analysis, as the underlying model assumption was that this cohort of individuals had already survived the current hunting season. For both seasonal banding efforts, we only included recoveries of hunter-shot individuals harvested between September and February in which a known year-of-death could be ascertained. In addition to self-reported recoveries (i.e., reported by the hunter), we included hunter-harvested individuals that were instead reported by federal, state, or provincial entities (e.g., outcomes of hunter check stations or other forms of solicitation). We limited the dataset to only include recoveries of hunter-harvested individuals killed within 15 years of initial banding, which represented > 99% of pre-hunting and post-hunting recoveries. This cut-off was arbitrarily selected but did not meaningfully bias parameter estimation while vastly improving computational efficiency by bypassing the estimation of hundreds of zero-equivalent cell probabilities (personal communication S. Bonner). Harvest Intensity – We used the average number of Canvasbacks or Redheads allowed to be harvested per day (i.e., bag limit; (Appendix S1: Tables S1a-b) across the U.S. portions of the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific flyways during each year of the study as an index of harvest regulatory pressure. Annual harvest restrictions were acquired from the published literature (Péron et al., 2012), the annual release of the Late-Season Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations (e.g., USFWS 2022), and direct requests to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For these species, liberal harvest regulations were bag limits of two (Canvasbacks) and two to four (Redheads) allowable harvest per day, whereas conservative harvest regulations were either a bag limit of one individual per day or total closure. Harvest Composition – Data describing the age and sex structure of the harvested Canvasback and Redhead populations were derived from the annual Parts Collection surveys conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) where a subset of hunters submit a wing from every duck they harvested (Pearse et al. 2014). These data were acquired through a direct request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Additionally, estimates of the total number of Canvasbacks and Redheads harvested in the United States and Canada were derived from the Harvest Information Program (Steeg et al., 2002) and Canadian National Harvest Survey (Smith et al., 2022), respectively. Breeding Duck and Pond Densities – The relative number of breeding Canvasbacks and Redheads, as well as the relative amount of their breeding habitat (i.e., flooded ponds) within the Prairies were calculated using count data from the USFWS Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey (hereafter BPOP; Smith, 1995), which has conducted an annual survey of breeding waterfowl and their habitats throughout the core part of these species’ breeding ranges (i.e., central Canada and the north-central United States) during the spring from 1961 through 2022 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2022). However, BPOP surveys did not occur during 2020 and 2021. For the purposes of this study, we limited the spatial extent of BPOP survey to only include transects flown within Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Agriculture Development – The amounts of active cropland in the Prairies during each year of the study were estimated from Canada and United States Agriculture Census data (see Buderman et al., 2020). Annual estimates of active cropland acreages were summarized to represent an index of agricultural development during 1961–2021. Although agricultural development is predicted to have greater impact on upland-nesting dabbling ducks (Duncan and Devries 2018), it also impacts the wetland habitats in which Canvasbacks and Redheads forage and nest, as well as the predator communities that can access overwater nesting pochards (Sargeant et al. 1993, Bartzen et al. 2010). Winter Habitat – Winter habitat conditions were assumed to be related to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) within the Chesapeake for Canvasbacks and environmental salinity (TDS; total dissolved solids) in the Laguna Madre for Redheads. Although Redheads likely respond to variation in SAV, time series data describing SAV were not available for the Laguna Madre. Therefore, we assumed that annual fluctuations in salinity were an informative proxy of both SAV conditions and osmotic constraints (Quammen and Onuf 1993, Moore 2009), which in turn was representative of winter habitat conditions that simultaneously influenced Redhead food availability and harvest risk (Ballard et al. 2021).. Climate Data – We used the average Pacific/North American (PNA; Leathers et al., 1991) teleconnection pattern from April–July as an index of drought severity or environmental stress during the breeding season throughout the Prairies, and average sea-surface temperatures (SST) from September–March in the Chesapeake and Laguna Madre as an index of winter severity for Canvasbacks and Redheads, respectively (see Data Availability statement).

1. Migratory species form an important component of biodiversity; they link ecosystems across the globe, but are increasingly threatened by global environmental change. Understanding and mitigating threats requires knowledge of how demographic processes operate throughout the annual cycle, but this can be difficult to achieve when breeding and non-breeding grounds are widely separated.

2. Our goal is to quantify the importance of variability in survival during the breeding and non-breeding seasons in determining variation in annual survival using a single population and, more broadly, the extent to which annual survival across species reflects variation in probability of surviving the migratory period.

3. We use a 25 year dataset in which individuals of a long-distance migratory bird, the alpine swift Tachymarptis melba, were captured towards the beginning and end of each breeding season to estimate age- and season-specific survival probabilities and incorporate explicit estimation of the correlations in survival between age-classes and seasons.

4. Monthly survival was higher during the breeding period than during the rest of the year and strongly affected by conditions in the breeding season; effects that remained apparent in the following non-breeding season, but not subsequently. Recruitment of juveniles was dependent on the timing of breeding, being higher if egg-laying commenced before the median date, and substantially lower if not.

5. Across migratory bird species, variation in annual survival largely reflects variation in the probability of surviving the migratory period. Using a double-capture approach, even within a single season, provides valuable insights into the demography of migratory species, which will help understand the extent and impacts of the threats they face in a changing world.

Methods The Alpine Swift data are a a mark-recapture data set based on two capture occassions each breeding season. The data are presented in m-array format - i.e. the number of birds released at occasion y (rows) recaptured at occasion x (columns). Annotated R code is provided to undertake the analysis.

The cross-species data (season.dat.rda) are derived from a literature search as described in the text.

