To download this dataset, click below:Zipped TIFF File: LC_FCD_RECLASS_2016.zip (2GB)The reclassified landcover dataset was derived from the 2016 landcover, one of the products available as part of the the LARIAC program.NOTE: The extent of the derived dataset only covers the area located within the County's flood control district. This raster dataset was combined with the County's parcel layer to produce a file geodatabase of impermeable and permeable areas by parcel for use by the County's Safe Clean Water program.Attributes0 = Permeable1 = ImpermeableThe 2016 landcover dataset was reclassified as follows:Tree Canopy - PermeableGrass/Shrubs - PermeableBare Soil - PermeableWater - PermeableBuildings - ImpermeableRoads/Railroads - ImpermeableOther Paved - ImpermeableTall Shrubs - PermeableFor more information, please contact Bowen Liang (bliang@dpw.lacounty.gov)

NLCD 2019 - reclassification to suitable/unsuitable for alligator gar spawning - LouisianaSuitable: any low open vegetation classes: emergent herbaceous, agriculture, grassland, shrub/scrub Unsuitable: all other classesUsed in conjunction with other layers to evaluate the accuracy of a statewide (Louisiana) assessment of habitat suitable for alligator gar spawning using the techniques described in Allen et. al 2020. Allen, Y., K. Kimmel, and G. Constant. 2020. Using Remote Sensing to Assess Alligator Gar Spawning Habitat Suitability in the Lower Mississippi River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 40:580–594.

Attribute reclassification for fixed amplitude and varying Cmin.

Click to downloadClick for metadataService URL: https://gis.dnr.wa.gov/site2/rest/services/Public_Forest_Practices/WADNR_PUBLIC_FP_Water_Type/MapServer/4For large areas, like Washington State, download as a file geodatabase. Large data sets like this one, for the State of Washington, may exceed the limits for downloading as shape files, excel files, or KML files. For areas less than a county, you may use the map to zoom to your area and download as shape file, excel or KML, if that format is desired.The DNR Forest Practices Wetlands Geographic Information System (GIS) Layer is based on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). In cooperation with the Washington State Department of Ecology, DNR Forest Practices developed a systematic reclassification of the original USFWS wetlands codes into WAC 222-16-035 types. The reclassification was done in 1995 according to the Forest Practice Rules in place at the time. The WAC's for defining wetlands are 222-16-035 and 222-16-050.The DNR Forest Practices Wetlands Geographic Information System (GIS) Layer is based on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). In cooperation with the Washington State Department of Ecology, DNR Forest Practices developed a systematic reclassification of the original USFWS wetlands codes into WAC 222-16-035 types. The reclassification was done in 1995 according to the Forest Practice Rules in place at the time. The WAC's for defining wetlands are 222-16-035 and 222-16-050.It is intended that these data be only a first step in determining whether or not wetland issues have been or need to be addressed in an area. The DNR Forest Practices Division and the Department of Ecology strongly supports the additional use of hydric soils (from the GIS soils layer) to add weight to the call of 'wetland'. Reports from the Department of Ecology indicate that these data may substantially underestimate the extent of forested wetlands. Various studies show the NWI data is 25-80% accurate in forested areas. Most of these data were collected from stereopaired aerial photos at a scale of 1:58,000. The stated accuracy is that of a 1:24,000 map, or plus or minus 40 feet. In addition, some parts of the state have data that are 30 years old and only a small percentage have been field checked. Thus, for regulatory purposes, the user should not rely solely on these data. On-the-ground checking must accompany any regulatory call based on these data.The reclassification is based on the USFWS FWS_CODE. The FWS_CODE is a concatenation of three subcomponents: Wetland system, class, and water regime. Forest Practices further divided the components into system, subsystem, class, subclass, water regime, special modifiers, xclass, subxclass, and xsystem. The last three items (xsomething) are for wetland areas which do not easily lend themselves to one class alone. The resulting classification system uses two fields: WLND_CLASS and WLND_TYPE. WLND_CLASS indicates whether the polygon is a forested wetland (F), open water (O), or a vegetated wetland (W). WLND_TYPE, indicates whether the wetland is a type A (1), type B (2), or a generic wetland (3) that doesn't fit the categories for A or B type wetlands. WLND_TYPE = 0 (zero) is used where WLND_CLASS = O (letter "O").

The wetland polygon is classified as F, forested wetland; O, open water; or W, vegetated wetland depending on the following FWS_CODE categories: F O W --------------------------------------------------- Forested Open Vegetated Wetland Water Wetland --------------------------------------------PFO* POW PUB5 E2FO PRB* PML2 PUB1-4 PEM* PAB* L2US5 PUS1-4 L2EM2 PFL* PSS* L1RB* PML1 L1UB*
L1AB* L1OW L2RB* L2UB* L2AB* L2RS* L2US1-4 L2OW

• indicates inclusion of the subcategory (ie. PEM* includes PEM1F, PEM1FB, etc.).

DNR FOREST PRACTICES WETLANDS DATASET ON FPARS Internet Mapping Website: The FPARS Resource Map and Water Type Map display Forested, Type A, Type B, and "other" wetlands. Open water polygons are not displayed on the FPARS Resource Map and Water Type Map in an attempt to minimize clutter. The following code combinations are found in the DNR Forest Practices wetlands dataset:

WLND_CLASS WLND_TYPE wetland polygon classification F 3 Forested wetland as defined in WAC 222-16-035 O 0 *NWI open water (not displayed on FPARS Resource or Water Type Maps) W 1 Type A Wetland as defined in WAC 222-16-035 W 2 Type B Wetland as defined in WAC 222-16-035 W 3 other wetland

• NWI open water polygons are indicated by WLND_CLASS = O and WLND_TYPE = 0. Open water is used in the USFWS and WAC 222-16-035 classification system. These open water polygons are not included in the FPARS Resource Map and Water Type Map views of this dataset in an attempt to minimize clutter on the FPARS maps.

