One important reason for performing GIS analysis is to determine proximity. Often, this type of analysis is done using vector data and possibly the Buffer or Near tools. In this course, you will learn how to calculate distance using raster datasets as inputs in order to assign cells a value based on distance to the nearest source (e.g., city, campground). You will also learn how to allocate cells to a particular source and to determine the compass direction from a cell in a raster to a source.What if you don't want to just measure the straight line from one place to another? What if you need to determine the best route to a destination, taking speed limits, slope, terrain, and road conditions into consideration? In cases like this, you could use the cost distance tools in order to assign a cost (such as time) to each raster cell based on factors like slope and speed limit. From these calculations, you could create a least-cost path from one place to another. Because these tools account for variables that could affect travel, they can help you determine that the shortest path may not always be the best path.After completing this course, you will be able to:Create straight-line distance, direction, and allocation surfaces.Determine when to use Euclidean and weighted distance tools.Perform a least-cost path analysis.

This dataset was created in ArcGIS and provides the direct distance from all grid cell points of the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone (adjacent to the mainland) to the Australian coastline. The distance measured is in decimal degrees and meters.

The distance to the coastline is likely to reflect some degree of exposure to a wave/current regime. The proximity to land is also likely to reflect the potential influence of river discharge (sediment and fresh water), wind blown dust, and anthropogenic pollutants.

You can also purchase hard copies of Geoscience Australia data and other products at http://www.ga.gov.au/products-services/how-to-order-products/sales-centre.html

Portions of the world's interior, such as central Asia are extremely secluded from the ocean and are more than 2,000 km from the nearest coast. Distance to coast can be used in asset management and modeling project costs. Phenomenon Mapped: Distance to coastUnits: KilometersCell Size: 655.9259912 metersSource Type: DiscretePixel Type: Signed integerSpatial Reference: World Equidistant CylindricalMosaic Projection: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereExtent: GlobalSource: EsriPublication Date: 2015ArcGIS Server URL: https://oceans2.arcgis.com/arcgis/The Distance to Coast layer was calculated by Esri using the Euclidean Distance Tool in ArcMap and the Esri Country Boundaries layer.What can you do with this layer?Visualization: This layer can be used for visualization online in web maps and in ArcGIS Desktop.Analysis: This layer can be used as an input to geoprocessing tools and model builder.Raster Functions: Unit Conversion – kilometers to miles, Unit Conversion - kilometers to nautical miles, Cartographic Renderer, and Classified Renderer.This layer is part of the Living Atlas of the World that provides access to thousands of beautiful and authoritative layers, web maps, and apps.

This packaged data collection contains two sets of two additional model runs that used the same inputs and parameters as our primary model, with the exception being we implemented a "maximum corridor length" constraint that allowed us to identify and visualize the corridors as being well-connected (≤15km) or moderately connected (≤45km). This is based on an assumption that corridors longer than 45km are too long to sufficiently accommodate dispersal. One of these sets is based on a maximum corridor length that uses Euclidean (straight-line) distance, while the other set is based on a maximum corridor length that uses cost-weighted distance. These two sets of corridors can be compared against the full set of corridors from our primary model to identify the remaining corridors, which could be considered poorly connected. This package includes the following data layers: Corridors classified as well connected (≤15km) based on Cost-weighted Distance Corridors classified as moderately connected (≤45km) based on Cost-weighted Distance Corridors classified as well connected (≤15km) based on Euclidean Distance Corridors classified as moderately connected (≤45km) based on Euclidean Distance Please refer to the embedded metadata and the information in our full report for details on the development of these data layers. Packaged data are available in two formats: Geodatabase (.gdb): A related set of file geodatabase rasters and feature classes, packaged in an ESRI file geodatabase. ArcGIS Pro Map Package (.mpkx): The same data included in the geodatabase, presented as fully-symbolized layers in a map. Note that you must have ArcGIS Pro version 2.0 or greater to view. See Cross-References for links to individual datasets, which can be downloaded in raster GeoTIFF (.tif) format.

This dataset consist of inputs and intermediate results from the coastal scenario modelling. It is an analysis of the bio-physical factors that best explain the changes in QLUMP land use change between 1999 and 2009 along the Queensland coastal region for the classifications used in the future coastal modelling.

Methods:

The input layers (variables etc) were produced using a range of sources as shown in Table 1. Source datasets were edited to produce raster dataset at 50m resolution and reclassified to suit the needs for the analysis.

The analysis was made using the IDRISI Land Use Change Modeler using multi-layer perceptron neural network with explanatory power of bio-physical variables. In this process a range of bio-physical layers such as slope, rainfall, distance to roads etc (see full list in Table 1) are used as potential explanatory variables for the changes in the land use. The neutral network is trained on a subset of the data then tested against the remaining data, thereby giving an estimate of the accuracy of the prediction. This analysis produces suitability maps for each of the transitions between different land use classifications, along with a ranking of the important bio-physical factors for explaining the changes.

The 1999 - 2009 Land use change was analysed with of which 4 were found to be the strongest predictors of the change for various transitions between one land use and another. This dataset includes the rasters of the 4 best predictors along with a sample of the highest accuracy transition probability maps.

Format:

Table 1 (Table 1 NERP 9_4 e-atlas dataset) This table contains the list of names, short descriptions, data source and data manipulation for the input rasters for the land use change model

All GIS files are in GDA 94 Albers Australia coordinate system.

1999.tif This layer shows a rasterised form of the QLUMP land use (clipped to the GBR coastal zone as defined in 9.4) for 1999 used for analysis of bio-physical predictors of land use change. The original QLUMP data was re-classified into 18 classes then rasterised at 50m resolution. This raster was then resampled to a 500m resolution.

2009.tif This layer shows a rasterised form of the QLUMP land use (clipped to the GBR coastal zone as defined in 9.4) for 2009 used for analysis of bio-physical predictors of land use change. The original QLUMP data was re-classified into 18 classes (with addition of tourism land use) then rasterised at 50m resolution. This raster was then resampled to a 500m resolution.

Rainfall.rst This layer shows the average annual rainfall (in mm) sourced from the Average Yearly Rainfall Isohyets Queensland dataset (clipped to the GBR coastal zone as defined in 9.4) used for analysis of bio-physical predictors of land use change. The data was re-classified and resampled at 50m resolution.

Slope.rst This layer shows the slope (in degrees) value at 50m pixel resolution (clipped to the GBR coastal zone as defined in 9.4) used for analysis of bio-physical predictors of land use change. The slope was derived from the Australian Digital Elevation Model in ArcGIS (using the Slope tool of the 3D analyst Tools) at a 200m resolution. The data was resampled at 50m resolution.

SeaDist.rst This layer shows the distance (in m) to the nearest coastline (including estuaries) at 50m pixel resolution used for analysis of bio-physical predictors of land use change. It was created by applying an Euclidean distance function (in ArcGIS in the Spatial Analyst toolbox) to the “Mainland coastline” feature in the GBR features dataset available from GBRMPA.

UrbanDist.rst This layer shows the distance (in m) to the nearest pixel of urban land use at 50m pixel resolution used for analysis of bio-physical predictors of land use change. It was created by applying an Euclidean distance function (in ArcGIS in the Spatial Analyst toolbox) to the QLUMP 2009 dataset on the selected urban polygons.

Transition_potential_Other_to_DryHorticulture.rst This layer shows the probability for each pixel (50m resolution) of the coastal to transition from the land use class Other to Rain-fed Horticulture. Areas originally of a different land use class are given no values. This was produced by analysing the patterns of land use change between 1999 and 2009 in IRDISI as part of the Land Use Change Modeler where the main bio-physical variables affecting the pattern of change were identified. See details in the model results file. A high accuracy rate of 92% was calculated during testing.

Land Change Modeler MLP Model Results_Rain-fed_horticulture.docx This shows the results of the analysis of change from land use Others to rain-fed horticulture between 1999 and 2009 using four variables: Distance to existing horticulture, Rainfall, Soil type and Slope.

Transition_potential_Other_to_Drysugar.rst This layer shows the probability for each pixel (50m resolution) of the coastal to transition from the land use class Other to Rain-fed Sugar cane. Areas originally of a different land use class are given no values. This was produced by analysing the patterns of land use change between 1999 and 2009 in IRDISI as part of the Land Use Change Modeler where the main bio-physical variables affecting the pattern of change were identified. See details in the model results file. A high accuracy rate of 84% was calculated during testing.

Land Change Modeler MLP Model Results_Rain-fed_sugar.docx This shows the results of the analysis of change from land use Others to rain-fed sugar between 1999 and 2009 using three variables: Rainfall, Soil type and Slope.

Transition_potential_Other_to_Forestry.rst This layer shows the probability for each pixel (50m resolution) of the coastal to transition from the land use class Other to Forestry. Areas originally of a different land use class are given no values. This was produced by analysing the patterns of land use change between 1999 and 2009 in IRDISI as part of the Land Use Change Modeler where the main bio-physical variables affecting the pattern of change were identified. See details in the model results file. A good accuracy rate of 73% was calculated during testing.

Land Change Modeler MLP Model Results_Forestry.docx This shows the results of the analysis of change from land use Others to Forestry between 1999 and 2009 using three variables: Rainfall, Soil type and Proximity to existing forestry.

Transition_potential_Other_to_Urban.rst This layer shows the probability for each pixel (50m resolution) of the coastal to transition from the land use class Other to Urban. Areas originally of a different land use class are given no values. This was produced by analysing the patterns of land use change between 1999 and 2009 in IRDISI as part of the Land Use Change Modeler where the main bio-physical variables affecting the pattern of change were identified. See details in the model results file. A good accuracy rate of 75% was calculated during testing.

Land Change Modeler MLP Model Results_Urban.docx This shows the results of the analysis of change from land use Others to Urban between 1999 and 2009 using two variables: Slope and Proximity to existing urban areas.