The data included in this publication depict components of wildfire risk specifically for populated areas in the United States. These datasets represent where people live in the United States and the in situ risk from wildfire, i.e., the risk at the location where the adverse effects take place.National wildfire hazard datasets of annual burn probability and fire intensity, generated by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station and Pyrologix LLC, form the foundation of the Wildfire Risk to Communities data. Vegetation and wildland fuels data from LANDFIRE 2020 (version 2.2.0) were used as input to two different but related geospatial fire simulation systems. Annual burn probability was produced with the USFS geospatial fire simulator (FSim) at a relatively coarse cell size of 270 meters (m). To bring the burn probability raster data down to a finer resolution more useful for assessing hazard and risk to communities, we upsampled them to the native 30 m resolution of the LANDFIRE fuel and vegetation data. In this upsampling process, we also spread values of modeled burn probability into developed areas represented in LANDFIRE fuels data as non-burnable. Burn probability rasters represent landscape conditions as of the end of 2020. Fire intensity characteristics were modeled at 30 m resolution using a process that performs a comprehensive set of FlamMap runs spanning the full range of weather-related characteristics that occur during a fire season and then integrates those runs into a variety of results based on the likelihood of those weather types occurring. Before the fire intensity modeling, the LANDFIRE 2020 data were updated to reflect fuels disturbances occurring in 2021 and 2022. As such, the fire intensity datasets represent landscape conditions as of the end of 2022. The data products in this publication that represent where people live, reflect 2021 estimates of housing unit and population counts from the U.S. Census Bureau, combined with building footprint data from Onegeo and USA Structures, both reflecting 2022 conditions.The specific raster datasets included in this publication include:Building Count: Building Count is a 30-m raster representing the count of buildings in the building footprint dataset located within each 30-m pixel.Building Density: Building Density is a 30-m raster representing the density of buildings in the building footprint dataset (buildings per square kilometer [km²]).Building Coverage: Building Coverage is a 30-m raster depicting the percentage of habitable land area covered by building footprints.Population Count (PopCount): PopCount is a 30-m raster with pixel values representing residential population count (persons) in each pixel.Population Density (PopDen): PopDen is a 30-m raster of residential population density (people/km²).Housing Unit Count (HUCount): HUCount is a 30-m raster representing the number of housing units in each pixel.Housing Unit Density (HUDen): HUDen is a 30-m raster of housing-unit density (housing units/km²).Housing Unit Exposure (HUExposure): HUExposure is a 30-m raster that represents the expected number of housing units within a pixel potentially exposed to wildfire in a year. This is a long-term annual average and not intended to represent the actual number of housing units exposed in any specific year.Housing Unit Impact (HUImpact): HUImpact is a 30-m raster that represents the relative potential impact of fire to housing units at any pixel, if a fire were to occur. It is an index that incorporates the general consequences of fire on a home as a function of fire intensity and uses flame length probabilities from wildfire modeling to capture likely intensity of fire.Housing Unit Risk (HURisk): HURisk is a 30-m raster that integrates all four primary elements of wildfire risk - likelihood, intensity, susceptibility, and exposure - on pixels where housing unit density is greater than zero.Additional methodology documentation is provided with the data publication download. Metadata and Downloads.Note: Pixel values in this image service have been altered from the original raster dataset due to data requirements in web services. The service is intended primarily for data visualization. Relative values and spatial patterns have been largely preserved in the service, but users are encouraged to download the source data for quantitative analysis.

Important Dataset Update 6/24/2020:Summit and Wasatch Counties updated.Important Dataset Update 6/12/2020:MAG area updated.Important Dataset Update 7/15/2019: This dataset now includes projections for all populated statewide traffic analysis zones (TAZs). Projections within the Wasatch Front urban area ( SUBAREAID = 1) were produced with using the Real Estate Market Model as described below. Socioeconomic forecasts produced for Cache MPO (Cache County, SUBAREAID = 2), Dixie MPO (Washington County, SUBAREAID = 3), Summit County (SUBAREAID = 4), and UDOT (other areas of the state, SUBAREAID = 0) all adhere to the University of Utah Gardner Policy Institute's county-level projection controls, but other modeling methods are used to arrive at the TAZ-level forecasts for these areas.As with any dataset that presents projections into the future, it is important to have a full understanding of the data before using it. Before using this data, you are strongly encouraged to read the metadata description below and direct any questions or feedback about this data to analytics@wfrc.org. Every four years, the Wasatch Front’s two metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), collaborate to update a set of annual small area -- traffic analysis zone and ‘city area’, see descriptions below) -- population and employment projections for the Salt Lake City-West Valley City (WFRC), Ogden-Layton (WFRC), and Provo-Orem (MAG) urbanized areas. These projections are primarily developed for the purpose of informing long-range transportation infrastructure and services planning done as part of the 4 year Regional Transportation Plan update cycle, as well as Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan, 2019-2050. Accordingly, the foundation for these projections is largely data describing existing conditions for a 2015 base year, the first year of the latest RTP process. The projections are included in the official travel models, which are publicly released at the conclusion of the RTP process. As these projections may be a valuable input to other analyses, this dataset is made available at http://data.wfrc.org/search?q=projections as a public service for informational purposes only. It is solely the responsibility of the end user to determine the appropriate use of this dataset for other purposes. Wasatch Front Real Estate Market Model (REMM) ProjectionsWFRC and MAG have developed a spatial statistical model using the UrbanSim modeling platform to assist in producing these annual projections. This model is called the Real Estate Market Model, or REMM for short. REMM is used for the urban portion of Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah counties. REMM relies on extensive inputs to simulate future development activity across the greater urbanized region. Key inputs to REMM include:Demographic data from the decennial census;County-level population and employment projections -- used as REMM control totals -- are produced by the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute (GPI) funded by the Utah State Legislature;Current employment locational patterns derived from the Utah Department of Workforce Services; Land use visioning exercises and feedback, especially in regard to planned urban and local center development, with city and county elected officials and staff;Current land use and valuation GIS-based parcel data stewarded by County Assessors;Traffic patterns and transit service from the regional Travel Demand Model that together form the landscape of regional accessibility to workplaces and other destinations; andCalibration of model variables to balance the fit of current conditions and dynamics at the county and regional level.‘Traffic Analysis Zone’ ProjectionsThe annual projections are forecasted for each of the Wasatch Front’s 2,800+ Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) geographic units. TAZ boundaries are set along roads, streams, and other physical features and average about 600 acres (0.94 square miles). TAZ sizes vary, with some TAZs in the densest areas representing only a single city block (25 acres). ‘City Area’ ProjectionsThe TAZ-level output from the model is also available for ‘city areas’ that sum the projections for the TAZ geographies that roughly align with each city’s current boundary. As TAZs do not align perfectly with current city boundaries, the ‘city area’ summaries are not projections specific to a current or future city boundary, but the ‘city area’ summaries may be suitable surrogates or starting points upon which to base city-specific projections.Summary Variables in the DatasetsAnnual projection counts are available for the following variables (please read Key Exclusions note below):DemographicsHousehold Population Count (excludes persons living in group quarters)Household Count (excludes group quarters)EmploymentTypical Job Count (includes job types that exhibit typical commuting and other travel/vehicle use patterns)Retail Job Count (retail, food service, hotels, etc)Office Job Count (office, health care, government, education, etc)Industrial Job Count (manufacturing, wholesale, transport, etc)Non-Typical Job Count* (includes agriculture, construction, mining, and home-based jobs) This can be calculated by subtracting Typical Job Count from All Employment Count.All Employment Count* (all jobs, this sums jobs from typical and non-typical sectors).* These variable includes REMM’s attempt to estimate construction jobs in areas that experience new and re-development activity. Areas may see short-term fluctuations in Non-Typical and All Employment counts due to the temporary location of construction jobs.Population and employment projections for the Wasatch Front area can be combined with those developed by Dixie MPO (St. George area), Cache MPO (Logan area), and the Utah Department of Transportation (for the remainder of the state) into one database for use in the Utah Statewide Travel Model (USTM). While projections for the areas outside of the Wasatch Front use different forecasting methods, they contain the same summary-level population and employment projections making similar TAZ and ‘City Area’ data available statewide. WFRC plans, in the near future, to add additional areas to these projections datasets by including the projections from the USTM model.Key Exclusions from TAZ and ‘City Area’ ProjectionsAs the primary purpose for the development of these population and employment projections is to model future travel in the region, REMM-based projections do not include population or households that reside in group quarters (prisons, senior centers, dormitories, etc), as residents of these facilities typically have a very low impact on regional travel. USTM-based projections also excludes group quarter populations. Group quarters population estimates are available at the county-level from GPI and at various sub-county geographies from the Census Bureau.