The files linked to this reference are the geospatial data created as part of the completion of the baseline vegetation inventory project for the NPS park unit. Current format is ArcGIS file geodatabase but older formats may exist as shapefiles. We followed methods in Anderson and Merrill (1998) for combining gradient layers into an “ecological land units” map (also referred to as a “biophysical units” map). Our goal was to use this information to create sampling strata that capture the range of environments observed. The Anderson and Merrill (1998) method (implemented as a set of GIS scripts by F. Biasi (2001)) builds an ecological units map by classifying and combining individual environmental gradient maps in a GIS. Maps of aspect, moisture, slope, and slope shape are reclassified and assembled to produce maps of landform units. These landform units are then combined with reclassified elevation and geologic maps to produce a final ecological land units or “ELU” map. We used these methods as a guide to building an ecological land units map for Shenandoah National Park, adapting the procedures for local conditions. Individual steps in the process and maps resulting from intermediate and final stages are described in the report.

Buildings_BACI File Geodatabase Feature Class Thumbnail Not Available Tags Buildings, structures, ruins, storage tanks, silos, water towers, Baltimore City Planimetric, Biophysical Resources, Land, Socio-Economic Resources, Capital Summary This data was created as a landbase feature as part of the planimetric data. Description This dataset represents photogrammetrically captured Building footprints => 100sq. ft. including storage tanks, silos, water towers, power plants, substations, and structures under construction and ruins. Feature capture rules: Buildings - Outline edge of roofline. All buildings shall be captured as polygons. In commercial areas especially, it is important that the plotted building represent the face of the building where it meets the sidewalk. Polygons shall be created for the outer boundary of the building when a partywall exists. Does not include sheds and small temporary structures. Attached garages shall be represented as part of the building structure. Large structures such as stadiums shall also be represented. Structures under construction or demolition - Delineate the rooflines of all buildings under construction as interpreted from aerial photography. If roofline is not visible compile visible foundation or walls Ruins - Delineate old overgrown areas of old structures that have been demolished or are in disrepair. Original data will be reclassified to define as separate subtype. Storage tanks, silos, and water towers - Outlines of all storage tanks, silos and water towers. . Original data will be reclassified to define as separate subtype. Power plants and substations - Outline of power plant and substation structure. . Original data will be reclassified to define as separate subtype. Credits There are no credits for this item. Use limitations Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of these data. The City of Baltimore, Maryland makes no representations nor warranties, either express or implied, regarding the accuracy of this information or its suitability for any particular purpose whatsoever. The data is licensed "as is" and the City of Baltimore will not be liable for its use or misuse by any party. Reliance of these data is at the risk of the user. Extent West -76.714715 East -76.525355 North 39.375162 South 39.193953 Scale Range There is no scale range for this item.

The Vermont Water Quality Standards (VTWQS) are rules intended to achieve the goals of the Vermont Surface Water Strategy, as well as the objective of the federal Clean Water Act which is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's water. The classification of waters is in included in the VTWQS. The classification of all waters has been established by a combination of legislative acts and by classification or reclassification decisions issued by the Water Resources Board or Secretary pursuant to 10 V.S.A. � 1253. Those waters reclassified by the Secretary to Class A(1), A(2), or B(1) for any use shall include all waters within the entire watershed of the reclassified waters unless expressly provided otherwise in the rule. All waters above 2,500 feet altitude, National Geodetic Vertical Datum, are designated Class A(1) for all uses, unless specifically designated Class A(2) for use as a public water source. All waters at or below 2,500 feet altitude, National Geodetic Vertical Datum, are designated Class B(2) for all uses, unless specifically designated as Class A(1), A(2), or B(1) for any use.

This GIS dataset represents a reclassification of existing surficial map information for the purpose of portraying the distribution of sand and gravel deposits in Alberta. The surficial geology of Alberta ungeneralised digital mosaic (Alberta Geological Survey DIG2013-0001) represents the primary source of information used in this reclassification. This dataset was updated with more recently published 1:100,000 scale surficial geology maps, and where appropriate new polygon features that were digitized from line features in the Glacial Landforms of Alberta (Alberta Geological Survey Map 604 and DIG2014-0022). The updated surficial geology mosaic was then reclassified using a thematically-based attribute table which categorizes the original surficial geology features based on their sand and gravel component. Attributes within this table comprise: (1) an approximation of the material type (MATERIAL). (2) the aerial proportion that this material represents of the polygon, as a percentage (PROPORTION). (3) an indication of whether the sand and gravel unit is mapped at the land surface or is buried (SRF_BURIED). (4) the depositional environment relating to the sand and gravel unit (GENESIS). (5) the reference source to the original data (SOURCE_MAP). (6) the GIS dataset from which the features were derived (DATASET). and (7) the mapping scale (SCALE). The MATERIAL honours the original surficial geology polygons when sufficiently precise texture/material information was provided. Otherwise MATERIAL is based on the typical range of materials that are associated with each surficial geology unit on a litho-genetic basis, using the standard Alberta Geological Survey surficial geology legend. When multiple surficial geological units that contain sand and gravel are present within a single polygon (i.e. 60% eolian deposits and 40% fluvial deposits), MATERIAL reflects the unit with the greatest proportion. For geological units whose material properties are of marginal significance as a sand and gravel deposit, particularly those that contain a mixture of silt and sand, a hierarchy was used to determine whether they are included as sand and gravel deposits. Fluvial deposits, littoral and nearshore deposits, and eolian deposits with a silt textural modifier in the original mapping data were included as potential sand and/or gravel deposits because these units are often interspersed with sand and/or gravel materials. Glaciolacustrine deposits with a silt textural modifier were not included because this environment generally does not result in the deposition of extensive sand and gravel sediments. After all of the attributes had been updated, all polygons that may contain some component of sand or gravel were extracted from this dataset to create the sand and gravel potential for Alberta digital mosaic. With this dataset, users can view the extent of surficial sand and gravel deposits in the province in a single GIS layer without the need to interpret this information from a variety of legends in the original surficial geology datasets. Users can further highlight polygons that may represent more suitable targets for sand and gravel based on the estimated material type (i.e. by eliminating polygons that typically contain large amounts of silt and fine sand), the estimated proportion of sand and gravel within the polygon, and depositional environment. This dataset best portrays sand and gravel potential that occurs at the land surface or in the very near surface, and does not attempt evaluate the sub-surface distribution of sand and gravel units. This dataset also does not provide any direct assessment of aggregate quality or thickness, and the material information is mostly inferred from the general association between certain surficial material types and their geological, depositional environment. Furthermore, the sand and gravel potential dataset is based on surficial geology maps produced at different scales and using different legends, therefore the detail and amount of information provided by these polygons will exhibit regional variations. The mapping scale for each polygon is provided in the SCALE attribute.