Dataset Summary This dataset focuses on the spatiotemporal evolution and driving mechanisms of cultivated land resources in Nanzhang County, Hubei Province, from 2000 to 2023. It includes multi-source geospatial data and attribute data, aiming to provide data support for cultivated land protection, territorial spatial planning, and sustainable development in mountain-plain transition zones. Dataset Content: 1. Land use data: Six phases (2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2023) of land use raster data (30-meter resolution), covering 6 major land types such as cultivated land, forest land, and construction land, sourced from the Resource and Environment Science Data Platform (http://www.resdc.cn). 2. Driving factor data: 10 key indicators, including natural elements (elevation, slope, annual precipitation, etc.) and socioeconomic elements (population density, GDP, distance to highways, etc.), obtained from public data sources such as the National Geographical Information Resource Directory Service System, World Soil Database, and Geospatial Data Cloud Platform. 3. Auxiliary data: Vector boundaries of administrative divisions, township-level dynamic degree of cultivated land change, grid-cell data on cultivated land increase and decrease, etc. Data Values and Structure: The data are mainly in raster (.tif) and vector (.shp) formats. After preprocessing such as coordinate unification (WGS84), resolution standardization (30 meters), and Euclidean distance analysis, they can be directly used for spatial overlay, PLUS model simulation, and other analyses.Reuse Potential: It is applicable to fields such as land use change simulation, analysis of cultivated land driving mechanisms, and research on coordination between ecological protection and food security, providing reference data for land management in similar mountain-plain transition zones.Legal and Ethical Considerations: All data are obtained from public platforms, comply with map usage specifications such as GS (2016) 1600, have no copyright restrictions, do not involve personal privacy or sensitive information, and can be reused under the CC BY 4.0 license. Methods Section 1. Data Collection: - Land use data and administrative division data were obtained from the Resource and Environment Science Data Platform, with secondary land types merged into 6 major dominant types. - Natural driving factors (e.g., DEM, slope) were sourced from the Geospatial Data Cloud Platform; climate data (temperature, precipitation) were obtained from the National Tibetan Plateau Data Center; socioeconomic factors (population, GDP) and infrastructure data (highways, government residences) were derived from the National Geographical Information Resource Directory Service System. 2. Data Processing: - Geographic coordinate systems and projection parameters were unified in ArcGIS 10.8, and raster data were standardized to 30-meter resolution through resampling. - For vector data such as transportation networks and water bodies, Euclidean distance algorithms were used to generate continuous distance factor raster layers. - Multiple rounds of verification were conducted on the consistency of spatiotemporal resolution and coordinate unity to ensure data comparability and model adaptability (meeting the simulation requirements of the PLUS model).

Brief Methods: In version 2 of the Sierra Nevada Multi-source Meadow Polygons Compilation, polygon boundaries from the original layer (SNMMPC_v1 - https://meadows.ucdavis.edu/data/4) were updated using ‘heads-up’ digitization from high-resolution (1m) NAIP imagery. In version 1, only polygons larger than one acre were retained in the published layer. In version 2, existing polygon boundaries were split, reduced in size, or merged, and additional polygons not captured in the original layer were digitized. If split, original IDs from version 1 were retained for one half and a new ID was created for the other half. In instances where adjacent meadows were merged together, only one ID was retained and the unused ID was “decommissioned”. If digitized, a new sequential ID was assigned. AcknowledgementsTim Lindemann, Dave Weixelman, Carol Clark, Stacey Mikulovsky, Qiqi Jiang, Joel Grapentine, Kirk Evans - USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Wes Kitlasten - U.S. Geological Survey Sarah Yarnell, Ryan Peek, Nick Santos - UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences Anna Fryjoff-Hung - UC Merced Meadow Polygon Attributes Field DescriptionAREA_ACRE Meadow area in acresSTATE State in which the meadow is located (CA or NV)ID* Unique meadow identifier UCDSNMxxxxxx*Note: IDs are non-sequential* HUC12 Unique identifier for the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC), level 12, in which the meadow is locatedOWNERSHIP Land ownership status (multiple sources)EDGE_COMPLEXITY Gives an indication of the meadow's exposure to external conditions EDGE COMPLEXITY = (MEADOWperimeter/EAC perimeter) [EAC = Equal Area Circle]DOM_ROCKTYPE Dominant rock type on which the meadow is located based on the USGS layerVEG_MAJORITY Vegetation majority based on the LANDFIRE layer (GROUPVEG attribute)SOIL_SURVEY Soil survey from which SOIL_COKEY, MAPUNIT_Kf, MAPUNIT_ClayTot_r, SOIL_MUKEY, and SOIL_COMP_NAME were assigned to each meadow (SSURGO or STATSGO depending on layer coverage)SOIL_MUKEY Mapunit Key: Unique identifier for the Mapunit in which the meadow is locatedSOIL_COKEY Component Key: Unique identifier for the major component of the mapunit in which the meadow is located SOIL_COMP_NAME Component Name: Name of the soil component with the highest representative value in the mapunit in which the meadow is located MAPUNIT_Kf K factor: A soil erodibility factor that quantifies the susceptibility of soil particles to detachment by water. Low: 0.05-0.2 Moderate: 0.25-0.4, High: >0.4MAPUNIT_ClayTot_r Representative value (%)of total clayCATCHMENT_AREA The approximate area of the upstream catchment exiting through the meadow(sq. m)ELEV_MEAN Mean elevation (m)ELEV_RANGE Elevation range (m) across each meadowED_MIN_FStopo_ROADS Minimum Euclidean Distance (m) to Forest Service Topographic Map Data Transportation Roads ED_MIN_FStopo_TRAILS Minimum Euclidean Distance (m) to Forest Service Topographic Map Data Transportation Trails ED_MIN_LAKE Minimum Euclidean Distance (m) to lake edges ED_MIN_FLOW Minimum Euclidean Distance (m) to NHD Streams/Rivers ED_MIN_SEEP Minimum Euclidean Distance (m) to NHD Seeps/Springs MDW_DEM_SLOPE Median DEM based slope (in degrees)STRM_SLOPE_GRADE Length-weighted average slope of all NHD flowline segments in each meadow. Given for meadows with flowlines. Meadows without flowlines are null for this attribute.POUR_POINT_LAT Latitude of the lowest point along a flowline at which water flows out of the meadow in decimal degrees(meadow with no flowline has null value) POUR_POINT_LON Longitude of the lowest point along a flowline at which water flows out of the meadow in decimal degrees(meadow with no flowline has null value) HGM_Type Dominant meadow hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type LAT_DD Latitude of polygon centroid in decimal degreesLONG_DD Longitude of polygon centroid in decimal degreesShape_Length Meadow perimeter in metersShape_Area Meadow area in sq. meters Detailed Attribute Descriptions:GeologyField: DOM_ROCKTYPEData Source: USGS - https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1305/Dominant rock type was attributed to the meadow polygons based on available state geology layers. Using Zonal Statisitics in ArcGIS, the most abundant lithology in the map unit (ROCKTYPE1) was identified for each meadow. VegetationField: VEG_MAJORITYData Source: LANDFIRE - https://www.landfire.gov/version_comparison.php?mosaic=YUsing Zonal Statisitics in ArcGIS, the 2014 LANDFIRE dataset was used to attribute generalized vegetation (GROUPVEG) to the meadow polygons. SoilsFields: SOIL_SURVEY, SOIL_MUKEY, SOIL_COKEY, SOIL_COMP_NAME, MAPUNIT_Kf, MAPUNIT_ClayTot_rData Source: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation ServiceSSURGO: https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/STATSGO: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htmSSURGO (1:24,000 scale) datasets were compiled for the entirety of the study area. Gaps were filled with compiled STATSGO data (1:250,000 scale). Components were assigned based on the soil component with the highest representative value in the map unit in which the meadow was located. For each component, the clay and Kf values from the top-most horizon were assigned to each meadow polygon using Zonal Statistics. Note: MAPUNIT_Kf may be null if the mapunit dominant condition is a miscellaneous area component such as Rock outcrop. Also, forested components with organic litter surface horizons will also return a null K-factor when the surface horizon K-factor is used.STATSGO does not have the detail for approximation of soil properties in the mountain meadows. The polygons are so big (Order 4) that they do not recognize the soils in the meadows as unique components, so there are no data for the meadows anywhere in those map units. As for the K and clay values for CA790 (Yosemite NP), because it is a new survey, O horizons were populated for those components. There may be a similar issue with the Tahoe Basin. NRCS does not populate the K factor for O horizons. And, at least at the time, NRCS is not populating any mineral material in the O horizons. Many NRCS national interpretations have been edited to look at the first mineral horizon and exclude the O. There is also a lot of Rock Outcrop and no horizon data are populated for those components.Slope Field: MDW_DEM_SLOPE Data Source: USGS 10m DEMThe median Digital elevation model (DEM) based slope (in degrees) was assigned via Zonal Statistics to each meadow.All meadows have a value for this attribute. Field: STREAM_SLOPE_GRADEData Source: USGS National Hydrograpy Dataset (NHD) - https://nhd.usgs.gov/data.htmlA length-weighted average slope of all NHD flowline segments was calculated within each meadow polygon. Meadows with no NHD flowline will have a NULL value for this attribute. Catchment AreaField: MDW_CATCHMENT_AREA (sq meters)Data Source: USGS NHDPlus V2, NHDPlusHydrodem- http://www.horizon-systems.com/NHDPlus/NHDPlusV2_home.phpScript Source: USGS, Wes Kitlasten; USFS, Kirk Evans, Carol ClarkUsing python scripting and the Watershed tool in ArcGIS, the area of the upstream catchment exiting through the meadow was obtained using a flow direction raster created from the NHDPlusHydrodem.Euclidean Distance Fields: ED_MIN_SEEP, ED_MIN_LAKE, ED_MIN_FLOW, ED_MIN_FSTopo_ROADS, ED_MIN_FSTopo_TRAILSData Source: USGS National Hydrograpy Dataset (NHD) - https://nhd.usgs.gov/data.htmlFSTopo - https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?xmlKeyword=FSTopoUsing the Euclidean Distance (Spatial Analyst) tool in ArcGIS, the minimum distance to each meadow was calculated for NHD Springs/Seeps, NHD Streams/Rivers (flow), NHD Waterbodies (lakes), and FS Topographic Transportation Trails and Roads. HGM Type During the mapping process, the dominant Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type (Weixelman et al 2011) was estimated for each meadow larger than one acre. Visual inspection of NAIP 1-m resolution imagery was used in this process. DEM layers were used to estimate the landform position. The USGS hydrographic layer was used to determine locations of flowlines. Google Earth imagery was used to estimate greenness during the summer months. Meadows are often composed of more than one HGM type. In this effort, the dominant type was estimated. HGM types have not yet been estimated for Yosemite and Sequoia Kings Canyon National Parks. Types were mapped according to the following visual interpretation. 1. Meadows adjacent to lakes or reservoirs and at nearly the same elevation as the Water bodyLacustrine Fringe (LF)1’. Not as above22. Meadow sites located in an obvious topographic depression. 32’. Not as above43. Sites with obvious standing water after mid-summer or vegetation remaining dark green after mid-summer. Depressional Perennial (DEPP)3’. Not as above. Sites with no standing water after mid-summer or apparently not remaining dark green after mid-summer.Depressional Seasonal (DEPS)4. Meadows with a flow line (using the USGS hydrographic layer) entering from above the meadow and exiting below the meadow, or meadows located in a swale or drainway ………………………………Riparian (RIP)4’. Not as above55. Meadows fed by a spring or seep. No flowline entering from above the meadow. Typically occurring on hillslopes or toeslopes. In addition, the USGS DEM layer was used to look for the text label “Springs” and/or a symbol indicating a spring. Discharge Slope (DS)5’. Dry meadows without a visible flowline entering from above the meadow, vegetation greenness disappears by mid-summer. No apparent groundwater inputs from springs or seeps. May occur in a swale, drainageway, gentle hillslope, or crest. Dry (Dry)OwnershipField: OWNERSHIPData Sources by priority:1. USDA Forest Service Basic Ownership (OWNERCLASSIFICATION) - https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?dsetCategory=boundaries1. National Parks Service (UNIT_NAME) - https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/1. California Protected Areas Database – CPAD (LAYER) - http://www.calands.org/1. Protected Area Database-US (CBI Edition) Version 2.1 (OWN_NAME) -