Important Dataset Update 6/24/2020:Summit and Wasatch Counties updated.Important Dataset Update 6/12/2020:MAG area updated.Important Dataset Update 7/15/2019: This dataset now includes projections for all populated statewide traffic analysis zones (TAZs). Projections within the Wasatch Front urban area ( SUBAREAID = 1) were produced with using the Real Estate Market Model as described below. Socioeconomic forecasts produced for Cache MPO (Cache County, SUBAREAID = 2), Dixie MPO (Washington County, SUBAREAID = 3), Summit County (SUBAREAID = 4), and UDOT (other areas of the state, SUBAREAID = 0) all adhere to the University of Utah Gardner Policy Institute's county-level projection controls, but other modeling methods are used to arrive at the TAZ-level forecasts for these areas.As with any dataset that presents projections into the future, it is important to have a full understanding of the data before using it. Before using this data, you are strongly encouraged to read the metadata description below and direct any questions or feedback about this data to analytics@wfrc.org. Every four years, the Wasatch Front’s two metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), collaborate to update a set of annual small area -- traffic analysis zone and ‘city area’, see descriptions below) -- population and employment projections for the Salt Lake City-West Valley City (WFRC), Ogden-Layton (WFRC), and Provo-Orem (MAG) urbanized areas. These projections are primarily developed for the purpose of informing long-range transportation infrastructure and services planning done as part of the 4 year Regional Transportation Plan update cycle, as well as Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan, 2019-2050. Accordingly, the foundation for these projections is largely data describing existing conditions for a 2015 base year, the first year of the latest RTP process. The projections are included in the official travel models, which are publicly released at the conclusion of the RTP process. As these projections may be a valuable input to other analyses, this dataset is made available at http://data.wfrc.org/search?q=projections as a public service for informational purposes only. It is solely the responsibility of the end user to determine the appropriate use of this dataset for other purposes. Wasatch Front Real Estate Market Model (REMM) ProjectionsWFRC and MAG have developed a spatial statistical model using the UrbanSim modeling platform to assist in producing these annual projections. This model is called the Real Estate Market Model, or REMM for short. REMM is used for the urban portion of Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah counties. REMM relies on extensive inputs to simulate future development activity across the greater urbanized region. Key inputs to REMM include:Demographic data from the decennial census;County-level population and employment projections -- used as REMM control totals -- are produced by the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute (GPI) funded by the Utah State Legislature;Current employment locational patterns derived from the Utah Department of Workforce Services; Land use visioning exercises and feedback, especially in regard to planned urban and local center development, with city and county elected officials and staff;Current land use and valuation GIS-based parcel data stewarded by County Assessors;Traffic patterns and transit service from the regional Travel Demand Model that together form the landscape of regional accessibility to workplaces and other destinations; andCalibration of model variables to balance the fit of current conditions and dynamics at the county and regional level.‘Traffic Analysis Zone’ ProjectionsThe annual projections are forecasted for each of the Wasatch Front’s 2,800+ Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) geographic units. TAZ boundaries are set along roads, streams, and other physical features and average about 600 acres (0.94 square miles). TAZ sizes vary, with some TAZs in the densest areas representing only a single city block (25 acres). ‘City Area’ ProjectionsThe TAZ-level output from the model is also available for ‘city areas’ that sum the projections for the TAZ geographies that roughly align with each city’s current boundary. As TAZs do not align perfectly with current city boundaries, the ‘city area’ summaries are not projections specific to a current or future city boundary, but the ‘city area’ summaries may be suitable surrogates or starting points upon which to base city-specific projections.Summary Variables in the DatasetsAnnual projection counts are available for the following variables (please read Key Exclusions note below):DemographicsHousehold Population Count (excludes persons living in group quarters)Household Count (excludes group quarters)EmploymentTypical Job Count (includes job types that exhibit typical commuting and other travel/vehicle use patterns)Retail Job Count (retail, food service, hotels, etc)Office Job Count (office, health care, government, education, etc)Industrial Job Count (manufacturing, wholesale, transport, etc)Non-Typical Job Count* (includes agriculture, construction, mining, and home-based jobs) This can be calculated by subtracting Typical Job Count from All Employment Count.All Employment Count* (all jobs, this sums jobs from typical and non-typical sectors).* These variable includes REMM’s attempt to estimate construction jobs in areas that experience new and re-development activity. Areas may see short-term fluctuations in Non-Typical and All Employment counts due to the temporary location of construction jobs.Population and employment projections for the Wasatch Front area can be combined with those developed by Dixie MPO (St. George area), Cache MPO (Logan area), and the Utah Department of Transportation (for the remainder of the state) into one database for use in the Utah Statewide Travel Model (USTM). While projections for the areas outside of the Wasatch Front use different forecasting methods, they contain the same summary-level population and employment projections making similar TAZ and ‘City Area’ data available statewide. WFRC plans, in the near future, to add additional areas to these projections datasets by including the projections from the USTM model.Key Exclusions from TAZ and ‘City Area’ ProjectionsAs the primary purpose for the development of these population and employment projections is to model future travel in the region, REMM-based projections do not include population or households that reside in group quarters (prisons, senior centers, dormitories, etc), as residents of these facilities typically have a very low impact on regional travel. USTM-based projections also excludes group quarter populations. Group quarters population estimates are available at the county-level from GPI and at various sub-county geographies from the Census Bureau.