Background: Malaria continues to pose a major public health challenge in tropical regions. Despite significant efforts to control malaria in Tanzania, there are still residual transmission cases. Unfortunately, little is known about where these residual malaria transmission cases occur and how they spread. In Tanzania, for example, the transmission is heterogeneously distributed. In order to effectively control and prevent the spread of malaria, it is essential to understand the spatial distribution and transmission patterns of the disease. This study seeks to predict areas that are at high risk of malaria transmission so that intervention measures can be developed to accelerate malaria elimination efforts.

Methods: This study employs a geospatial-based model to predict and map out malaria risk area in Kilombero Valley. Environmental factors related to malaria transmission were considered and assigned valuable weights in the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), an online system using a pairwise comparison technique. The malaria hazard map was generated by a weighted overlay of the altitude, slope, curvature, aspect, rainfall distribution, and distance to streams in Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Finally, the risk map was created by overlaying components of malaria risk including hazards, elements at risk, and vulnerability. Results: The study demonstrates that the majority of the study area falls under the moderate-risk level (61%), followed by the low-risk level (31%), while the high-malaria risk area covers a small area, which occupies only 8% of the total area. Conclusion: The findings of this study are crucial for developing spatially targeted interventions against malaria transmission in residual transmission settings. Predicted areas prone to malaria risk provide information that will inform decision-makers and policymakers for proper planning, monitoring, and deployment of interventions. Methods Data acquisition and description The study employed both primary and secondary data, which were collected from numerous sources based on the input required for the implementation of the predictive model. Data collected includes the locations of all public and private health centers that were downloaded free from the health portal of the United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly, and Children, through the universal resource locator (URL) (http://moh.go.tz/hfrportal/). Human population data was collected from the 2012 population housing census (PHC) for the United Republic of Tanzania report. Rainfall data were obtained from two local offices; Kilombero Agricultural Training and Research Institute (KATRIN) and Kilombero Valley Teak Company (KVTC). These offices collect meteorological data for agricultural purposes. Monthly data from 2012 to 2017 provided from thirteen (13) weather stations. Road and stream network shapefiles were downloaded free from the MapCruzin website via URL (https://mapcruzin.com/free-tanzania-arcgis-maps-shapefiles.htm). With respect to the size of the study area, five neighboring scenes of the Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS images (path/row: 167/65, 167/66, 167/67, 168/66 and 168/67) were downloaded freely from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) website via URL: http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov. From July to November 2017, the images were selected and downloaded from the USGS Earth Explorer archive based on the lowest amount of cloud cover coverage as viewed from the archive before downloading. Finally, the digital elevation data with a spatial resolution of three arc-seconds (90m by 90m) using WGS 84 datum and the Geographic Coordinate System were downloaded free from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) via URL (https://dds.cr.usgs.gov/srtm/version2_1/SRTM3/Africa/). Only six tiles that fall in the study area were downloaded, coded tiles as S08E035, S09E035, S10E035, S08E036, S09E036, S10E036, S08E037, S09E037 and S10E037. Preparation and Creation of Model Factor Parameters Creation of Elevation Factor All six coded tiles were imported into the GIS environment for further analysis. Data management tools, with raster/raster data set/mosaic to new raster feature, were used to join the tiles and form an elevation map layer. Using the spatial analyst tool/reclassify feature, the generated elevation map was then classified into five classes as 109–358, 359–530, 531–747, 748–1017 and >1018 m.a.s.l. and new values were assigned for each class as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively, with regards to the relationship with mosquito distribution and malaria risk. Finally, the elevation map based on malaria risk level is levelled as very high, high, moderate, low and very low respectively. Creation of Slope Factor A slope map was created from the generated elevation map layer, using a spatial analysis tool/surface/slope feature. Also, the slope raster layer was further reclassified into five subgroups based on predefined slope classes using standard classification schemes, namely quantiles as 0–0.58, 0.59–2.90, 2.91–6.40, 6.41–14.54 and >14.54. This classification scheme divides the range of attribute values into equal-sized sub-ranges, which allow specifying the number of the intervals while the system determines where the breaks should be. The reclassified slope raster layer subgroups were ranked 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 according to the degree of suitability for malaria incidence in the locality. To elaborate, the steeper slope values are related to lesser malaria hazards, and the gentler slopes are highly susceptible to malaria incidences. Finally, the slope map based on malaria risk level is leveled as very high, high, moderate, low and very low respectively. Creation of Curvature Factor Curvature is another topographical factor that was created from the generated elevation map using the spatial analysis tool/surface/curvature feature. The curvature raster layer was further reclassified into five subgroups based on predefined curvature class. The reclassified curvature raster layer subgroups were ranked to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 according to their degree of suitability for malaria occurrence. To explain, this affects the acceleration and deceleration of flow across the surface. A negative value indicates that the surface is upwardly convex, and flow will be decelerated, which is related to being highly susceptible to malaria incidences. A positive profile indicates that the surface is upwardly concave and the flow will be accelerated which is related to a lesser malaria hazard, while a value of zero indicates that the surface is linear and related to a moderate malaria hazard. Lastly, the curvature map based on malaria risk level is leveled as very high, high, moderate, low, and very low respectively.
Creation of Aspect Factor As a topographic factor associated with mosquito larval habitat formation, aspect determines the amount of sunlight an area receives. The more sunlight received the stronger the influence on temperature, which may affect mosquito larval survival. The aspect of the study area also was generated from the elevation map using spatial analyst tools/ raster /surface /aspect feature. The aspect raster layer was further reclassified into five subgroups based on predefined aspect class. The reclassified aspect raster layer subgroups were ranked as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 according to the degree of suitability for malaria incidence, and new values were re-assigned in order of malaria hazard rating. Finally, the aspect map based on malaria risk level is leveled as very high, high, moderate, low, and very low, respectively. Creation of Human Population Distribution Factor Human population data was used to generate a population distribution map related to malaria occurrence. Kilombero Valley has a total of 42 wards, the data was organized in Ms excel 2016 and imported into the GIS environment for the analysis, Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) interpolation in the spatial analyst tool was applied to interpolate the population distribution map. The population distribution map was further reclassified into five subgroups based on potential to malaria risk. The reclassified map layer subgroups were ranked according to the vulnerability to malaria incidence in the locality such as areas having high population having the highest vulnerability and the less population having less vulnerable, and the new value was assigned as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and then leveled as very high, high, moderate, low and very low malaria risk level, respectively. Creation of Proximity to Health Facilities Factor The distribution of health facilities has a significant impact on the malaria vulnerability of the population dwellings in the Kilombero Valley. The health facility layer was created by computing distance analysis using proximity multiple ring buffer features in spatial analyst tool/multiple ring buffer. Then the map layer was reclassified into five sub-layers such as within (0–5) km, (5.1–10) km, (10.1–20) km, (20.1–50) km and >50km. According to a WHO report, it is indicated that the human population who live nearby or easily accessible to health facilities is less vulnerable to malaria incidence than the ones who are very far from the health facilities due to the distance limitation for the health services. Later on, the new values were assigned as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and then reclassified as very high, high, moderate, low and very low malaria risk levels, respectively. Creation of Proximity to Road Network Factor The distance to the road network is also a significant factor, as it can be used as an estimation of the access to present healthcare facilities in the area. Buffer zones were calculated on the path of the road to determine the effect of the road on malaria prevalence. The road shapefile of the study area was inputted into GIS environment and spatial analyst tools / multiple ring buffer feature were used to generate five buffer zones with the