SPACE USE INDEX CALCULATIONLek coordinates and associated trend count data were obtained from the 2013 Nevada Sage-grouse Lek Database compiled by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW, S. Espinosa, 9/10/2013). 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. 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’. 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 (2009 – 2013) for the number of males grouse (or unknown gender if males were not identified) attending each lek was calculated. The final dataset comprised 907 leks. 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 (2009 – 2013) 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 clipped by the SGMA polygon, and values were 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 clipped by the SGMA polygon, and re-scaled between zero and one by dividing by the maximum pixel value.A Spatial Use Index (SUI) was calculated taking the average of the lek utilization distribution and non-linear distance to lek rasters in ArcGIS, and re-scaled between zero and 1 by dividing by the maximum pixel value.The volume of the SUI at cumulative 5% increments (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 relationship between percent land area within each isopleth and isopleth volume (VanderWal and Rodgers 2012) indicated statistically concentrated use at the 70% 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 SGMA clipped by the Nevada state boundary, which only included habitat within the state of Nevada.Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Overton, C.T., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Kroger, T., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Howe, K., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J. 2014, Spatially explicit modeling of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern California—A decision-support tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1163, 83 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141163. ISSN 2331-1258 (online)REFERENCES Beyer HL. 2012. Geospatial Modelling Environment (Version 0.7.2.0). http://www.spatialecology.com/gmeCoates PS, Casazza ML, Blomberg EJ, Gardner SC, Espinosa SP, Yee JL, Wiechman L, Halstead BJ. 2013. “Evaluating greater sage-grouse seasonal space use relative to leks: Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 1598-1609.Doherty KE, Tack JD, Evans JS, Naugle DE. 2010. Mapping breeding densities of greater sage-grouse: A tool for range-wide conservation planning. Bureau of Land Management. Report Number: L10PG00911. Accessed at: http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/Pages/sagegrouse.aspx# Duong T. 2012. ks: Kernel smoothing. R package version 1.8.10. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ksHorne JS, Garton EO. 2006. “Likelihood cross-validation versus least squares cross-validation for choosing the smoothing parameter in kerne... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/e12d29b0-83eb-40fa-bc71-b0c3d1c616df for complete metadata about this dataset.

The nine-banded Armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) is the only species of Armadillo in the United States and alters ecosystems by excavating extensive burrows used by many other wildlife species. Relatively little is known about its habitat use or population densities, particularly in developed areas, which may be key to facilitating its range expansion. We evaluated Armadillo occupancy and density in relation to anthropogenic and landcover variables in the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas along an urban to rural gradient. Armadillo detection probability was best predicted by temperature (positively) and precipitation (negatively). Contrary to expectations, occupancy probability of Armadillos was best predicted by slope (negatively) and elevation (positively) rather than any landcover or anthropogenic variables. Armadillo density varied considerably between sites (ranging from a mean of 4.88 – 46.20 Armadillos per km2) but was not associated with any environmental or anthropogenic variables. Methods Site Selection Our study took place in Northwest Arkansas, USA, in the greater Fayetteville metropolitan area. We deployed trail cameras (Spypoint Force Dark (Spypoint Inc, Victoriaville, Quebec, Canada) and Browning Strikeforce XD cameras (Browning, Morgan, Utah, USA) over the course of two winter seasons, December 2020-March 2021, and November 2021-March 2022. We sampled 10 study sites in year one, and 12 study sites in year two. All study sites were located in the Ozark Mountains ecoregion in Northwest Arkansas. Sites were all Oak Hickory dominated hardwood forests at similar elevation (213.6 – 541 m). Devils Eyebrow and ONSC are public natural areas managed by the Arkansas Natural heritage Commission (ANHC). Devil’s Den and Hobbs are managed by the Arkansas state park system. Markham Woods (Markham), Ninestone Land Trust (Ninestone) and Forbes, are all privately owned, though Markham has a publicly accessible trail system throughout the property. Lake Sequoyah, Mt. Sequoyah Woods, Kessler Mountain, Lake Fayetteville, and Millsaps Mountain are all city parks and managed by the city of Fayetteville. Lastly, both Weddington and White Rock are natural areas within Ozark National Forest and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. We sampled 5 sites in both years of the study including Devils Eyebrow, Markham Hill, Sequoyah Woods, Ozark Natural Science Center (ONSC), and Kessler Mountain. We chose our study sites to represent a gradient of human development, based primarily on Anthropogenic noise values (Buxton et al. 2017, Mennitt and Fristrup 2016). We chose open spaces that were large enough to accommodate camera trap research, as well as representing an array of anthropogenic noise values. Since anthropogenic noise is able to permeate into natural areas within the urban interface, introducing human disturbance that may not be detected by other layers such as impervious surface and housing unit density (Buxton et al. 2017), we used dB values for each site as an indicator of the level of urbanization. Camera Placement We sampled ten study sites in the first winter of the study. At each of the 10 study sites, we deployed anywhere between 5 and 15 cameras. Larger study areas received more cameras than smaller sites because all cameras were deployed a minimum of 150m between one another. We avoided placing cameras on roads, trails, and water sources to artificially bias wildlife detections. We also avoided placing cameras within 15m of trails to avoid detecting humans. At each of the 12 study areas we surveyed in the second winter season, we deployed 12 to 30 cameras. At each study site, we used ArcGIS Pro (Esri Inc, Redlands, CA) to delineate the trail systems and then created a 150m buffer on each side of the trail. We then created random points within these buffered areas to decide where to deploy cameras. Each random point had to occur within the buffered areas and be a minimum of 150m from the next nearest camera point, thus the number of cameras at each site varied based upon site size. We placed all cameras within 50m of the random points to ensure that cameras were deployed on safe topography and with a clear field of view, though cameras were not set in locations that would have increased animal detections (game trails, water sources, burrows etc.). Cameras were rotated between sites after 5 or 10 week intervals to allow us to maximize camera locations with a limited number of trail cameras available to us. Sites with more than 25 cameras were active for 5 consecutive weeks while sites with fewer than 25 cameras were active for 10 consecutive weeks. We placed all cameras on trees or tripods 50cm above ground and at least 15m from trails and roads. We set cameras to take a burst of three photos when triggered. We used Timelapse 2.0 software (Greenberg et al. 2019) to extract metadata (date and time) associated with all animal detections. We manually identified all species occurring in photographs and counted the number of individuals present. Because density estimation requires the calculation of detection rates (number of Armadillo detections divided by the total sampling period), we wanted to reduce double counting individuals. Therefore, we grouped photographs of Armadillos into “episodes” of 5 minutes in length to reduce double counting individuals that repeatedly triggered cameras (DeGregorio et al. 2021, Meek et al. 2014). A 5 min threshold is relatively conservative with evidence that even 1-minute episodes adequately reduces double counting (Meek et al. 2014). Landcover Covariates To evaluate occupancy and density of Armadillos based on environmental and anthropogenic variables, we used ArcGIS Pro to extract variables from 500m buffers placed around each camera (Table 2). This spatial scale has been shown to hold biological meaning for Armadillos and similarly sized species (DeGregorio et al. 2021, Fidino et al. 2016, Gallo et al. 2017, Magle et al. 2016). At each camera, we extracted elevation, slope, and aspect from the base ArcGIS Pro map. We extracted maximum housing unit density (HUD) using the SILVIS housing layer (Radeloff et al. 2018, Table 2). We extracted anthropogenic noise from the layer created by Mennitt and Fristrup (2016, Buxton et al. 2017, Table 2) and used the “L50” anthropogenic sound level estimate, which was calculated by taking the difference between predicted environmental noise and the calculated noise level. Therefore, we assume that higher levels of L50 sound corresponded to higher human presence and activity (i.e. voices, vehicles, and other sources of anthropogenic noise; Mennitt and Fristrup 2016). We derived the area of developed open landcover, forest area, and distance to forest edge from the 2019 National Land Cover Database (NLDC, Dewitz 2021, Table 2). Developed open landcover refers to open spaces with less than 20% impervious surface such as residential lawns, cemeteries, golf courses, and parks and has been shown to be important for medium-sized mammals (Gallo et al. 2017, Poessel et al. 2012). Forest area was calculated by combing all forest types within the NLCD layer (deciduous forest, mixed forest, coniferous forest), and summarizing the total area (km2) within the 500m buffer. Distance to forest edge was derived by creating a 30m buffer on each side of all forest boundaries and calculating the distance from each camera to the nearest forest edge. We calculated distance to water by combining the waterbody and flowline features in the National Hydrogeography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey) for the state of Arkansas to capture both permanent and ephemeral water sources that may be important to wildlife. We measured the distance to water and distance to forest edge using the geoprocessing tool “near” in ArcGIS Pro which calculates the Euclidean distance between a point and the nearest feature. We extracted Average Daily Traffic (ADT) from the Arkansas Department of Transportation database (Arkansas GIS Office). The maximum value for ADT was calculated using the Summarize Within tool in ArcGIS Pro. We tested for correlation between all covariates using a Spearman correlation matrix and removed any variable with correlation greater than 0.6. Pairwise comparisons between distance to roads and HUD and between distance to forest edge and forest area were both correlated above 0.6; therefore, we dropped distance to roads and distance to forest edge from analyses as we predicted that HUD and forest area would have larger biological impacts on our focal species (Kretser et al. 2008). Occupancy Analysis In order to better understand habitat associations while accounting for imperfect detection of Armadillos, we used occupancy modeling (Mackenzie et al. 2002). We used a single-species, single-season occupancy model (Mackenzie et al. 2002) even though we had two years of survey data at 5 of the study sites. We chose to do this rather than using a multi-season dynamic occupancy model because most sites were not sampled during both years of the study. Even for sites that were sampled in both years, cameras were not placed in the same locations each year. We therefore combined all sampling into one single-season model and created unique site by year combinations as our sampling locations and we used year as a covariate for analysis to explore changes in occupancy associated with the year of study. For each sampling location, we created a detection history with 7 day sampling periods, allowing presence/absence data to be recorded at each site for each week of the study. This allowed for 16 survey periods between 01 December 2020, and 11 March 2021 and 22 survey periods between 01 November 2021 and 24 March 2022. We treated each camera as a unique survey site, resulting in a total of 352 sites. Because not all cameras were deployed at the same time and for the same length of time, we used a staggered entry approach. We used a multi-stage fitting approach in which we

Portions of the world's oceans are extremely remote including areas in the South Pacific that are more the 2,500 km from the nearest land. Distance from shore can be used in asset management, modeling project costs, and as an index of human influence. Phenomenon Mapped: Distance from shoreUnits: KilometersCell Size: 655.9259912 metersSource Type: DiscretePixel Type: Signed integerSpatial Reference: World Equidistant CylindricalMosaic Projection: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereExtent: Global oceansSource: EsriPublication Date: 2015ArcGIS Server URL: https://oceans2.arcgis.com/arcgis/The Distance from Shore layer was calculated by Esri using the Euclidean Distance Tool in ArcMap and the Esri Country Boundaries layer.What can you do with this layer?Visualization: This layer can be used for visualization online in web maps and in ArcGIS Desktop.Analysis: This layer can be used as an input to geoprocessing tools and model builder.Raster Functions: Unit Conversion – kilometers to miles, Unit Conversion - kilometers to nautical miles, Cartographic Renderer, and Classified Renderer see this blog for more information.This layer is part of the Living Atlas of the World that provides access to thousands of beautiful and authoritative layers, web maps, and apps.