Important Dataset Update 6/24/2020:Summit and Wasatch Counties updated.Important Dataset Update 6/12/2020:MAG area updated.Important Dataset Update 7/15/2019: This dataset now includes projections for all populated statewide traffic analysis zones (TAZs). Projections within the Wasatch Front urban area ( SUBAREAID = 1) were produced with using the Real Estate Market Model as described below. Socioeconomic forecasts produced for Cache MPO (Cache County, SUBAREAID = 2), Dixie MPO (Washington County, SUBAREAID = 3), Summit County (SUBAREAID = 4), and UDOT (other areas of the state, SUBAREAID = 0) all adhere to the University of Utah Gardner Policy Institute's county-level projection controls, but other modeling methods are used to arrive at the TAZ-level forecasts for these areas.As with any dataset that presents projections into the future, it is important to have a full understanding of the data before using it. Before using this data, you are strongly encouraged to read the metadata description below and direct any questions or feedback about this data to analytics@wfrc.org. Every four years, the Wasatch Front’s two metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), collaborate to update a set of annual small area -- traffic analysis zone and ‘city area’, see descriptions below) -- population and employment projections for the Salt Lake City-West Valley City (WFRC), Ogden-Layton (WFRC), and Provo-Orem (MAG) urbanized areas. These projections are primarily developed for the purpose of informing long-range transportation infrastructure and services planning done as part of the 4 year Regional Transportation Plan update cycle, as well as Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan, 2019-2050. Accordingly, the foundation for these projections is largely data describing existing conditions for a 2015 base year, the first year of the latest RTP process. The projections are included in the official travel models, which are publicly released at the conclusion of the RTP process. As these projections may be a valuable input to other analyses, this dataset is made available at http://data.wfrc.org/search?q=projections as a public service for informational purposes only. It is solely the responsibility of the end user to determine the appropriate use of this dataset for other purposes. Wasatch Front Real Estate Market Model (REMM) ProjectionsWFRC and MAG have developed a spatial statistical model using the UrbanSim modeling platform to assist in producing these annual projections. This model is called the Real Estate Market Model, or REMM for short. REMM is used for the urban portion of Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah counties. REMM relies on extensive inputs to simulate future development activity across the greater urbanized region. Key inputs to REMM include:Demographic data from the decennial census;County-level population and employment projections -- used as REMM control totals -- are produced by the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute (GPI) funded by the Utah State Legislature;Current employment locational patterns derived from the Utah Department of Workforce Services; Land use visioning exercises and feedback, especially in regard to planned urban and local center development, with city and county elected officials and staff;Current land use and valuation GIS-based parcel data stewarded by County Assessors;Traffic patterns and transit service from the regional Travel Demand Model that together form the landscape of regional accessibility to workplaces and other destinations; andCalibration of model variables to balance the fit of current conditions and dynamics at the county and regional level.‘Traffic Analysis Zone’ ProjectionsThe annual projections are forecasted for each of the Wasatch Front’s 2,800+ Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) geographic units. TAZ boundaries are set along roads, streams, and other physical features and average about 600 acres (0.94 square miles). TAZ sizes vary, with some TAZs in the densest areas representing only a single city block (25 acres). ‘City Area’ ProjectionsThe TAZ-level output from the model is also available for ‘city areas’ that sum the projections for the TAZ geographies that roughly align with each city’s current boundary. As TAZs do not align perfectly with current city boundaries, the ‘city area’ summaries are not projections specific to a current or future city boundary, but the ‘city area’ summaries may be suitable surrogates or starting points upon which to base city-specific projections.Summary Variables in the DatasetsAnnual projection counts are available for the following variables (please read Key Exclusions note below):DemographicsHousehold Population Count (excludes persons living in group quarters)Household Count (excludes group quarters)EmploymentTypical Job Count (includes job types that exhibit typical commuting and other travel/vehicle use patterns)Retail Job Count (retail, food service, hotels, etc)Office Job Count (office, health care, government, education, etc)Industrial Job Count (manufacturing, wholesale, transport, etc)Non-Typical Job Count* (includes agriculture, construction, mining, and home-based jobs) This can be calculated by subtracting Typical Job Count from All Employment Count.All Employment Count* (all jobs, this sums jobs from typical and non-typical sectors).* These variable includes REMM’s attempt to estimate construction jobs in areas that experience new and re-development activity. Areas may see short-term fluctuations in Non-Typical and All Employment counts due to the temporary location of construction jobs.Population and employment projections for the Wasatch Front area can be combined with those developed by Dixie MPO (St. George area), Cache MPO (Logan area), and the Utah Department of Transportation (for the remainder of the state) into one database for use in the Utah Statewide Travel Model (USTM). While projections for the areas outside of the Wasatch Front use different forecasting methods, they contain the same summary-level population and employment projections making similar TAZ and ‘City Area’ data available statewide. WFRC plans, in the near future, to add additional areas to these projections datasets by including the projections from the USTM model.Key Exclusions from TAZ and ‘City Area’ ProjectionsAs the primary purpose for the development of these population and employment projections is to model future travel in the region, REMM-based projections do not include population or households that reside in group quarters (prisons, senior centers, dormitories, etc), as residents of these facilities typically have a very low impact on regional travel. USTM-based projections also excludes group quarter populations. Group quarters population estimates are available at the county-level from GPI and at various sub-county geographies from the Census Bureau.