Geospatial data about Reclass light pollution. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

This file geodatabase includes the following individual layers:

Lake Bathymetric Contours: Contours lines corresponding to lake bathymetry, digitized from existing lake contour maps produced by the DNR Ecological Services Lake Mapping Unit. Use in combination with other Lake Bathymetric GIS products. Classify and label contour lines with depth values. Convert to polygons and calculate lake surface area for each depth interval. Overlay onto bathymetric DEM shaded relief image.

Lake Bathymetric Digital Elevation Model (DEM): A digital elevation model (DEM) representing lake bathymetry. Cell size is most often 5m, although 10m cells were used for some lakes to reduce grid file size. This grid contains one attribute DEPTH that represents lake depth in (negative) feet. Use in combination with other Lake Bathymetric GIS products. Reclassify DEM based on various depth intervals. Calculate zonal and neighborhood statistics. Derive slope surface. Model depth data with other cell-based parameters (e.g., slope, vegetation, substrate, chemistry) to predict habitat suitability, functional niches, etc. (Note: These raster analyses require Spatial Analyst or Arc Grid.)

Lake Bathymetric Outline: Lake outline as digitized from 1991-92 aerial photography (1m DOQ's). Use in combination with other Lake Bathymetric GIS products. Overlay onto bathymetric contour lines and bathymetric DEM shaded relief image.

Lake Bathymetric Metadata: Metadata for the Lake Bathymetry layers. Each lake is represented by a polygon. The polygon attributes contain information about when the bathymetry fieldwork was completed. This layer can be used to query for bathymetry created on or between certain dates, or to ascertain what date a particular lake was investigated. The dates are in a text field. Date formats vary from record to record.