Urban fabrics for the Helsinki region 2016, 2030 and 2050 GIS dataset represents modelled urban fabric areas (walking, transit, and automobile urban fabrics) in the Helsinki city region (14 municipalities) in Finland. The data is associated with the regional MAL 2019 (land use, housing, and transport) work and was developed at the Finnish Environment Institute (Syke). The method used to produce the data has also been applied to other city regions in Finland (Helminen et al., 2020) and is an application of Newman et al.'s (2016) theory of three urban fabrics. The method is based on the overlay analysis of three variables: population and job density, accessibility to local services, and public transportation supply, with threshold values set for each variable. The definition of threshold values is based on previous applications of urban fabrics (Ristimäki et al., 2017) and a workshop conducted for urban planning and transportation professionals in the Helsinki metropolitan area. All accessibility measures used in creating the data were calculated as Euclidean distances.

The data was created using ArcMap Advanced software (version 10.6) and includes shapefiles for each modeling year's urban structures (UF_2016, UF_2030, and UF_2050) as well as description styles (UF_Fi.qml and UF_En.qml) in Finnish and English for the QGIS software. The names of the structures are in the fields 'Kudos' (in Finnish) and 'UrbFab' (in English). The coordinate system of the data is EPSG:3067. Detailed descriptions of the data and the method can be found in the report 'Helsingin seudun kaupunkikudokset 2016, 2030 a 2050' (Tiitu et al., 2018, in Finnish) and in the downloadable ReadMe files below (both in Finnish and English).

Helsingin seudun kaupunkikudokset 2016, 2030 ja 2050 -paikkatietoaineisto

Helsingin seudun kaupunkikudokset 2016, 2030 ja 2050 -paikkatietoaineisto kuvaa mallinnettuja kaupunkikudosten alueita (jalankulku-, joukkoliikenne- ja autokaupunki) Helsingin seudun (14 kuntaa) alueelta Suomesta. Aineisto liittyy seudun MAL 2019 -työhön, ja se on kehitetty Suomen ympäristökeskuksessa (Syke). Menetelmää, jolla aineisto on tuotettu, on sovellettu myös muille Suomen kaupunkiseuduille (Helminen ym. 2020), ja se on sovellutus Newmanin ym. (2016) kolmen kaupunkikudoksen teoriasta. Menetelmä perustuu päällekkäisanalyysiin kolmesta muuttujasta: asukas- ja työpaikkatiheys, lähikaupan saavutettavuus ja joukkoliikenteen tarjonta, sekä muuttujille asetettuihin kynnysarvoihin. Kynnysarvojen määrittely perustui kaupunkikudosten aiempiin sovellutuksiin (Ristimäki ym. 2017) sekä Helsingin seudun maankäytön ja liikenteen suunnittelijoille suunnattuun työpajaan. Kaikki aineiston muodostamiseen käytetyt saavutettavuudet on laskettu linnuntie-etäisyyksinä.

Aineisto on muodostettu ArcMap Advanced -ohjelmistolla (versio 10.6.) ja se sisältää shp-tiedostot kunkin mallinnusvuoden kaupunkikudoksille (UF_2016, UF_2030 ja UF_2050) sekä kuvaustekniikan (UF_Fi.qml ja UF_En.qml) suomeksi ja englanniksi QGIS-ohjelmistolle. Kudosten nimet ovat sarakkeissa Kudos (suomeksi) ja UrbFab (englanniksi). Aineiston koordinaattijärjestelmä on EPSG:3067. Aineiston ja menetelmän tarkka kuvaus on luettavissa raportista Helsingin seudun kaupunkikudokset 2016, 2030 ja 2050 (Tiitu ym. 2018) sekä alla ladattavista ReadMe-tiedostoista.

References

Helminen V., Tiitu M., Kosonen, L. & Ristimäki, M. (2020). Identifying the areas of walking, transit and automobile urban fabrics in Finnish intermediate cities. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 8, 100257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100257

Newman, L. Kosonen & J. Kenworthy (2016). Theory of urban fabrics; planning the walking, transit/public transport and automobile/motor car cities for reduced car dependency. Town planning Review 87 (4): 429–458. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/11247

Ristimäki M., Tiitu M., Helminen V., Nieminen H., Rosengren K., Vihanninjoki V., Rehunen A., Strandell A., Kotilainen A., Kosonen L., Kalenoja H., Nieminen J., Niskanen S. & Söderström P. (2017). Yhdyskuntarakenteen tulevaisuus kaupunkiseuduilla – Kaupunkikudokset ja vyöhykkeet. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 4/2017. Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/176782

Tiitu M., Helminen V., Nurmio K. & Ristimäki M. (2018). Helsingin seudun kaupunkikudokset 2016, 2030 ja 2050. MAL 2019 publication. https://www.hsl.fi/sites/default/files/uploads/helsingin_seudun_kaupunkikudokset_loppuraportti_27082018_0.pdf

License / Lisenssi

Syke applies Creative Commons By 4.0 International license for open datasets.
This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. The source references for credits can be found in the metadata of each data product.

Suomen ympäristökeskuksen (Syke) avointen aineistojen käyttölupa on Creative Commons Nimeä 4.0 Kansainvälinen.
Lisenssin kohteena olevaa dataa voi vapaasti käyttää kaikin mahdollisin tavoin edellyttäen, että datan lähde mainitaan: Lisenssinantajan nimi ja aineiston nimi.

Credits / Lähdemerkintä

Urban Fabrics for the Helsinki Region / Source: Finnish Environment Institute Syke 2018.
Where applicable, please also cite the references listed above.

Helsingin seudun kaupunkikudokset / Lähde: Syke 2018.
Viittaa myös soveltuvin osin yllä listattuihin lähteisiin, jos hyödynnät näitä aineistoja esimerkiksi raporteissa tai tutkimusartikkeleissa.

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

Sage-Grouse habitat areas divided into proposed management categories within Nevada and California project study boundaries.MANAGEMENT CATEGORY DETERMINATION The process for category determination was directed by the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical team. Sage-grouse habitat was determined from a statewide resource selection function model and first categorized into 4 classes: high, moderate, low, and non-habitat. The standard deviations (SD) from a normal distribution of RSF values created from a set of validation points (10% of the entire telemetry dataset) were used to categorize habitat ‘quality’ classes. High quality habitat comprised pixels with RSF values < 0.5 SD, Moderate > 0.5 and < 1.0 SD, Low < 1.0 and > 1.5, Non-Habitat > 1.5 SD. Proposed Habitat Management Categories were then defined and calculated as follows.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 falling outside the 85% SUI and all non-habitat falling within the 85% SUI. 3) General habitat: Defined as moderate and low quality habitat falling outside the 85% SUI. 4) Non habitat. Defined as non-habitat falling outside the 85% SUI. SPACE USE INDEX CALCULATIONLek coordinates and associated trend count data were obtained from the 2013 Nevada Sage-grouse Lek Database compiled by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW, S. Espinosa, 9/10/2013). 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. 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’. 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 (2009 – 2013) for the number of males grouse (or unknown gender if males were not identified) attending each lek was calculated. The final dataset comprised 907 leks. 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 (2009 – 2013) 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 clipped by the SGMA polygon, and values were 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 clipped by the SGMA polygon, and re-scaled between zero and one by dividing by the maximum pixel value.A Spatial Use Index (SUI) was calculated taking the average of the lek utilization distribution and non-linear distance to lek rasters in ArcGIS, and re-scaled between zero and 1 by dividing by the maximum pixel value.The volume of the SUI at cumulative 5% increments (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 relationship between percent land area within each isopleth and isopleth volume (VanderWal and Rodgers 2012) indicated statistically concentrated use at the 70% 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 SGMA clipped by the Nevada state boundary, which only included habitat within the state of Nevada.Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Overton, C.T., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Kroger, T., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Howe, K., ... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/559fada2-3b0d-47b7-81d3-09b1b1b32220 for complete metadata about this dataset.

This dataset contains predicted seahorse habitat distributions for two species (Hippocampus hippocampus and H. guttulatus) and the genus combined (Hippocampus hippocampus MAXENT.asc, Hippocampus guttulatus MAXENT.asc and Hippocampus sp. MAXENT.asc, respectively). Rasters of the raw predicted habitat suitability outputs from the maximum entropy (MAXENT, Phillips et al. 2006) species distribution model algorithm are provided.

Additionally, the environmental data layers used for modelling the species distributions, including distance to seagrass habitat (degrees) (Distance From Seagrass.tif), distance to the coastline (DistCo.tif) bathymetry (m) (Bathy.tif), minimum winter and maximum summer SST (oC) (Kriging SST Winter Min.tif and Kriging SST Summer Max.tif, respectively) and chlorophyll a concentration (mg m-3) (Kriging Chla Winter Smooth.tif and Kriging Chla Summer Smooth.tif, respectively).

All raster layers are provided in the WGS84 (EPSG::4326) spatial reference system. All raster layers are at a gridded resolution of 0.0042 x 0.0042 degrees. All layers cover the shelf seas surrounding the UK, including the English Channel, Celtic Seas, North Sea, and extend into shallow coastal and estuarine habitats. Raster layers of predicted habitat suitability are provided in ASCI format, whilst environmental predictor layers are provided in TIFF format.