File List shapefiles.zip -- Shapefiles compressed together in a zipped dirctory. 33,505,926 bytes readme.txt -- 3 January 2012 explanation for file corrections All .csv files are ASCII text, comma separated: allrecords_density.csv - 125,201 records, 9,414,808 bytes allrecords_cover.csv - 81,365 records, 7,606,877 bytes quad_info.csv - 44 records, 656 bytes. quad_inventory.csv - 14 records, 2,086 bytes species_list.csv - 155 records, 5,128 bytes daily_climate_data.csv - 5114 records, 128,441 bytes annuals_counts_v3.csv - 2,536 records, 68,899 bytes species_name_changes.csv - Originally assigned plant names were corrected for synonyms based on the USDA Plants Database (http://plants.usda.gov/). Name changes are recorded in this file. 86 records, 3,387 bytes DescriptionThis historical data set consists of 44 permanent 1-m2 quadrats located on northern mixed prairie in Miles City, Montana, USA. Individual plants in these quadrats were identified and mapped annually from 1932 through 1945. Quadrats were located in six pastures assigned to cattle grazing treatments with light, moderate, and heavy stocking rates of 1.24, 0.92, and 0.76 ha/ animal-unit-month (two pastures in each). These data provide unique opportunities to test the interactive effects of grazing and climate variables on demographic rates, plant–plant interactions, and population and community dynamics. We provide the following data and data formats: (1) the digitized maps in shapefile format; (2) a tabular version of the entire data set (a table that replaces the full spatial data with one (x,y) coordinate for each individual perennial plant record); (3) grazing treatment information; (4) an inventory of the years each quadrat was sampled; (5) a species list, containing information on plant growth forms and shapefile geometry type (e.g., points or polygons); (6) a record of changes in species names; (7) daily precipitation and temperature records; and (8) counts of annual plants in the quadrats (annuals were counted, not mapped, by the original mappers). Key words: climate; demography; Geographic Information Systems (GIS); Montana; northern mixed prairie; plant community; plant population; species interactions

Background
The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is a unique source of information using international definitions of employment and unemployment and economic inactivity, together with a wide range of related topics such as occupation, training, hours of work and personal characteristics of household members aged 16 years and over. It is used to inform social, economic and employment policy. The LFS was first conducted biennially from 1973-1983. Between 1984 and 1991 the survey was carried out annually and consisted of a quarterly survey conducted throughout the year and a 'boost' survey in the spring quarter (data were then collected seasonally). From 1992 quarterly data were made available, with a quarterly sample size approximately equivalent to that of the previous annual data. The survey then became known as the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS). From December 1994, data gathering for Northern Ireland moved to a full quarterly cycle to match the rest of the country, so the QLFS then covered the whole of the UK (though some additional annual Northern Ireland LFS datasets are also held at the UK Data Archive). Further information on the background to the QLFS may be found in the documentation.

Household datasets
Up to 2015, the LFS household datasets were produced twice a year (April-June and October-December) from the corresponding quarter's individual-level data. From January 2015 onwards, they are now produced each quarter alongside the main QLFS. The household datasets include all the usual variables found in the individual-level datasets, with the exception of those relating to income, and are intended to facilitate the analysis of the economic activity patterns of whole households. It is recommended that the existing individual-level LFS datasets continue to be used for any analysis at individual level, and that the LFS household datasets be used for analysis involving household or family-level data. From January 2011, a pseudonymised household identifier variable (HSERIALP) is also included in the main quarterly LFS dataset instead.

Change to coding of missing values for household series
From 1996-2013, all missing values in the household datasets were set to one '-10' category instead of the separate '-8' and '-9' categories. For that period, the ONS introduced a new imputation process for the LFS household datasets and it was necessary to code the missing values into one new combined category ('-10'), to avoid over-complication. This was also in line with the Annual Population Survey household series of the time. The change was applied to the back series during 2010 to ensure continuity for analytical purposes. From 2013 onwards, the -8 and -9 categories have been reinstated.

LFS Documentation
The documentation available from the Archive to accompany LFS datasets largely consists of the latest version of each volume alongside the appropriate questionnaire for the year concerned. However, LFS volumes are updated periodically by ONS, so users are advised to check the ONS LFS User Guidance page before commencing analysis.

Additional data derived from the QLFS
The Archive also holds further QLFS series: End User Licence (EUL) quarterly datasets; Secure Access datasets (see below); two-quarter and five-quarter longitudinal datasets; quarterly, annual and ad hoc module datasets compiled for Eurostat; and some additional annual Northern Ireland datasets.

End User Licence and Secure Access QLFS Household datasets
Users should note that there are two discrete versions of the QLFS household datasets. One is available under the standard End User Licence (EUL) agreement, and the other is a Secure Access version. Secure Access household datasets for the QLFS are available from 2009 onwards, and include additional, detailed variables not included in the standard EUL versions. Extra variables that typically can be found in the Secure Access versions but not in the EUL versions relate to: geography; date of birth, including day; education and training; household and family characteristics; employment; unemployment and job hunting; accidents at work and work-related health problems; nationality, national identity and country of birth; occurrence of learning difficulty or disability; and benefits. For full details of variables included, see data dictionary documentation. The Secure Access version (see SN 7674) has more restrictive access conditions than those made available under the standard EUL. Prospective users will need to gain ONS Accredited Researcher status, complete an extra application form and demonstrate to the data owners exactly why they need access to the additional variables. Users are strongly advised to first obtain the standard EUL version of the data to see if they are sufficient for their research requirements.