This shapefile represents proposed management categories (Core, Priority, General, and Non-Habitat) derived from the intersection of habitat suitability categories and lek space use. Habitat suitability categories were derived from a composite, continuous surface of sage-grouse habitat suitability index (HSI) values for Nevada and northeastern California formed from the multiplicative product of the spring, summer, and winter HSI surfaces. Summary of steps to create Management Categories: HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX: The HSI was derived from a generalized linear mixed model (specified by binomial distribution and created using ArcGIS 10.2.2) that contrasted data from multiple environmental factors at used sites (telemetry locations) and available sites (random locations). Predictor variables for the model represented vegetation communities at multiple spatial scales, water resources, habitat configuration, urbanization, roads, elevation, ruggedness, and slope. Vegetation data was derived from various mapping products, which included NV SynthMap (Petersen 2008, SageStitch (Comer et al. 2002, LANDFIRE (Landfire 2010), and the CA Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP 2006). The analysis was updated to include high resolution percent cover within 30 x 30 m pixels for Sagebrush, non-sagebrush, herbaceous vegetation, and bare ground (C. Homer, unpublished; based on the methods of Homer et al. 2014, Xian et al. 2015 ) and conifer (primarily pinyon-juniper, P. Coates, unpublished). The pool of telemetry data included the same data from 1998 - 2013 used by Coates et al. (2014) as well as additional telemetry location data from field sites in 2014. The dataset was then split according to calendar date into three seasons. Spring included telemetry locations (n = 14,058) from mid-March to June; summer included locations (n = 11,743) from July to mid-October; winter included locations (n = 4862) from November to March. All age and sex classes of marked grouse were used in the analysis. Sufficient data (i.e., a minimum of 100 locations from at least 20 marked Sage-grouse) for modeling existed in 10 subregions for spring and summer, and seven subregions in winter, using all age and sex classes of marked grouse. It is important to note that although this map is composed of HSI values derived from the seasonal data, it does not explicitly represent habitat suitability for reproductive females (i.e., nesting and with broods). Insufficient data were available to allow for estimation of this habitat type for all seasons throughout the study area extent. A Resource Selection Function (RSF) was calculated for each subregion using R software (v 3.13) and season using generalized linear models to derive model-averaged parameter estimates for each covariate across a set of additive models. For each season, subregional RSFs were transformed into Habitat Suitability Indices, and averaged together to produce an overall statewide HSI whereby a relative probability of occurrence was calculated for each raster cell. The three seasonal HSI rasters were then multiplied to create a composite annual HSI. In order to account for discrepancies in HSI values caused by varying ecoregions within Nevada, the HSI was divided into north and south extents using a slightly modified flood region boundary (Mason 1999) that was designed to represent respective mesic and xeric regions of the state. North and south HSI rasters were each relativized according to their maximum value to rescale between zero and one, then mosaicked once more into a state-wide extent. HABITAT CATEGORIZATION: Using the same ecoregion boundaries described above, the habitat classification dataset (an independent data set comprising 10% of the total telemetry location sample) was split into locations falling within respective north and south regions. HSI values from the composite and relativized statewide HSI surface were then extracted to each classification dataset location within the north and south region. The distribution of these values were used to identify class break values corresponding to 0.5 (high), 1.0 (moderate), and 1.5 (low) standard deviations (SD) from the mean HSI. These class breaks were used to classify the HSI surface into four discrete categories of habitat suitability: High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat. In terms of percentiles, High habitat comprised greater than 30.9 % of the HSI values, Moderate comprised 15 – 30.9%, Low comprised 6.7 – 15%, and Non-Habitat comprised less than 6.7%.The classified north and south regions were then clipped by the boundary layer and mosaicked to create a statewide categorical surface for habitat selection. Each habitat suitability category was converted to a vector output where gaps within polygons less than 1.2 million square meters were eliminated, polygons within 500 meters of each other were connected to create corridors and polygons less than 1.2 million square meters in one category were incorporated to the adjacent category. The final step was to mask major roads that were buffered by 50m (Census, 2014), lakes (Peterson, 2008) and urban areas, and place those masked areas into the non-habitat category. The existing urban layer (Census 2010) was not sufficient for our needs because it excluded towns with a population lower than 1,500. Hence, we masked smaller towns (populations of 100 to 1500) and development with Census Block polygons (Census 2015) that had at least 50% urban development within their boundaries when viewed with reference imagery (ArcGIS World Imagery Service Layer). SPACE USE INDEX CALCULATION: Updated lek coordinates and associated trend count data were obtained from the 2015 Nevada Sage-grouse Lek Database compiled by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW, S. Espinosa, 9/20/2015). Leks count data from the California side of the Buffalo-Skedaddle and Modoc PMU's that contributed to the overall space-use model were obtained from the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA), and included count data up to 2014. We used NDOW data for border leks (n = 12), and WAFWA data for those fully in California and not consistently surveyed by NDOW. We queried the database for leks with a ‘LEKSTATUS’ field classified as ‘Active’ or ‘Pending’. Active leks comprised leks with breeding males observed within the last 5 years (through the 2014 breeding season). Pending leks comprised leks without consistent breeding activity during the prior 3 - 5 surveys or had not been surveyed during the past 5 years; these leks typically trended towards ‘inactive’, or newly discovered leks with at least 2 males. A sage-grouse management area (SGMA) was calculated by buffering Population Management Units developed by NDOW by 10km. This included leks from the Buffalo-Skedaddle PMU that straddles the northeastern California – Nevada border, but excluded leks for the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment. The 5-year average (2011 - 2015) for the number of male grouse (or NDOW classified 'pseudo-males' if males were not clearly identified but likely) attending each lek was calculated. Compared to the 2014 input lek dataset, 36 leks switched from pending to inactive, and 74 new leks were added for 2015 (which included pending ‘new’ leks with one year of counts. A total of 917 leks were used for space use index calculation in 2015 compared to 878 leks in 2014. Utilization distributions describing the probability of lek occurrence were calculated using fixed kernel density estimators (Silverman 1986) with bandwidths estimated from likelihood based cross-validation (CVh) (Horne and Garton 2006). UDs were weighted by the 5-year average (2011 - 2015) for the number of males grouse (or unknown gender if males were not identified) attending leks. UDs and bandwidths were calculated using Geospatial Modelling Environment (Beyer 2012) and the ‘ks’ package (Duong 2012) in Program R. Grid cell size was 30m. The resulting raster was re-scaled between zero and one by dividing by the maximum pixel value. The non-linear effect of distance to lek on the probability of grouse spatial use was estimated using the inverse of the utilization distribution curves described by Coates et al. (2013), where essentially the highest probability of grouse spatial use occurs near leks and then declines precipitously as a non-linear function. Euclidean distance was first calculated in ArcGIS, reclassified into 30-m distance bins (ranging from 0 - 30,000m), and bins reclassified according to the non-linear curve in Coates et al. (2013). The resulting raster was re-scaled between zero and one by dividing by the maximum cell value. A Spatial Use Index (SUI) was calculated by taking the average of the lek utilization distribution and non-linear distance-to-lek rasters in ArcGIS, and re-scaled between zero and one by dividing by the maximum cell value. The volume of the SUI at cumulative at specific isopleths was extracted in Geospatial Modelling Environment (Beyer 2012) with the command ‘isopleth’. Interior polygons (i.e., donuts’ > 1.2 km2) representing no probability of use within a larger polygon of use were erased from each isopleth. The 85% isopleth, which provided greater spatial connectivity and consistency with previously used agency standards (e.g., Doherty et al. 2010), was ultimately recommended by the Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. The 85% SUI isopleth was clipped by the Nevada state boundary. MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES: The process for category determination was directed by the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical team. Sage-grouse habitat was categorized into 4 classes: High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat as described above, and intersected with the space use index to form the following management categories . 1) Core habitat: Defined as the intersection between all suitable habitat (High, Moderate, and Low) and the 85% Space Use Index (SUI). 2) Priority habitat: Defined as all high quality habitat

Dataset description: This repository contains data pertaining to the manuscript "Mawrth Vallis, Mars, classified using the NOAH-H deep-learning terrain classification system." submitted to Journal of Maps. NOAH-H Mosaics: Mawrth_Vallis_NOAHH_Mosaic_DC_IG_25cm4bit_20230121_reclass.zip This folder contain mosaics of terrain classifications for Mawrth Vallis, Mars, made by the Novelty or Anomaly Hunter - HiRISE (NOAH-H) deep learning convolutional neural network developed for the European Space Agency (ESA) by SCISYS Ltd. In coordination with the Open University Planetary Environments Group. These folders contain the NOAH-H mosaics, as well as ancillary files needed to display the NOAH-H products in geographic information software (GIS). Included are two large raster datasets, containing the NOAH-H classification for the entire study area. One uses the 14 descriptive classes of the terrain, and the other with the five interpretative groups (Barrett et al., 2022). · Mawrth_Vallis_NOAHH_Mosaic_DC_25cm4bit_20230121_reclass.tif Contains the full 14 class “Descriptive Classes” (DC) dataset, reclassified so that pixel values reflect the original NOAH-H ontology, and not the priority rankings described in Wright et al., (2022) and Barrett et al., (2022b). It is accompanied by all auxiliary files required to view the data in GIS. · Mawrth_Vallis_NOAHH_Mosaic_IG_25cm4bit_20230121_reclass.tif Contains the 5 class “Interpretive Groups” (IG) dataset, reclassified so that pixel values reflect the original NOAH-H ontology, and not the priority rankings described in Wright et al., (2022) and Barrett et al., (2022b). It is accompanied by all auxiliary files required to view the data in GIS. Symbology layer files: NOAH-H_Symbology.zip This folder contains GIS layer file and colour map files for both the Descriptive Classes (DC) and interpretive Groups (IG) versions of the classification. These can be applied to the data using the symbology options in GIS. Georeferencing Control points: Mawrth_Vallis_Final_Control_Points.zip This file contains the control points used to georeferenced the 26 individual HiRISE images which make up the mosaic. These allow publicly available HiRISE images to be aligned to the terrain in Mawrth Vallis, and thus the NOAH-H Mosaic. Twenty-six 25 cm/pixel HiRISE images of Mawrth Vallis were used as input for NOAH-H. These are:

PSP_002140_2025_RED

PSP_002074_2025_RED

ESP_057351_2020_RED

ESP_053909_2025_RED

ESP_053698_2025_RED

ESP_052274_2025_RED

ESP_051931_2025_RED

ESP_051351_2025_RED

ESP_051219_2030_RED

ESP_050217_2025_RED

ESP_046960_2025_RED

ESP_046670_2025_RED

ESP_046525_2025_RED

ESP_046459_2025_RED

ESP_046314_2025_RED

ESP_045536_2025_RED

ESP_045114_2025_RED

ESP_044903_2025_RED

ESP_043782_2025_RED

ESP_043637_2025_RED

ESP_038758_2025_RED

ESP_037795_2025_RED

ESP_037294_2025_RED

ESP_036872_2025_RED

ESP_036582_2025_RED

ESP_035804_2025_RED NOAH-H produced corresponding 25 cm/pixel rasters where each pixel is assigned a terrain class based on the corresponding pixels in the input HiRISE image. To mosaic the NOAH-H rasters together, first the input HiRISE images were georeferenced to the HRSC basemap (HMC_11E10_co5) tile, using CTX images as an intermediate step. High order (spline, in ArcGIS Pro 3.0) transformations were used to make the HiRISE images georeference closely onto the target layers. Once the HiRISE images were georeferenced, the same control points and transformations were applied to the corresponding NOAH-H rasters. To mosaic the georeferenced NOAH-H rasters the pixel values for the classes needed to be changed so that more confidently identified, and more dangerous, classes made it into the mosaic (see dataset manuscript for details. To produce a HiRISE layer which fits the NOAH-H classification, download one of the listed HiRISE images from https://www.uahirise.org/, Select the corresponding control point file from this archive and apply a spline transformation through the GIS georeferencing toolbar. Manually Mapped Aeolian Bedforms: Mawrth_Manual_TARs.zip The manually mapped data was produced by Fawdon, independently of the NOAH-H project, as an assessment of “Aeolian Hazard” at Mawrth Vallis. This was done to inform the ExoMars landing site selection process. This file contains two GIS shape files, containing the manually mapped bedforms for both the entire mapping area, and the HiRISE image ESP_046459_2025_RED where the two datasets were compared on a pixel scale. The full manual map is offset slightly from the NOAH-H, since it was digitised from bespoke HiRISE orthomosaics, rather than from the publicly available HiRISE Red band images. It is suitable for comparison to the NOAH-H data with 100m-1km aggregation as in figure 8 of the associated paper. It is not suitable for pixel scale comparison. The map of ESP_046459_2025_RED was manually georeferenced to the NOAH-H mosaic, allowing for direct pixel to pixel comparisons, as presented in figure 6 of the associated paper. Two GIS shape files are included: · Mawrth_Manual_TARs_ESP_046459_2025.shp · Mawrth_Manual_TARs_all.shp Containing the high fidelity data for ESP_046459_2025, and the medium fidelity data for the entire area respectively. The are accompanied by ancillary files needed to view them in GIS. Gridded Density Statistics This dataset contains gridded density maps of Transverse Aeolian Ridges and Boulders, as classified by the Novelty or Anomaly Hunter – HiRISE (NOAH-H). The area covered is the runner up candidate ExoMars landing site in Mawrth Vallis, Mars. These are the data shown in figures; 7, 8, and S1. Files are presented for every classified ripple and boulder class, as well as for thematic groups. These are presented as .shp GIS shapefiles, along with all auxiliary files required to view them in GIS. Gridded Density stats are available in two zip folders, one for NOAH-H predicted density, and one for manually mapped density. NOAH-H Predicted Density: Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_TAR_Boulder_Density.zip Individual classes are found in the files: · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_8TARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_9TARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_11TARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_12TARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_13TARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_Boulders.shp Where the text following Grid denotes the NOAH-H classes represented, and the landform classified. E.g. 8TARs = NOAH-H TAR class 8. The following thematic groups are also included: · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_8_11continuousTARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_12_13discontinuousTARs · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_8_10largeTARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_11_13smallTARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_8_13AllTARs.shp When the numbers denote the range of NOAH-H classes which were aggregated to produce the map, followed by a description of the thematic group: “continuous”, “discontinuous”, “large”, “small”, “all”. Manually Mapped Density Plots: Mawrth_Manual_1km_Grid.zip These GIS shapefiles have the same format as the NOAH-H classified ones. Three datasets are presented for all TARs (“_allTARs”), Continuous TARs (“_con”) and Discontinuous TARs (“_dis”) · Mawrth_Manual_1km_Grid_AllTARs.shp · Mawrth_Manual_1km_Grid_Con.shp · Mawrth_Manual_1km_Grid_Dis.shp Related public datasets: The HiRISE images discussed in this work are publicly available from https://www.uahirise.org/. and are credited to NASA/JPL/University of Arizona. HRSC images are credited to the European Space Agency; Mars Express mission team, German Aerospace Center (DLR), and the Freie Universität Berlin (FUB). They are available at the ESA Planetary Science Archive (PSA) https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/psa/mars-express and are used under the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO licence. SPATIAL DATA COORDINATE SYSTEM INFORMATION All NOAH-H files and derivative density plots have the same projected coordinate system: “Equirectangular Mars” - Projection: Plate Carree - Sphere radius: 3393833.2607584 m SOFTWARE INFORMATION All GIS workflows (georeferencing, mosaicking) were conducted in ArcGIS Pro 3.0. NOAH-H is a deep learning semantic segmentation software developed by SciSys Ltd for the European Space Agency to aid preparation for the ExoMars rover mission.

This land cover map of Dakar (Senegal) was created from a Pléiades very-high resolution imagery with a spatial resolution of 0.5 meter. The methodology followed a open-source semi-automated framework [1] that rely on GRASS GIS using a local unsupervised optimization approach for the segmentation part [2-3].

Description of the files:

"Landcover.zip" : The direct output from the supervised classification using the Random Forest classifier.