This work was prioritised by Natural England’s Seahorse Working Group and was funded by Natural England. This work was conducted in collaboration with The Seahorse Trust who provided the seahorse occurrence data. The information provided will support marine spatial planning to reduce the broader impact of anthropogenic activities and enable better decision-making to protect these sensitive species and their habitats.

The outputs from this project advance the development of habitat suitability models for two sensitive species of seahorse (H. hippocampus and H. guttulatus) and the combined genus by predicting habitat suitability in shallow, nearshore waters (coastal and estuarine sites) that are considered important for both species.

Satellite-derived gridded environmental data (sea surface temperature (SST, oC) and chlorophyll a concentration (mg m-3), MODIS-Aqua Level-3 https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/l3/ [Downloaded May 2018]) were combined with Environment Agency field-collected water quality data from the Water Quality Archive [Accessed January 2023] using ordinary kriging within the "Geostatistical Analyst" tool in ArcGIS (v10.5) to produce environmental predictor layers that extend to the coastline. SST and chlorophyll summer maximums and winter minimums were calculated. Bathymetry (m) (GEBCO Compilation Group (2022) GEBCO 2022 Grid (doi:10.5285/e0f0bb80- ab44-2739-e053-6c86abc0289c) [Downloaded January 2023]) was interpolated using the natural neighbour method in ArcGIS 10.5. Seagrass (Zostera marina, Z. noltii and Ruppia spp.) polygon and point data were collated from multiple sources including Natural England’s open-access polygon data on seagrass coverage in England. Point data (from the year 2000 onwards) were converted to polygons using a buffer and merged with existing polygons to ensure all possible seagrass locations were included in the calculation. A distance from seagrass meadows layer was calculated in ArcGIS 10.5 using the “Euclidean Distance” tool. The final list of six variables was used for modelling, all with a Pearson's correlation of less than 0.7, including distance to seagrass habitat, bathymetry, minimum winter and maximum summer SST and chlorophyll concentrations which are provided.

Seahorse records provided by the Seahorse Trust's National Seahorse Database, Natural England and other records from open-source databases described in Bluemel et al. 2020 were filtered to remove records that were duplicated or fell outside of the study area, or where species identification was dubious. Prior to modelling, records were reduced to one point per grid cell to reduce sampling biases. All occurrence records from the year 2000 to the present were used for model training and testing (Hippocampus genus n = 165, Hippocampus hippocampus = 144, Hippocampus guttulatus = 45) (species occurrences are not provided).

Seahorse habitat distributions were modelled using maximum entropy (MAXENT, Phillips et al. 2006). The default convergence threshold of 106 and a maximum of 5,000 iterations were used. A maximum of 10,000 background samples were randomly selected from the study area. Within the model settings, random seed was selected, which means that a different random subset was used for each model run, and the number of replicates was set to 10 and the replicate run type was set to subsample. In addition, the random test percentage was set to 25%. All other MAXENT settings were default.

Model performance was examined by computing the Area Under the Curve (AUC) score of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for each species, which is calculated by the MAXENT software as part of the modelling process and is considered to be an effective measure of model performance (Reiss et al. 2011). The AUC represents the relationship between sensitivity and specificity and varies between 0 and 1 (Reiss et al., 2011). It is generally considered that values >0.9 indicate an excellent model fit, values between 0.7 and 0.9 represent a good fit, anything <0.7 represents a poor model fit and anything <0.5 represents nothing better than random (Reiss et al., 2011). The model for H. guttulatus had the highest AUC, which had a mean value of 0.99 ± 0.0005 across the 10 runs, followed by H. hippocampus (0.97 ± 0.0008) and the genus combined (0.97 ± 0.0006).

Modelling limitations and sampling biases:

Known sampling biases exist in the seahorse occurrence data used in this study and therefore the predictions should be taken with caution. Biases include higher sampling effort in the southwest and English Channel, due to high recreational SCUBA diving intensity in this area, resulting in uneven sampling distributions across the study area. Recorder biases exist due to known locations of seahorses being regularly visited and targeted by dive companies, and records are often provided by multiple diver trips of the same seahorse that has moved to a nearby locality (Garrick-Maidment pers. comm.). MAXENT is sensitive to biased data distributions, and there is a strong assumption of random sampling distribution for presences when random background data are used. Thus the underlying model assumptions are invalidated by the sampling bias, which could be restricting predictions to southerly localities where sampling biases (increased effort and recorder bias) are known to exist.

To improve confidence in the habitat predictions for seahorses, further work should include testing different modelling algorithms. Variations in model predictions were observed by Bluemel et al. (2020), highlighting the need to compare outputs and identify consistent robust predictions, especially in data-limited, presence-only settings. Additionally, testing different habitat suitability thresholds that are tailored to the intended use of the predicted distributions (Freeman and Moisen 2008), testing validation approaches more suited to presence-only situations, because using AUC in isolation can be uninformative when species prevalence is low. Furthermore, sampling bias and spatial autocorrelation in the occurrence data require further work. Methods to deal with spatial autocorrelation and sampling biases could include defining a bias grid to include in the modelling process (i.e., known dive sites with higher sampling activity, thus a higher likelihood of observation), using other suitable point process models that account for these biases or assessing model performance with a block cross-validation approach (Roberts et al. 2017)).

Bluemel, J.K., Lynam, C. and Ellis, J. (2020). Fish biodiversity: state and pressure indicators. Cefas Project Report for Defra, 67 pp.

Freeman, E.A. and Moisen, G.G. (2008). A comparison of the performance of threshold criteria for binary classification in terms of predicted prevalence and kappa. Ecological modelling, 217(1-2): 48-58.

Phillips, S.J., Anderson, R.P. and Schapire, R.E., (2006). Maximum entropy modelling of species geographic distributions. Ecological modelling, 190(3-4): 231-259.

Reiss, H., Cunze, S., König, K., Neumann, H. and Kröncke, I., (2011). Species distribution modelling of marine benthos: a North Sea case study. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 442: 71-86.

Roberts, D.R., Bahn, V., Ciuti, S., Boyce, M.S., Elith, J., Guillera-Arroita, G., Hauenstein, S., Lahoz-Monfort, J.J., Schröder, B., Thuiller, W., others. (2017). Cross-validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure. Ecography. 40: 913-929.