Changes to variables in QLFS Household EUL datasets
In order to further protect respondent confidentiality, ONS have made some changes to variables available in the EUL datasets. From July-September 2015 onwards, 4-digit industry class is available for main job only, meaning that 3-digit industry group is the most detailed level available for second and last job.

Review of imputation methods for LFS Household data - changes to missing values
A review of the imputation methods used in LFS Household and Family analysis resulted in a change from the January-March 2015 quarter onwards. It was no longer considered appropriate to impute any personal characteristic variables (e.g. religion, ethnicity, country of birth, nationality, national identity, etc.) using the LFS donor imputation method. This method is primarily focused to ensure the 'economic status' of all individuals within a household is known, allowing analysis of the combined economic status of households. This means that from 2015 larger amounts of missing values ('-8'/-9') will be present in the data for these personal characteristic variables than before. Therefore if users need to carry out any time series analysis of households/families which also includes personal characteristic variables covering this time period, then it is advised to filter off 'ioutcome=3' cases from all periods to remove this inconsistent treatment of non-responders.

Occupation data for 2021 and 2022 data files

The ONS has identified an issue with the collection of some occupational data in 2021 and 2022 data files in a number of their surveys. While they estimate any impacts will be small overall, this will affect the accuracy of the breakdowns of some detailed (four-digit Standard Occupational Classification (SOC)) occupations, and data derived from them. Further information can be found in the ONS article published on 11 July 2023: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/revisionofmiscodedoccupationaldataintheonslabourforcesurveyuk/january2021toseptember2022" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Revision of miscoded occupational data in the ONS Labour Force Survey, UK: January 2021 to September 2022.

Latest edition information

For the third edition (September 2023), the variables NSECM20, NSECMJ20, SC2010M, SC20SMJ, SC20SMN and SOC20M have been replaced with new versions. Further information on the SOC revisions can be found in the ONS article published on 11 July 2023: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/revisionofmiscodedoccupationaldataintheonslabourforcesurveyuk/january2021toseptember2022" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Revision of miscoded occupational data in the ONS Labour Force Survey, UK: January 2021 to September 2022.

Important Dataset Update 6/24/2020:Summit and Wasatch Counties updated.Important Dataset Update 6/12/2020:MAG area updated.Important Dataset Update 7/15/2019: This dataset now includes projections for all populated statewide traffic analysis zones (TAZs). Projections within the Wasatch Front urban area ( SUBAREAID = 1) were produced with using the Real Estate Market Model as described below. Socioeconomic forecasts produced for Cache MPO (Cache County, SUBAREAID = 2), Dixie MPO (Washington County, SUBAREAID = 3), Summit County (SUBAREAID = 4), and UDOT (other areas of the state, SUBAREAID = 0) all adhere to the University of Utah Gardner Policy Institute's county-level projection controls, but other modeling methods are used to arrive at the TAZ-level forecasts for these areas.As with any dataset that presents projections into the future, it is important to have a full understanding of the data before using it. Before using this data, you are strongly encouraged to read the metadata description below and direct any questions or feedback about this data to analytics@wfrc.org. Every four years, the Wasatch Front’s two metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), collaborate to update a set of annual small area -- traffic analysis zone and ‘city area’, see descriptions below) -- population and employment projections for the Salt Lake City-West Valley City (WFRC), Ogden-Layton (WFRC), and Provo-Orem (MAG) urbanized areas. These projections are primarily developed for the purpose of informing long-range transportation infrastructure and services planning done as part of the 4 year Regional Transportation Plan update cycle, as well as Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan, 2019-2050. Accordingly, the foundation for these projections is largely data describing existing conditions for a 2015 base year, the first year of the latest RTP process. The projections are included in the official travel models, which are publicly released at the conclusion of the RTP process. As these projections may be a valuable input to other analyses, this dataset is made available at http://data.wfrc.org/search?q=projections as a public service for informational purposes only. It is solely the responsibility of the end user to determine the appropriate use of this dataset for other purposes. Wasatch Front Real Estate Market Model (REMM) ProjectionsWFRC and MAG have developed a spatial statistical model using the UrbanSim modeling platform to assist in producing these annual projections. This model is called the Real Estate Market Model, or REMM for short. REMM is used for the urban portion of Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah counties. REMM relies on extensive inputs to simulate future development activity across the greater urbanized region. Key inputs to REMM include:Demographic data from the decennial census;County-level population and employment projections -- used as REMM control totals -- are produced by the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute (GPI) funded by the Utah State Legislature;Current employment locational patterns derived from the Utah Department of Workforce Services; Land use visioning exercises and feedback, especially in regard to planned urban and local center development, with city and county elected officials and staff;Current land use and valuation GIS-based parcel data stewarded by County Assessors;Traffic patterns and transit service from the regional Travel Demand Model that together form the landscape of regional accessibility to workplaces and other destinations; andCalibration of model variables to balance the fit of current conditions and dynamics at the county and regional level.‘Traffic Analysis Zone’ ProjectionsThe annual projections are forecasted for each of the Wasatch Front’s 2,800+ Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) geographic units. TAZ boundaries are set along roads, streams, and other physical features and average about 600 acres (0.94 square miles). TAZ sizes vary, with some TAZs in the densest areas representing only a single city block (25 acres). ‘City Area’ ProjectionsThe TAZ-level output from the model is also available for ‘city areas’ that sum the projections for the TAZ geographies that roughly align with each city’s current boundary. As TAZs do not align perfectly with current city boundaries, the ‘city area’ summaries are not projections specific to a current or future city boundary, but the ‘city area’ summaries may be suitable surrogates or starting points upon which to base city-specific projections.Summary Variables in the DatasetsAnnual projection counts are available for the following variables (please read Key Exclusions note below):DemographicsHousehold Population Count (excludes persons living in group quarters)Household Count (excludes group quarters)EmploymentTypical Job Count (includes job types that exhibit typical commuting and other travel/vehicle use patterns)Retail Job Count (retail, food service, hotels, etc)Office Job Count (office, health care, government, education, etc)Industrial Job Count (manufacturing, wholesale, transport, etc)Non-Typical Job Count* (includes agriculture, construction, mining, and home-based jobs) This can be calculated by subtracting Typical Job Count from All Employment Count.All Employment Count* (all jobs, this sums jobs from typical and non-typical sectors).* These variable includes REMM’s attempt to estimate construction jobs in areas that experience new and re-development activity. Areas may see short-term fluctuations in Non-Typical and All Employment counts due to the temporary location of construction jobs.Population and employment projections for the Wasatch Front area can be combined with those developed by Dixie MPO (St. George area), Cache MPO (Logan area), and the Utah Department of Transportation (for the remainder of the state) into one database for use in the Utah Statewide Travel Model (USTM). While projections for the areas outside of the Wasatch Front use different forecasting methods, they contain the same summary-level population and employment projections making similar TAZ and ‘City Area’ data available statewide. WFRC plans, in the near future, to add additional areas to these projections datasets by including the projections from the USTM model.Key Exclusions from TAZ and ‘City Area’ ProjectionsAs the primary purpose for the development of these population and employment projections is to model future travel in the region, REMM-based projections do not include population or households that reside in group quarters (prisons, senior centers, dormitories, etc), as residents of these facilities typically have a very low impact on regional travel. USTM-based projections also excludes group quarter populations. Group quarters population estimates are available at the county-level from GPI and at various sub-county geographies from the Census Bureau.