"Landcover_Postclassif_Level8_Splitbuildings.zip" : Post-processed version of the previous map ("Landcover"), with reduced misclassifications from the original classification (rule-based used to reclassify the errors, with a focus on built-up classes).

"Landcover_Postclassif_Level8_modalfilter3.zip" : Smoothed version of the previous product (modal filter with window 3x3 applied on the "Landcover_Postclassif_Level8_Splitbuildings").

"Landcover_Postclassif_Level9_Shadowsback.zip" : Corresponds to the "level8_Splitbuildings" with shadows coming from the original classification.

"Dakar_legend_colors.txt" : Text file providing the correspondance between the value of the pixels and the legend labels and a proposition of color to be used.

References:

[1] Grippa, Taïs, Moritz Lennert, Benjamin Beaumont, Sabine Vanhuysse, Nathalie Stephenne, and Eléonore Wolff. 2017. “An Open-Source Semi-Automated Processing Chain for Urban Object-Based Classification.” Remote Sensing 9 (4): 358. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9040358.

[2] Grippa, Tais, Stefanos Georganos, Sabine G. Vanhuysse, Moritz Lennert, and Eléonore Wolff. 2017. “A Local Segmentation Parameter Optimization Approach for Mapping Heterogeneous Urban Environments Using VHR Imagery.” In Proceedings Volume 10431, Remote Sensing Technologies and Applications in Urban Environments II., edited by Wieke Heldens, Nektarios Chrysoulakis, Thilo Erbertseder, and Ying Zhang, 20. SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2278422.

[3] Georganos, Stefanos, Taïs Grippa, Moritz Lennert, Sabine Vanhuysse, and Eleonore Wolff. 2017. “SPUSPO: Spatially Partitioned Unsupervised Segmentation Parameter Optimization for Efficiently Segmenting Large Heterogeneous Areas.” In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Big Data from Space (BiDS’17).

Founding:

This dataset was produced in the frame of two research project : MAUPP (http://maupp.ulb.ac.be) and REACT (http://react.ulb.be), funded by the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office (BELSPO).

Please note that this dataset is not an official City of Toronto land use dataset. It was created for personal and academic use using City of Toronto Land Use Maps (2019) found on the City of Toronto Official Plan website at https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-guidelines/official-plan/official-plan-maps-copy, along with the City of Toronto parcel fabric (Property Boundaries) found at https://open.toronto.ca/dataset/property-boundaries/ and Statistics Canada Census Dissemination Blocks level boundary files (2016). The property boundaries used were dated November 11, 2021. Further detail about the City of Toronto's Official Plan, consolidation of the information presented in its online form, and considerations for its interpretation can be found at https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-guidelines/official-plan/ Data Creation Documentation and Procedures Software Used The spatial vector data were created using ArcGIS Pro 2.9.0 in December 2021. PDF File Conversions Using Adobe Acrobat Pro DC software, the following downloaded PDF map images were converted to TIF format. 9028-cp-official-plan-Map-14_LandUse_AODA.pdf 9042-cp-official-plan-Map-22_LandUse_AODA.pdf 9070-cp-official-plan-Map-20_LandUse_AODA.pdf 908a-cp-official-plan-Map-13_LandUse_AODA.pdf 978e-cp-official-plan-Map-17_LandUse_AODA.pdf 97cc-cp-official-plan-Map-15_LandUse_AODA.pdf 97d4-cp-official-plan-Map-23_LandUse_AODA.pdf 97f2-cp-official-plan-Map-19_LandUse_AODA.pdf 97fe-cp-official-plan-Map-18_LandUse_AODA.pdf 9811-cp-official-plan-Map-16_LandUse_AODA.pdf 982d-cp-official-plan-Map-21_LandUse_AODA.pdf Georeferencing and Reprojecting Data Files The original projection of the PDF maps is unknown but were most likely published using MTM Zone 10 EPSG 2019 as per many of the City of Toronto's many datasets. They could also have possibly been published in UTM Zone 17 EPSG 26917 The TIF images were georeferenced in ArcGIS Pro using this projection with very good results. The images were matched against the City of Toronto's Centreline dataset found here The resulting TIF files and their supporting spatial files include: TOLandUseMap13.tfwx TOLandUseMap13.tif TOLandUseMap13.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap13.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap14.tfwx TOLandUseMap14.tif TOLandUseMap14.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap14.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap15.tfwx TOLandUseMap15.tif TOLandUseMap15.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap15.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap16.tfwx TOLandUseMap16.tif TOLandUseMap16.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap16.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap17.tfwx TOLandUseMap17.tif TOLandUseMap17.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap17.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap18.tfwx TOLandUseMap18.tif TOLandUseMap18.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap18.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap19.tif TOLandUseMap19.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap19.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap20.tfwx TOLandUseMap20.tif TOLandUseMap20.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap20.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap21.tfwx TOLandUseMap21.tif TOLandUseMap21.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap21.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap22.tfwx TOLandUseMap22.tif TOLandUseMap22.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap22.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap23.tfwx TOLandUseMap23.tif TOLandUseMap23.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap23.tif.ov Ground control points were saved for all georeferenced images. The files are the following: map13.txt map14.txt map15.txt map16.txt map17.txt map18.txt map19.txt map21.txt map22.txt map23.txt The City of Toronto's Property Boundaries shapefile, "property_bnds_gcc_wgs84.zip" were unzipped and also reprojected to EPSG 26917 (UTM Zone 17) into a new shapefile, "Property_Boundaries_UTM.shp" Mosaicing Images Once georeferenced, all images were then mosaiced into one image file, "LandUseMosaic20211220v01", within the project-generated Geodatabase, "Landuse.gdb" and exported TIF, "LandUseMosaic20211220.tif" Reclassifying Images Because the original images were of low quality and the conversion to TIF made the image colours even more inconsistent, a method was required to reclassify the images so that different land use classes could be identified. Using Deep learning Objects, the images were re-classified into useful consistent colours. Deep Learning Objects and Training The resulting mosaic was then prepared for reclassification using the Label Objects for Deep Learning tool in ArcGIS Pro. A training sample, "LandUseTrainingSamples20211220", was created in the geodatabase for all land use types as follows: Neighbourhoods Insitutional Natural Areas Core Employment Areas Mixed Use Areas Apartment Neighbourhoods Parks Roads Utility Corridors Other Open Spaces General Employment Areas Regeneration Areas Lettering (not a land use type, but an image colour (black), used to label streets). By identifying the letters, it then made the reclassification and vectorization results easier to clean up of unnecessary clutter caused by the labels of streets. Reclassification Once the training samples were created and saved, the raster was then reclassified using the Image Classification Wizard tool in ArcGIS Pro, using the Support...