Brief Methods: In version 2 of the Sierra Nevada Multi-source Meadow Polygons Compilation, polygon boundaries from the original layer (SNMMPC_v1 - https://meadows.ucdavis.edu/data/4) were updated using ‘heads-up’ digitization from high-resolution (1m) NAIP imagery. In version 1, only polygons larger than one acre were retained in the published layer. In version 2, existing polygon boundaries were split, reduced in size, or merged, and additional polygons not captured in the original layer were digitized. If split, original IDs from version 1 were retained for one half and a new ID was created for the other half. In instances where adjacent meadows were merged together, only one ID was retained and the unused ID was “decommissioned”. If digitized, a new sequential ID was assigned. AcknowledgementsTim Lindemann, Dave Weixelman, Carol Clark, Stacey Mikulovsky, Qiqi Jiang, Joel Grapentine, Kirk Evans - USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Wes Kitlasten - U.S. Geological Survey Sarah Yarnell, Ryan Peek, Nick Santos - UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences Anna Fryjoff-Hung - UC Merced Meadow Polygon Attributes FieldDescriptionAREA_ACREMeadow area in acresSTATEState in which the meadow is located (CA or NV)ID*Unique meadow identifier UCDSNMxxxxxx*Note: IDs are non-sequential* HUC12Unique identifier for the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC), level 12, in which the meadow is locatedOWNERSHIPLand ownership status (multiple sources)EDGE_COMPLEXITYGives an indication of the meadow's exposure to external conditions EDGE COMPLEXITY = (MEADOWperimeter/EAC perimeter) [EAC = Equal Area Circle]DOM_ROCKTYPEDominant rock type on which the meadow is located based on the USGS layerVEG_MAJORITYVegetation majority based on the LANDFIRE layer (GROUPVEG attribute)SOIL_SURVEYSoil survey from which SOIL_COKEY, MAPUNIT_Kf, MAPUNIT_ClayTot_r, SOIL_MUKEY, and SOIL_COMP_NAME were assigned to each meadow (SSURGO or STATSGO depending on layer coverage)SOIL_MUKEYMapunit Key: Unique identifier for the Mapunit in which the meadow is locatedSOIL_COKEYComponent Key: Unique identifier for the major component of the mapunit in which the meadow is located SOIL_COMP_NAMEComponent Name: Name of the soil component with the highest representative value in the mapunit in which the meadow is located MAPUNIT_KfK factor: A soil erodibility factor that quantifies the susceptibility of soil particles to detachment by water. Low: 0.05-0.2 Moderate: 0.25-0.4, High: >0.4MAPUNIT_ClayTot_rRepresentative value (%)of total clayCATCHMENT_AREAThe approximate area of the upstream catchment exiting through the meadow(sq. m)ELEV_MEANMean elevation (m)ELEV_RANGEElevation range (m) across each meadowED_MIN_FStopo_ROADSMinimum Euclidean Distance (m) to Forest Service Topographic Map Data Transportation Roads ED_MIN_FStopo_TRAILSMinimum Euclidean Distance (m) to Forest Service Topographic Map Data Transportation Trails ED_MIN_LAKEMinimum Euclidean Distance (m) to lake edges ED_MIN_FLOWMinimum Euclidean Distance (m) to NHD Streams/Rivers ED_MIN_SEEPMinimum Euclidean Distance (m) to NHD Seeps/Springs MDW_DEM_SLOPEMedian DEM based slope (in degrees)STRM_SLOPE_GRADELength-weighted average slope of all NHD flowline segments in each meadow. Given for meadows with flowlines. Meadows without flowlines are null for this attribute.POUR_POINT_LATLatitude of the lowest point along a flowline at which water flows out of the meadow in decimal degrees(meadow with no flowline has null value) POUR_POINT_LONLongitude of the lowest point along a flowline at which water flows out of the meadow in decimal degrees(meadow with no flowline has null value) HGM_TypeDominant meadow hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type LAT_DDLatitude of polygon centroid in decimal degreesLONG_DDLongitude of polygon centroid in decimal degreesShape_LengthMeadow perimeter in metersShape_AreaMeadow area in sq. metersDetailed Attribute Descriptions:GeologyField: DOM_ROCKTYPEData Source: USGS - https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1305/Dominant rock type was attributed to the meadow polygons based on available state geology layers. Using Zonal Statisitics in ArcGIS, the most abundant lithology in the map unit (ROCKTYPE1) was identified for each meadow. VegetationField: VEG_MAJORITYData Source: LANDFIRE - https://www.landfire.gov/version_comparison.php?mosaic=YUsing Zonal Statisitics in ArcGIS, the 2014 LANDFIRE dataset was used to attribute generalized vegetation (GROUPVEG) to the meadow polygons. SoilsFields: SOIL_SURVEY, SOIL_MUKEY, SOIL_COKEY, SOIL_COMP_NAME, MAPUNIT_Kf, MAPUNIT_ClayTot_rData Source: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation ServiceSSURGO: https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/STATSGO: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htmSSURGO (1:24,000 scale) datasets were compiled for the entirety of the study area. Gaps were filled with compiled STATSGO data (1:250,000 scale). Components were assigned based on the soil component with the highest representative value in the map unit in which the meadow was located. For each component, the clay and Kf values from the top-most horizon were assigned to each meadow polygon using Zonal Statistics. Note: MAPUNIT_Kf may be null if the mapunit dominant condition is a miscellaneous area component such as Rock outcrop. Also, forested components with organic litter surface horizons will also return a null K-factor when the surface horizon K-factor is used.STATSGO does not have the detail for approximation of soil properties in the mountain meadows. The polygons are so big (Order 4) that they do not recognize the soils in the meadows as unique components, so there are no data for the meadows anywhere in those map units. As for the K and clay values for CA790 (Yosemite NP), because it is a new survey, O horizons were populated for those components. There may be a similar issue with the Tahoe Basin. NRCS does not populate the K factor for O horizons. And, at least at the time, NRCS is not populating any mineral material in the O horizons. Many NRCS national interpretations have been edited to look at the first mineral horizon and exclude the O. There is also a lot of Rock Outcrop and no horizon data are populated for those components.Slope Field: MDW_DEM_SLOPE Data Source: USGS 10m DEMThe median Digital elevation model (DEM) based slope (in degrees) was assigned via Zonal Statistics to each meadow.All meadows have a value for this attribute. Field: STREAM_SLOPE_GRADEData Source: USGS National Hydrograpy Dataset (NHD) - https://nhd.usgs.gov/data.htmlA length-weighted average slope of all NHD flowline segments was calculated within each meadow polygon. Meadows with no NHD flowline will have a NULL value for this attribute. Catchment AreaField: MDW_CATCHMENT_AREA (sq meters)Data Source: USGS NHDPlus V2, NHDPlusHydrodem- http://www.horizon-systems.com/NHDPlus/NHDPlusV2_home.phpScript Source: USGS, Wes Kitlasten; USFS, Kirk Evans, Carol ClarkUsing python scripting and the Watershed tool in ArcGIS, the area of the upstream catchment exiting through the meadow was obtained using a flow direction raster created from the NHDPlusHydrodem.Euclidean Distance Fields: ED_MIN_SEEP, ED_MIN_LAKE, ED_MIN_FLOW, ED_MIN_FSTopo_ROADS, ED_MIN_FSTopo_TRAILSData Source: USGS National Hydrograpy Dataset (NHD) - https://nhd.usgs.gov/data.htmlFSTopo - https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?xmlKeyword=FSTopoUsing the Euclidean Distance (Spatial Analyst) tool in ArcGIS, the minimum distance to each meadow was calculated for NHD Springs/Seeps, NHD Streams/Rivers (flow), NHD Waterbodies (lakes), and FS Topographic Transportation Trails and Roads. HGM Type During the mapping process, the dominant Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type (Weixelman et al 2011) was estimated for each meadow larger than one acre. Visual inspection of NAIP 1-m resolution imagery was used in this process. DEM layers were used to estimate the landform position. The USGS hydrographic layer was used to determine locations of flowlines. Google Earth imagery was used to estimate greenness during the summer months. Meadows are often composed of more than one HGM type. In this effort, the dominant type was estimated. HGM types have not yet been estimated for Yosemite and Sequoia Kings Canyon National Parks. Types were mapped according to the following visual interpretation. Meadows adjacent to lakes or reservoirs and at nearly the same elevation as the Water bodyLacustrine Fringe (LF)1’. Not as above2Meadow sites located in an obvious topographic depression. 32’. Not as above4Sites with obvious standing water after mid-summer or vegetation remaining dark green after mid-summer. Depressional Perennial (DEPP)3’. Not as above. Sites with no standing water after mid-summer or apparently not remaining dark green after mid-summer.Depressional Seasonal (DEPS)Meadows with a flow line (using the USGS hydrographic layer) entering from above the meadow and exiting below the meadow, or meadows located in a swale or drainway ………………………………Riparian (RIP)4’. Not as above5Meadows fed by a spring or seep. No flowline entering from above the meadow. Typically occurring on hillslopes or toeslopes. In addition, the USGS DEM layer was used to look for the text label “Springs” and/or a symbol indicating a spring. Discharge Slope (DS)5’. Dry meadows without a visible flowline entering from above the meadow, vegetation greenness disappears by mid-summer. No apparent groundwater inputs from springs or seeps. May occur in a swale, drainageway, gentle hillslope, or crest. Dry (Dry)OwnershipField: OWNERSHIPData Sources by priority:USDA Forest Service Basic Ownership (OWNERCLASSIFICATION) - https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?dsetCategory=boundariesNational Parks Service (UNIT_NAME) - https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/California Protected Areas Database – CPAD (LAYER) - http://www.calands.org/Protected Area Database-US (CBI Edition) Version 2.1 (OWN_NAME) -

This dataset provides predictions of future land use patterns in Tajikistan under different social development scenarios. Based on land use data from 2010 and 2015, combined with various natural and socio-economic factors, the FLUS model was used to simulate the land use change trends in four development scenarios (farmland protection, ecological protection, natural development, and high-speed development) in 2040 and 2060. The FLUS model was used to simulate land use changes under different development scenarios, referencing relevant literature and existing research methods to ensure the scientific and rational nature of the scenario setting and simulation process. The transition matrix of natural development scenarios was obtained by processing the land use maps of 2010 and 2015 in ArcGIS; The transition matrices for the other three scenarios are based on policy assumptions: the farmland protection scenario strictly limits the transfer of farmland to other types, allowing only other land types to transfer to farmland; Ecological protection scenarios allow for reasonable conversion between ecological land such as farmland, forest land, and grassland while limiting human expansion; The high-speed development scenario is the most relaxed, allowing a large amount of arable land and other land types to be converted into urban construction land to support rapid urban expansion. During the data production process, the land use type data of the five Central Asian countries provided by the spatiotemporal tri polar environmental big data platform (including years 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015, with a resolution of 300 meters) were used as the basic land use map, and six driving factors were selected: GDP, DEM, slope, aspect, population density, and distance from roads. The GDP data comes from the 2019 Global 1km Grid GDP Dataset; DEM is derived from SRTM (1km accuracy); Slope and aspect are derived and calculated from DEM; The population density data is based on WorldPop's global 1-kilometer population distribution data; The distance to the road is calculated based on OpenStreetMap road data to determine the Euclidean distance. All data are uniformly projected with a spatial resolution of 1 kilometer and preprocessed through standardized processes such as mask extraction, pixel alignment, and normalization. The land use simulation adopts the FLUS model, which integrates Markov chain model (Markov), artificial neural network (ANN), and cellular automata (CA) methods. Markov model predicts future changes in the quantity of various land types based on historical land use maps; The ANN model utilizes the current land use map and driving factors to train and generate spatial suitability probability maps for various types of land; The CA model combines the spatial probability of ANN, the quantity constraint of Markov, and the neighborhood diffusion rule to dynamically simulate the spatial distribution of land use. The collaboration of the three has achieved coupled prediction of land use change in terms of quantity and space. The accuracy of the model simulation, evaluated by the Kappa coefficient, is higher than 0.94, indicating that the predicted results have high credibility. This dataset includes land use classification maps under different scenarios, including cultivated land, forest land, grassland, water bodies, unused land, and construction land. It can be widely applied in fields such as national spatial planning, ecological protection zoning, urban expansion management, and farmland protection policy evaluation, providing reliable simulation basis and decision-making support for responding to land pattern evolution brought about by population growth, economic development, and climate change.