Important Dataset Update 6/24/2020:Summit and Wasatch Counties updated.Important Dataset Update 6/12/2020:MAG area updated.Important Dataset Update 7/15/2019: This dataset now includes projections for all populated statewide traffic analysis zones (TAZs). Projections within the Wasatch Front urban area ( SUBAREAID = 1) were produced with using the Real Estate Market Model as described below. Socioeconomic forecasts produced for Cache MPO (Cache County, SUBAREAID = 2), Dixie MPO (Washington County, SUBAREAID = 3), Summit County (SUBAREAID = 4), and UDOT (other areas of the state, SUBAREAID = 0) all adhere to the University of Utah Gardner Policy Institute's county-level projection controls, but other modeling methods are used to arrive at the TAZ-level forecasts for these areas.As with any dataset that presents projections into the future, it is important to have a full understanding of the data before using it. Before using this data, you are strongly encouraged to read the metadata description below and direct any questions or feedback about this data to analytics@wfrc.org. Every four years, the Wasatch Front’s two metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), collaborate to update a set of annual small area -- traffic analysis zone and ‘city area’, see descriptions below) -- population and employment projections for the Salt Lake City-West Valley City (WFRC), Ogden-Layton (WFRC), and Provo-Orem (MAG) urbanized areas. These projections are primarily developed for the purpose of informing long-range transportation infrastructure and services planning done as part of the 4 year Regional Transportation Plan update cycle, as well as Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan, 2019-2050. Accordingly, the foundation for these projections is largely data describing existing conditions for a 2015 base year, the first year of the latest RTP process. The projections are included in the official travel models, which are publicly released at the conclusion of the RTP process. As these projections may be a valuable input to other analyses, this dataset is made available at http://data.wfrc.org/search?q=projections as a public service for informational purposes only. It is solely the responsibility of the end user to determine the appropriate use of this dataset for other purposes. Wasatch Front Real Estate Market Model (REMM) ProjectionsWFRC and MAG have developed a spatial statistical model using the UrbanSim modeling platform to assist in producing these annual projections. This model is called the Real Estate Market Model, or REMM for short. REMM is used for the urban portion of Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah counties. REMM relies on extensive inputs to simulate future development activity across the greater urbanized region. Key inputs to REMM include:Demographic data from the decennial census;County-level population and employment projections -- used as REMM control totals -- are produced by the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute (GPI) funded by the Utah State Legislature;Current employment locational patterns derived from the Utah Department of Workforce Services; Land use visioning exercises and feedback, especially in regard to planned urban and local center development, with city and county elected officials and staff;Current land use and valuation GIS-based parcel data stewarded by County Assessors;Traffic patterns and transit service from the regional Travel Demand Model that together form the landscape of regional accessibility to workplaces and other destinations; andCalibration of model variables to balance the fit of current conditions and dynamics at the county and regional level.‘Traffic Analysis Zone’ ProjectionsThe annual projections are forecasted for each of the Wasatch Front’s 2,800+ Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) geographic units. TAZ boundaries are set along roads, streams, and other physical features and average about 600 acres (0.94 square miles). TAZ sizes vary, with some TAZs in the densest areas representing only a single city block (25 acres). ‘City Area’ ProjectionsThe TAZ-level output from the model is also available for ‘city areas’ that sum the projections for the TAZ geographies that roughly align with each city’s current boundary. As TAZs do not align perfectly with current city boundaries, the ‘city area’ summaries are not projections specific to a current or future city boundary, but the ‘city area’ summaries may be suitable surrogates or starting points upon which to base city-specific projections.Summary Variables in the DatasetsAnnual projection counts are available for the following variables (please read Key Exclusions note below):DemographicsHousehold Population Count (excludes persons living in group quarters)Household Count (excludes group quarters)EmploymentTypical Job Count (includes job types that exhibit typical commuting and other travel/vehicle use patterns)Retail Job Count (retail, food service, hotels, etc)Office Job Count (office, health care, government, education, etc)Industrial Job Count (manufacturing, wholesale, transport, etc)Non-Typical Job Count* (includes agriculture, construction, mining, and home-based jobs) This can be calculated by subtracting Typical Job Count from All Employment Count.All Employment Count* (all jobs, this sums jobs from typical and non-typical sectors).* These variable includes REMM’s attempt to estimate construction jobs in areas that experience new and re-development activity. Areas may see short-term fluctuations in Non-Typical and All Employment counts due to the temporary location of construction jobs.Population and employment projections for the Wasatch Front area can be combined with those developed by Dixie MPO (St. George area), Cache MPO (Logan area), and the Utah Department of Transportation (for the remainder of the state) into one database for use in the Utah Statewide Travel Model (USTM). While projections for the areas outside of the Wasatch Front use different forecasting methods, they contain the same summary-level population and employment projections making similar TAZ and ‘City Area’ data available statewide. WFRC plans, in the near future, to add additional areas to these projections datasets by including the projections from the USTM model.Key Exclusions from TAZ and ‘City Area’ ProjectionsAs the primary purpose for the development of these population and employment projections is to model future travel in the region, REMM-based projections do not include population or households that reside in group quarters (prisons, senior centers, dormitories, etc), as residents of these facilities typically have a very low impact on regional travel. USTM-based projections also excludes group quarter populations. Group quarters population estimates are available at the county-level from GPI and at various sub-county geographies from the Census Bureau.