Flood is the most devastating and prevalent disaster among all-natural disasters. Every year, flood claims hundreds of human lives and causes damage to the worldwide economy and environment. Consequently, the identification of flood-vulnerable areas is important for comprehensive flood risk management. The main objective of this study is to delineate flood-prone areas in the Panjkora River Basin (PRB), eastern Hindu Kush, Pakistan. An initial extensive field survey and interpretation of Landsat-7 and Google Earth images identified 154 flood locations that were inundated in 2010 floods. Of the total, 70% of flood locations were randomly used for building a model and 30% were used for validation of the model. Eight flood parameters including slope, elevation, land use, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), topographic wetness index (TWI), drainage density, and rainfall were used to map the flood-prone areas in the study region. The relative frequency ratio was used to determine the correlation between each class of flood parameter and flood occurrences. All of the factors were resampled into a pixel size of 30×30 m and were reclassified through the natural break method. Finally, a final hazard map was prepared and reclassified into five classes, i.e., very low, low, moderate, high, very high susceptibility. The results of the model were found reliable with area under curve values for success and prediction rate of 82.04% and 84.74%, respectively. The findings of this study can play a key role in flood hazard management in the target region; they can be used by the local disaster management authority, researchers, planners, local government, and line agencies dealing with flood risk management.

This data layer is a compilation of the MUPOLYGON feature class, muaggatt table and component table of the Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) Database for Maryland. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Under the direction of the Watershed Resources Registry (WRR) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) this data has been altered from its original state. A reclassification of the hydric classification field was performed which classifies all soil map units consisting of less that 40% total hydric soils as not hydric, all soil map units from 41% - 79% as partially hydric and all soil map units 80% and greater as hydric. This reclassification was performed to provide a more refined input for modeling purposes. A full version of this database is available at: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/.This is a MD iMAP hosted service layer. Find more information at https://imap.maryland.gov.Feature Service Layer Link:https://mdgeodata.md.gov/imap/rest/services/Geoscientific/MD_Geology/MapServer/2**Please note, due to the size of this dataset, you may receive an error message when trying to download the dataset. You can download this dataset directly from MD iMAP Services at: https://mdgeodata.md.gov/imap/rest/services/Geoscientific/MD_Geology/MapServer/exts/MDiMAPDataDownload/customLayers/2**

This dataset has been deprecated. Please see 2017 Countywide LiDAR Point Cloud for more information.Industry standard .las LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) classified points. This LiDAR data was collected using Leica's ALS50 Phase I sensor. The raw data was verified in Merrick and Company's LiDAR software (MARS) for complete coverage of the project area, and boresighted to align the flightlines. Raw data files were parsed into manageable client-specific tiles. These tiles were then processed through automated filtering that separates the data into different classification groups: unclassified points, ground points, breakline proximity points, "noise" points and water. The data was next taken into MARS to reclassify the erroneous points that may remain in the LiDAR point cloud after auto-filter.The horizontal datum used is the North American 1983 HARN. The vertical datum is the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. The projection is Illinois State Plane, Eastern Zone, using US Survey Feet as units.

This layer represents an estimate of the footprint of human settlement in 2020. It is intended as a fast-drawing cartographic layer to augment base maps and to focus a map reader's attention on the location of human population. This layer is not intended for analysis.This layer was derived from the 2020 slice of the WorldPop Population Density 2000-2020 100m and 1km layers. WorldPop modeled this population footprint based on imagery datasets and population data from national statistical organizations and the United Nations. Zooming in to very large scales will often show discrepancies between reality and this or any model. Like all data sources imagery and population counts are subject to many types of error, thus this gridded footprint contains errors of omission and commission. The imagery base maps available in ArcGIS Online were not used in WorldPop's model. Imagery only informs the model of characteristics that indicate a potential for settlement, and cannot intrinsically indicate whether any or how many people live in a building. Also see the Urban Density Footprint layer, which like this layer, is intended to provide a fast-drawing cartographic context for urban populations.The following processing steps were used to produce this layer in ArcGIS Pro:1. Int tool (Spatial Analyst) to truncate double precision values; all values less than 0.99 become 0.2. Reclassify tool (Spatial Analyst) to set values 0 through 14 to NoData (Null) and all other values become 1. The figure of 14 was empirically derived as a good balance between reducing errors of commission, i.e., false-positive cells with lower values, while not introducing errors of omission by eliminating obviously populated cells.3. Copy Raster tool with Output Coordinate System environment set to Web Mercator, bit depth to 1 bit, and NoData Value to 0.Source:WorldPop Population Density 2000-2020 100m, which is created from WorldPop (www.worldpop.org - School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton; Department of Geography and Geosciences, University of Louisville; Departement de Geographie, Universite de Namur) and Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University (2018). Global High Resolution Population Denominators Project - Funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The DOI for the original WorldPop.org total population population data is 10.5258/SOTON/WP00645.

Data Source: KYEM 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan - LandslidesA statewide landslide susceptibility model was developed in ArcGIS using two map layers: geology and slope. The geology and slope maps (raster images) were reclassified based on a matrix of weighted scores that were assigned to particular geologic formations and ranges of slope values (Table 2-5). The weighted score for slope doubled with each increasing slope range. The weighted score for the geology ranged from 10 to 40 depending on the rock type. Using the ArcGIS Weighted Sum tool, the newly reclassified values of both raster map layers were multiplied by an assigned weight and then values for both layers were added together (Eq. 2-1). In order to have slope be a greater influence on the susceptibility model, a 70 percent weight was assigned for slope and a 30 percent weight was assigned for geology.

Eq. 2-1 (geology reclass value × 0.30) + (slope reclass value × 0.70) = landslide susceptibility value

Using the summed cell values from the two layers, landslide susceptibility was manually classified into low, moderate, and high categories (Fig. 2-8). Classification was made by visually inspecting the map and by determining the distribution of existing landslides cataloged in the Kentucky Geological Survey inventory.