To assess site resilience, we divided the coast into 1,232 individual sites centered around each tidal marsh or complex of tidal habitats. For each site, we estimated the amount of migration space available under four sea-level rise scenarios and we identified the amount of buffer area surrounding the whole tidal complex. We then examined the physical properties and condition characteristics of the site and its features using newly developed analyses as well as previously published and peer-reviewed datasets.Sites vary widely in the amount and suitability of migration space they provide. This is determined by the physical structure of the site and the intactness of processes that facilitate migration. A marsh hemmed in by rocky cliffs will eventually convert to open water, whereas a marsh bordered by low lying wetlands with ample migration space and a sufficient sediment supply will have the option of moving inland. As existing tidal marshes degrade or disappear, the amount of available high-quality migration space becomes an indicator of a site’s potential to support estuarine habitats in the future. The size and shape of a site’s migration space is dependent on the elevation, slope, and substrate of the adjacent land. The condition of the migration space also varies substantially among sites. For some tidal complexes, the migration space contains roads, houses, and other forms of hardened structures that resist conversion to tidal habitats, while the migration space of other complexes consists of intact and connected freshwater wetlands that could convert to tidal habitats.Our aim was to characterize each site’s migration space but not predict its future composition. Towards this end, we measured characteristics of the migration space related to its size, shape, volume, and condition, and we evaluated the options available to the tidal complex to rearrange and adjust to sea level rise. In the future, the area will likely support some combination of salt marsh, brackish marsh and tidal flat, but predictions concerning the abundance and spatial arrangement of the migration space’s future habitats are notoriously difficult to make because nature’s transitions are often non-linear and facilitated by pulses of disturbance and internal competition. For instance, in response to a 1.4 mm increase in the rate of SLR, the landward migration of low marsh cordgrass in some New York marshes appears to be displacing high marsh (Donnelly & Bertness 2001). Thus, our assumption was simply that a tidal complex with a large amount of high quality and heterogeneous migration space will have more options for adaptation, and will be more resilient, than a tidal complex with a small amount of degraded and homogenous migration space.To delineate migration space for the full project area, we requested the latest SLR Viewer (Marcy et al. 2011) marsh migration data, with no accretion rate, for all the NOAA geographic units within the project area, from NOAA (N. Herold, pers. comm., 2018). Specifically, we obtained data for the following states in the project area: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. As accretion is very location-dependent, we chose not to use one of the three SLR Viewer accretion rates because they were flat rates applied across each geographic unit. For each geography, we combined four SLR scenarios (1.5’, 3’, 4’, and 6.5’) with the baseline scenario to identify pixels that changed from baseline. We only selected cells that transitioned to tidal habitats (unconsolidated shoreline, salt marsh, and transitional / brackish marsh) and not to open water or upland habitat. We combined the results from each of the geographies and projected to NAD83 Albers. The resultant migration space was then resampled to a 30-m grid and snapped to the NOAA 2010 C-CAP land cover grid (NOAA, 2017). The tidal complex grid and the migration space grid were combined to ensure that there were no overlapping pixels. While developed areas were not allowed to be future marsh in NOAA’s SLR Viewer marsh migration model, we still removed all roads and development, as represented in the original 30-m NOAA 2010 C-CAP land cover grid, from the migration space. We took this step as differences in spatial resolution between the underlying elevation and land cover datasets could occasionally result in small amounts of development in our resampled migration space. The remaining migration space was then spatially grouped into contiguous regions using an eight-neighbor rule that defined connected cells as those immediately to the right, left, above, or diagonal to each other. The region-grouped grid was converted to a polygon, and the SLR scenario represented by each migration space footprint was assigned to each polygon. Finally, the migration space scenario polygons that intersected any of the tidal complexes were selected. Because a single migration space polygon could be adjacent to and accessible to more than one tidal complex unit, each migration space polygon was linked to their respective tidal complex units with a unique ID by restructuring and aggregating the output from a one-to-many spatial join in ArcGIS. This linkage enabled the calculation of attributes for each tidal complex such as total migration space acreage, total number of migration space units, and the percent of the tidal complex perimeter that was immediately adjacent to migration space. Similar attributes were calculated for each migration space unit including total tidal complex acreage and number of tidal complex units.This dataset shows additional migration space units in the project area for the 3.0-foot sea level rise scenario. Additional migration space units are migration space units that did not spatially intersect current tidal marshes or were spatially disjunct from the migration space of current tidal marshes. Because additional migration space units were not directly associated with a tidal complex, these units were NOT used in the calculation of a tidal complex’s resilience score. The spatial separation could be due to roads, waterbodies, waterways, oil and gas fields, etc. Depending on local factors and context, the degree to which these features will prevent marshes from accessing the additional migration space areas in the future is unknown and likely varies by site.There were thousands of small and disconnected additional migration space areas, often individual pixels, typically found in urban settings, remote upstream riverine areas, or far from any migration space units or tidal marshes. We did not consider these isolated occurrences as additional migration space because they are unlikely to be important future marsh areas. We identified isolated migration space areas using the following approach. First, for unconfirmed additional migration space areas, an iterative analysis of the Euclidean distance from current tidal marshes and their migration space areas, including confirmed additional migration space, was performed. Next, pixels that did not meet the distance thresholds in the first step but were within 60 meters of a NHDPlus v2 (USEPA & USGS, 2012) streamline were retained as additional migration space. Any remaining pixels less than or equal to two acres in size were then removed from the additional migration space. Finally, visual inspection was used to remove isolated migration space areas that were not identified through the previous steps. We assigned resilience scores to the additional migration space areas using several approaches. First, we spatially allocated resilience scores based on Euclidean distance from tidal marshes or migration space units. While this approach was a good starting point, there were migration space areas whose score assignments had to be done manually or by taking the highest of two equidistant nearby scores. The manual assignment included straightforward cases, but often it was unclear how marshes might move into a migration space area (e.g., will marsh travel through waterways to nearby migration space areas; will marsh use all migration space areas along a waterway or waterbody or only on the same side as the current marsh?). For sites with unclear relationships to current marshes and their migration space, the highest resilience score in the general geographic area of the additional migration space was assigned. Consequently, please interpret the scores of the additional migration space with caution and use local expertise and knowledge as you see fit. REFERENCESChaffee, C, Coastal policy analyst for the R.I. Coastal Resources Management Council. personal communication. April 4, 2017.Donnelly, J.P, & Bertness, M.D. 2001. Rapid shoreward encroachment of salt marsh cordgrass in response to accelerated sea-level rise. PNAS 98(25) www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.251209298Herold, N. 2018. NOAA Sea Level Rise (SLR) Viewer marsh migration data (10-m), with no accretion rate, for all SLR scenarios from 0.5-ft. to 10.0-ft. for VA, NC, SC, GA, and FL. Personal communication Jan. 24, 2018. Lerner, J.A., Curson, D.R., Whitbeck, M., & Meyers, E.J., Blackwater 2100: A strategy for salt marsh persistence in an era of climate change. 2013. The Conservation Fund (Arlington, VA) and Audubon MD-DC (Baltimore, MD).Lucey, K. NH Coastal Program. Personal Communication. April 4, 2017.Maine Natural Areas Program. 2016. Coastal Resiliency Datasets, Schlawin, J and Puryear, K., project leads. http://www.maine.gov/dacf/mnap/assistance/coastal_resiliency.htmlMarcy, D., Herold, N., Waters, K., Brooks, W., Hadley, B., Pendleton, M., Schmid, K., Sutherland, M., Dragonov, K., McCombs, J., Ryan, S. 2011. New Mapping Tool and Techniques For Visualizing Sea Level Rise And Coastal Flooding Impacts. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center. Originally published in the Proceedings of the 2011 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers

The data set was created by preparing fine-scale population-specific Species Distribution Models (SDMs) to map revised PHMA and GHMA areas for each of the six greater sage-grouse populations within the current occupied range of Colorado. First, known presence locations of marked greater sage-grouse were used to train Random Forest and Resource Selection Function (RSF) models to estimate seasonal (e.g., breeding, summer-fall and winter) habitat suitability. Secondly, the seasonal model results were classified into high or low habitat suitability categories and subsequently compiled to produce a year-round habitat suitability map. Third, the resulting year-round habitat suitability maps were used to develop revised PHMA and GHMA areas for each population. Finally, the current occupied range for each population were modified to 1) exclude areas identified as unsuitable habitats and 2) include areas outside of current occupied range where evidence of sage-grouse occupancy exists.Data inputs into the RSF and Random Forest Models included presence data from GPS and VHF collar data provided to Olsson from CPW biologists, which was used to refine the models. A combination of vegetative and topographic predictors were employed at multiple scales in assessing the probability of habitat selection for the populations analyzed in this study. The predictors were analyzed at multiple spatial scales, as the literature demonstrates that habitat selection by a species occurs at some scales and not others (Mayor et al. 2009, Acker et al. 2017). The predictors were measured at five scales: 100 meters (m), 400 m, 1000 m, 1600 m, and 3200 m. These were selected to assess a range of local- to landscape-level scales that may influence habitat selection. Furthermore, these scales are comparable to scales assessed in other contemporary studies concerning habitat selection of greater sage-grouse (Doherty et al. 2010; Rice et al. 2016; Walker et al. 2016).Populations were also analyzed to assess utilization of smaller mapped aspen stands as compared to larger continuous forested stands of aspen and/or mixed-conifer. While greater-sage grouse tend to avoid larger forested areas, they will utilize smaller aspen stands (T. Apa pers. comm. 2016-2018). All presence locations for each population were sampled against mapped aspen stands to calculate 1) the rate of selection for aspen stands by the population, and 2) the acreage of each aspen stand utilized. The sampled stand acreages were subsequently graphed and examined to identify natural breaks in the data. Stands with acreages less than the natural break value and not directly adjacent to other forested stands were classified and analyzed separately as isolated aspen polygons which were included as potentially suitable habitat; the remaining aspen stands were classified as forested and integrated with mixed-conifer forests, which were assumed to be non-suitable habitat.Finally, the distance to forested areas was measured as a vegetative predictor using the Euclidean Distance tool in ArcGIS 10.4, excluding all isolated aspen patches and mixed-conifer patches less than 0.5 acres (and see previous paragraph).Vegetation types were derived from the Colorado Vegetation Classification Project (CVCP), a 25 m resolution raster dataset developed by CPW, which mapped landcover conditions through the periods from 1993to 1997. In addition, vegetation types were also derived from the 2001 LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) layer for areas adjacent to the study area in Utah and Wyoming to provide complete and continuous vegetation cover for populations abutting the state boundary. The LANDFIRE EVT is a 30 m resolution raster dataset developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) mapping landcover conditions from 2001 (LANDFIRE 2001). Vegetative types were classified into biologically relevant classes and subsequently measured as percent-proportion by dividing the number of cells for the particular class by the total number of cells within the radii of the five defined scales using ArcGIS 10.4. The assigned classes of vegetative types varied by population and are detailed in the population-specific reports provided to BLM.Topographic predictors were derived from the 10 m resolution National Elevation Dataset (NED) Digital Elevation Model (DEM) developed and maintained by the USGS. Key topographic predictors include aspect, Compound Topographic Index (CTI), elevation, percent slope, slope position and surface roughness. Aspect and percent slope were calculated in ArcGIS 10.4. CTI, slope position and surface roughness were calculated using the Geomorphology and Gradient Metrics toolbox (Evans et al. 2014). In addition, aspect was subsequently transformed using the TRASP method in the Geomorphology and Gradient Metrics toolbox. To develop the multi-scale predictors, CTI and percent slope were measured as the mean of all values within the radii of the five defined scales; slope position and surface roughness were calculated using the radii of the five defined scales.The following summary of the step-wise procedure was developed to convert the Random Forest and RSF continuous surface model results into revised Habitat Management Area Prescriptions. Details of these methods follow this list:1. Classify all seasonal Random Forest and RSF model results into high and low habitat suitability layers.2. Ensemble all Random Forest and RSF classified seasonal layers to form a single year-round annual habitat layer designating locations as either high or low habitat suitability.3. Convert all highly suitable locations to Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) and all locations designated as low habitat suitability to General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA).4. Classify all areas within a 0.6-mile radius from lek locations having an active or unknown status designation as PHMA, regardless of habitat suitability classification.5. Identify all irrigated agricultural lands and designate interiors as Undesignated Habitat (UDH).6. Review and apply site-specific manual conversions of initial management prescription designations based on CPW biologist and stakeholder input.7. Remove identified non-habitat areas from Current Occupied Range (COR). Expand COR in areas beyond the current population boundary where evidence exists to demonstrate occupation by greater sage-grouse.The previous habitat layer generated by CPW, only two habitat designations prescribed by the BLM ARMPA exist for assigning management approaches for conservation of the Colorado greater sage-grouse populations; PHMA and GHMA. PHMA have the highest conservation value based on a combination of habitat and sage-grouse population characteristics and are managed to minimize disturbance activities through No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations and implementing capped disturbance allowances. GHMA represent areas with lower greater sage-grouse occupancy and generally have marginal habitat conditions with fewer management restrictions that provide greater flexibility in land use activities.The initial step to applying PHMA and GHMA habitat management prescriptions involves converting all areas classified as highly suitable habitat in the population’s year-round classified habitat layer to PHMA, while the remaining low habitat suitability areas are converted to GHMA. Secondly, all lek locations with a CPW-prescribed active or unknown status designation are buffered with a 0.6-mile radius and the entirety of the interior of the buffer area is converted to PHMA. Third, the most recent mapped irrigated agricultural lands data was acquired from the Colorado Division of Water Resources for all applicable populations, then the following procedure described below were implemented to apply the Undesignated Habitat prescription to the interior of all irrigated agricultural lands.Undesignated HabitatThrough the course of this study, an additional management prescription was established by AGNC to address concerns regarding habitat management on privately held irrigated agricultural lands.An Undesignated Habitat(UDH) management prescription was developed to address concerns surrounding the management of privately held irrigated agricultural lands. The UDH prescription is applicable to all populations, excluding the Parachute-Piceance-Roan population (due to a lack of irrigated agricultural lands). UDH are areas of seasonally irrigated and harvested hay fields. These areas are utilized seasonally by sage-grouse, primarily in the late summer and fall, near edges where irrigated fields are adjacent and abutting sagebrush habitats. UDH is considered effective habitat, but it is the long-term irrigation and haying practices which have created and maintain this habitat type, and thus the unimpeded irrigation, haying operations and maintenance are not considered to be a negative impact to sage-grouse. While utilization of the edges of irrigated agricultural lands by sage-grouse is known to vary from population to population, studying grouse utilization on a population-specific basis proved problematic as most populations lacked adequate telemetry locations within irrigated agricultural lands to yield results with any level of confidence. For this reason, the North Park population was selected to analyze in detail due to the high number of telemetry points located within irrigated agricultural lands. Approximately 20 percent of all summer-fall telemetry locations for the North Park population occur within irrigated agricultural lands, compared to less than 1 percent to 3 percent utilization demonstrated in the remaining populations.All summer-fall telemetry locations occurring within irrigated agricultural lands were sampled to calculate the distance each point occurred from the edges of irrigated fields. The distances for each location were plotted in a histogram and subsequently reviewed by CPW and AGNC team consultants, revealing a natural break occurring in the