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner. Background The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is a unique source of information using international definitions of employment and unemployment and economic inactivity, together with a wide range of related topics such as occupation, training, hours of work and personal characteristics of household members aged 16 years and over. It is used to inform social, economic and employment policy. The LFS was first conducted biennially from 1973-1983. Between 1984 and 1991 the survey was carried out annually and consisted of a quarterly survey conducted throughout the year and a 'boost' survey in the spring quarter (data were then collected seasonally). From 1992 quarterly data were made available, with a quarterly sample size approximately equivalent to that of the previous annual data. The survey then became known as the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS). From December 1994, data gathering for Northern Ireland moved to a full quarterly cycle to match the rest of the country, so the QLFS then covered the whole of the UK (though some additional annual Northern Ireland LFS datasets are also held at the UK Data Archive). Further information on the background to the QLFS may be found in the documentation. Secure Access QLFS data Secure Access datasets for the QLFS are available from the April-June 1992 quarter, and include additional, detailed variables not included in the standard 'End User Licence' (EUL) versions (see under GN 33246). Extra variables that typically can be found in the Secure Access versions but not in the EUL relate to:geography (see 'Spatial Units' below)date of birth, including dayeducation and training: including type of 'other qualifications', more detail regarding the number of O'levels/GCSE passes, type of qualification gained in last 12 months, class of first degree, type of degree held, UK country of highest degree, type of current educational institution, level of Welsh baccalaureate, activities to improve knowledge or skills in last 12 months, attendance at adult learning taught courses, attendance at leisure or educational classes, self-teaching, payment of job-related training feeshousehold and family characteristics: including number of family units (and extended family units) with dependent children only, and with non-dependent children only, total number of family units with more than one person, total number of eligible people, type of household, type of family unit, number of bedroomsemployment: including industry code of main job, whether working full-time or part-time, reason job is temporary, payment of own National Insurance and tax, when started working at previous job, whether paid or self-employed in previous job, contracts with employment agencyunemployment and job hunting: including main reason for not being employed prior to current job, reasons for leaving job (provision of care or other personal/family reasons), use of internet for job hunting, if and when will work in the futuretemporary leave from work: including proportion of salary received and duration of leaveaccidents at work and work-related health problemsnationality, national identity and country of birth: including whether lived continuously in UK, month of most recent arrival to UK, frequency of Welsh speakingoccurrence of learning difficulty or disabilitybenefits, including additional variables on type of benefits claimed and tax credit paymentsSecure Access versions of QLFS household datasets are available from 2009 under SN 7674. Prospective users of a Secure Access version of the QLFS will need to fulfil additional requirements, commencing with the completion of an extra application form to demonstrate to the data owners exactly why they need access to the extra, more detailed variables, in order to obtain permission to use that version. Secure Access users must also complete face-to-face training and agree to Secure Access' User Agreement (see 'Access' section below). Therefore, users are encouraged to download and inspect the EUL version of the data prior to ordering the Secure Access version. Well-Being variables are not included in the LFS Users should note that subjective well-being variables (Satis, Worth, Happy, Anxious and Sad) are not available on the LFS, despite being referenced in the questionnaire. Users who wish to analyse well-being variables should apply for the Annual Population Survey instead (see SNs 6721 and 7961). LFS Documentation The documentation available from the Archive to accompany LFS datasets largely consists of the relevant versions of each volume of the user guide. However, LFS volumes are updated periodically by ONS, so users are advised to check the ONS LFS User Guidance pages before commencing analysis. This is especially important for users of older QLFS studies, where information and guidance in the user guide documents may have changed over time.The study documentation presented in the Documentation section includes the most recent documentation for the LFS only, due to available space. Documentation for previous years is provided alongside the data for access and is also available upon request. Variables DISEA and LNGLST Dataset A08 (Labour market status of disabled people) which ONS suspended due to an apparent discontinuity between April to June 2017 and July to September 2017 is now available. As a result of this apparent discontinuity and the inconclusive investigations at this stage, comparisons should be made with caution between April to June 2017 and subsequent time periods. However users should note that the estimates are not seasonally adjusted, so some of the change between quarters could be due to seasonality. Further recommendations on historical comparisons of the estimates will be given in November 2018 when ONS are due to publish estimates for July to September 2018.Latest Edition InformationFor the thirty-eighth edition (October 2023), a new data file for April-June 2023 and a new 2023 variable catalogue have been added to the study. Main Topics: The QLFS questionnaire comprises a 'core' of questions which are included in every survey, together with some 'non-core' questions which vary from quarter to quarter. The questionnaire can be split into two main parts. The first part contains questions on the respondent's household, family structure, basic housing information and demographic details of household members. The second part contains questions covering economic activity, education and health, and also may include a few questions asked on behalf of other government departments (for example the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office). Until 1997, the questions on health focussed on problems that affect the respondent's work. Since then, the questions have covered all health problems. Detailed questions on income have also been included in each quarter since 1993. The basic questionnaire is revised each year, and a new version published, along with a transitional version that details changes from the previous year's questionnaire. Four sampling frames are used. See documentation for details.