To assess site resilience, we divided the coast into 1,232 individual sites centered around each tidal marsh or complex of tidal habitats. For each site, we estimated the amount of migration space available under four sea-level rise scenarios and we identified the amount of buffer area surrounding the whole tidal complex. We then examined the physical properties and condition characteristics of the site and its features using newly developed analyses as well as previously published and peer-reviewed datasets.Sites vary widely in the amount and suitability of migration space they provide. This is determined by the physical structure of the site and the intactness of processes that facilitate migration. A marsh hemmed in by rocky cliffs will eventually convert to open water, whereas a marsh bordered by low lying wetlands with ample migration space and a sufficient sediment supply will have the option of moving inland. As existing tidal marshes degrade or disappear, the amount of available high-quality migration space becomes an indicator of a site’s potential to support estuarine habitats in the future. The size and shape of a site’s migration space is dependent on the elevation, slope, and substrate of the adjacent land. The condition of the migration space also varies substantially among sites. For some tidal complexes, the migration space contains roads, houses, and other forms of hardened structures that resist conversion to tidal habitats, while the migration space of other complexes consists of intact and connected freshwater wetlands that could convert to tidal habitats.Our aim was to characterize each site’s migration space but not predict its future composition. Towards this end, we measured characteristics of the migration space related to its size, shape, volume, and condition, and we evaluated the options available to the tidal complex to rearrange and adjust to sea level rise. In the future, the area will likely support some combination of salt marsh, brackish marsh and tidal flat, but predictions concerning the abundance and spatial arrangement of the migration space’s future habitats are notoriously difficult to make because nature’s transitions are often non-linear and facilitated by pulses of disturbance and internal competition. For instance, in response to a 1.4 mm increase in the rate of SLR, the landward migration of low marsh cordgrass in some New York marshes appears to be displacing high marsh (Donnelly & Bertness 2001). Thus, our assumption was simply that a tidal complex with a large amount of high quality and heterogeneous migration space will have more options for adaptation, and will be more resilient, than a tidal complex with a small amount of degraded and homogenous migration space.To delineate migration space for the full project area, we requested the latest SLR Viewer (Marcy et al. 2011) marsh migration data, with no accretion rate, for all the NOAA geographic units within the project area, from NOAA (N. Herold, pers. comm., 2018). Specifically, we obtained data for the following states in the project area: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. As accretion is very location-dependent, we chose not to use one of the three SLR Viewer accretion rates because they were flat rates applied across each geographic unit. For each geography, we combined four SLR scenarios (1.5’, 3’, 4’, and 6.5’) with the baseline scenario to identify pixels that changed from baseline. We only selected cells that transitioned to tidal habitats (unconsolidated shoreline, salt marsh, and transitional / brackish marsh) and not to open water or upland habitat. We combined the results from each of the geographies and projected to NAD83 Albers. The resultant migration space was then resampled to a 30-m grid and snapped to the NOAA 2010 C-CAP land cover grid (NOAA, 2017). The tidal complex grid and the migration space grid were combined to ensure that there were no overlapping pixels. While developed areas were not allowed to be future marsh in NOAA’s SLR Viewer marsh migration model, we still removed all roads and development, as represented in the original 30-m NOAA 2010 C-CAP land cover grid, from the migration space. We took this step as differences in spatial resolution between the underlying elevation and land cover datasets could occasionally result in small amounts of development in our resampled migration space. The remaining migration space was then spatially grouped into contiguous regions using an eight-neighbor rule that defined connected cells as those immediately to the right, left, above, or diagonal to each other. The region-grouped grid was converted to a polygon, and the SLR scenario represented by each migration space footprint was assigned to each polygon. Finally, the migration space scenario polygons that intersected any of the tidal complexes were selected. Because a single migration space polygon could be adjacent to and accessible to more than one tidal complex unit, each migration space polygon was linked to their respective tidal complex units with a unique ID by restructuring and aggregating the output from a one-to-many spatial join in ArcGIS. This linkage enabled the calculation of attributes for each tidal complex such as total migration space acreage, total number of migration space units, and the percent of the tidal complex perimeter that was immediately adjacent to migration space. Similar attributes were calculated for each migration space unit including total tidal complex acreage and number of tidal complex units.This dataset shows additional migration space units in the project area for the 6.5-foot sea level rise scenario. Additional migration space units are migration space units that did not spatially intersect current tidal marshes or were spatially disjunct from the migration space of current tidal marshes. Because additional migration space units were not directly associated with a tidal complex, these units were NOT used in the calculation of a tidal complex’s resilience score. The spatial separation could be due to roads, waterbodies, waterways, oil and gas fields, etc. Depending on local factors and context, the degree to which these features will prevent marshes from accessing the additional migration space areas in the future is unknown and likely varies by site.There were thousands of small and disconnected additional migration space areas, often individual pixels, typically found in urban settings, remote upstream riverine areas, or far from any migration space units or tidal marshes. We did not consider these isolated occurrences as additional migration space because they are unlikely to be important future marsh areas. We identified isolated migration space areas using the following approach. First, for unconfirmed additional migration space areas, an iterative analysis of the Euclidean distance from current tidal marshes and their migration space areas, including confirmed additional migration space, was performed. Next, pixels that did not meet the distance thresholds in the first step but were within 60 meters of a NHDPlus v2 (USEPA & USGS, 2012) streamline were retained as additional migration space. Any remaining pixels less than or equal to two acres in size were then removed from the additional migration space. Finally, visual inspection was used to remove isolated migration space areas that were not identified through the previous steps. We assigned resilience scores to the additional migration space areas using several approaches. First, we spatially allocated resilience scores based on Euclidean distance from tidal marshes or migration space units. While this approach was a good starting point, there were migration space areas whose score assignments had to be done manually or by taking the highest of two equidistant nearby scores. The manual assignment included straightforward cases, but often it was unclear how marshes might move into a migration space area (e.g., will marsh travel through waterways to nearby migration space areas; will marsh use all migration space areas along a waterway or waterbody or only on the same side as the current marsh?). For sites with unclear relationships to current marshes and their migration space, the highest resilience score in the general geographic area of the additional migration space was assigned. Consequently, please interpret the scores of the additional migration space with caution and use local expertise and knowledge as you see fit. REFERENCESChaffee, C, Coastal policy analyst for the R.I. Coastal Resources Management Council. personal communication. April 4, 2017.Donnelly, J.P, & Bertness, M.D. 2001. Rapid shoreward encroachment of salt marsh cordgrass in response to accelerated sea-level rise. PNAS 98(25) www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.251209298Herold, N. 2018. NOAA Sea Level Rise (SLR) Viewer marsh migration data (10-m), with no accretion rate, for all SLR scenarios from 0.5-ft. to 10.0-ft. for VA, NC, SC, GA, and FL. Personal communication Jan. 24, 2018. Lerner, J.A., Curson, D.R., Whitbeck, M., & Meyers, E.J., Blackwater 2100: A strategy for salt marsh persistence in an era of climate change. 2013. The Conservation Fund (Arlington, VA) and Audubon MD-DC (Baltimore, MD).Lucey, K. NH Coastal Program. Personal Communication. April 4, 2017.Maine Natural Areas Program. 2016. Coastal Resiliency Datasets, Schlawin, J and Puryear, K., project leads. http://www.maine.gov/dacf/mnap/assistance/coastal_resiliency.htmlMarcy, D., Herold, N., Waters, K., Brooks, W., Hadley, B., Pendleton, M., Schmid, K., Sutherland, M., Dragonov, K., McCombs, J., Ryan, S. 2011. New Mapping Tool and Techniques For Visualizing Sea Level Rise And Coastal Flooding Impacts. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center. Originally published in the Proceedings of the 2011 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers

Results from a New Mexico county based gravity model measuring geographic accessibility using 2015 population and physician data. Both Euclidean and road distance measures were used. The relative difference between the Euclidean and road distance measures is presented. An IDW interpolation for road distance results is presented in addition choropleth maps. The 2015 census population estimates are from UNM-GPS and the 2015 primary care physician estimates were obtained from the New Mexico Health Care Workforce Committee, 2016 Annual Report: (http://hsc.unm.edu/assets/doc/economic-development/nmhcwc-presentation-2016.PDF).Additional results from a New Mexico Census Tract based gravity model measuring geographic accessibility using 2002 population and physician data. Both Euclidean and road distance measures were used. The relative difference between the Euclidean and road distance measures is presented. An IDW interpolation for road distance results is presented in addition choropleth maps. The 2015 census population estimates are from UNM-GPS and the 2002 primary care physicians estimates were from the Division of Government Research, UNM as part of work performed for the New Mexico Health Policy Commission from 1998 through 2002.Note: both choropleth and IDW interpolation examples are presented.More information at: (http://www.unm.edu/~lspear/health_stuff.html).