Business Analyst Layer: Color-coded map '2023 Population Density'

Author: S Wicklund, educator, Minnesota Alliance for Geographic EducationGrade/Audience: high schoolResource type: lessonSubject topic(s): population, mapsRegion: worldStandards: Minnesota Social Studies Standards

Standard 1. People use geographic representations and geospatial technologies to acquire, process and report information within a spatial context.

Standard 3. Places have physical characteristics (such as climate, topography and vegetation) and human characteristics (such as culture, population, political and economic systems).

Standard 5. The characteristics, distribution and migration of human populations on the earth’s surface influence human systems (cultural, economic and political systems).Objectives: Students will be able to:

1. Use maps of population distribution to examine the history of world population growth.
2. Construct a dot map to show current world population distribution.
3. Describe the difference between arithmetic and physiological densities.
4. Craft a response to a prompt to evaluate the Negative Population Growth perspective. Summary: Students will use maps of population distribution to examine the history of world population growth. They will also examine current world population distribution. Students will role-play the difference between arithmetic and physiologic densities using Egypt as an example. They will then craft a response to a prompt where they evaluate the Negative Population Growth perspective.

The Census Bureau has completed the delineation of the Census 2000 urbanized areas (UA) and urban clusters (UC). The Census Bureau identifies and tabulates data for the urban and rural populations and their associated areas solely for the presentation and comparison of census statistical data. For Census 2000, the Census Bureau classifies as urban all territory, population, and housing units located within an urbanized area (UA) or an urban cluster (UC). It delineates UA and UC boundaries to encompass densely settled territory, which consists of:

- core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and

- surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile

In addition, under certain conditions, less densely settled territory may be part of each UA or UC.

The Census Bureau's classification of rural consists of all territory, population, and housing units located outside of UAs and UCs.

For more information about the 2000 Urbanized Area please go to:
https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/maps/ua2kmaps.html

The 2015 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. The records in this file allow users to map the parts of Urban Areas that overlap a particular county. After each decennial census, the Census Bureau delineates urban areas that represent densely developed territory, encompassing residential, commercial, and other nonresidential urban land uses. In general, this territory consists of areas of high population density and urban land use resulting in a representation of the "urban footprint." There are two types of urban areas: urbanized areas (UAs) that contain 50,000 or more people and urban clusters (UCs) that contain at least 2,500 people, but fewer than 50,000 people (except in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam which each contain urban clusters with populations greater than 50,000). Each urban area is identified by a 5-character numeric census code that may contain leading zeroes. The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are as of January 1, 2010.

In 2008, the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) developed a map of white-tailed deer density with information obtained from state wildlife agencies. The map contains information from 2001 to 2005, with noticeable changes since the development of the first deer density map made by QDMA in 2001. The University of Minnesota, Forest Ecosystem Health Lab and the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service-Northern Research Station have digitized the deer density map to provide information on the status and trends of forest health across the eastern United States. The QDMA spatial map depicting deer density (deer per square mile) was digitized across the eastern United States. Estimates of deer density were: White = rare, absent, or urban area with unknown population, Green = less than 15 deer per square mile, Yellow = 15 to 30 deer per square mile, Orange = 30 to 40 deer per square mile, or Red = greater than 45 deer per square mile. These categories represent coarse deer density levels as identified in the QDMA report in 2009 and should not be used to represent current or future deer densities across the study region. Sponsorship: Quality Deer Management Association; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service-Northern Research Station; Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Link to DRUM catalog record. File Name: Web Page, url: https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/178246

Map of gray wolf and red wolf current and historic range and suitable habitat across the U.S. and Mexico. Produced by Defenders of Wildlife (2021). All data sources listed below:Gray Wolf:Historic Range: The historic range for the gray wolf was delineated with the help of peer reviewed sources: Rutledge et al. 2010. Genetic and morphometric analysis of sixteenth century Canis skull fragments: implications for historic eastern and gray wolf distribution in North America.Current Range: Range delineation was based on range data from IUCN and USFWS, expert knowledge, and personal communications from Defenders of Wildlife field teams, academia, and federal agencies. Details of delineations focused mostly on the United States and Mexico as ranges north of that couldn’t be confirmed due to controversies.Suitable Habitat:Bennett, L.E. 1994. Colorado Gray Wolf Recovery: A biological feasibility study. Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and University of Wyoming Fish and Wildlife Cooperative research unit, Laramie, Wyoming, USA. Available at: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951p00672031a;view=1up;seq=146California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016b. Potential Suitable Habitat in California. Pages 153-160 in Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California Part 2. Carroll, C., Phillips, M.K., Lopez-Gonzalez, C.A., and Schumaker, N.H. 2006. Defining Recovery Goals and Strategies for Endangered Species: The Wolf as a Case Study. BioScience 56(1): 25–37, https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0025:DRGASF]2.0.CO;2Carroll, C. 2003. Impacts of Landscape Change on Wolf Viability in the Northeastern U.S. and Southeastern Canada. Wildlands Project Special Paper No. 5, available at https://www.klamathconservation.org/docs/wolfviabilitypaper.pdf.Carroll, C. 2007. Application of habitat models to wolf recovery planning in Washington. Unpublished report.Defendersof Wildlife. 2006. Places for Wolves: A Blueprint for Restoration and Recovery in the Lower 48 StatesDefenders of Wildlife. 2013. Places for WolvesHarrison, D. J., and T. G. Chapin. 1998. An assessment of potential habitat for eastern timber wolves in the northeastern United States and connectivity with occupied habitat in southeastern Canada. Wildlife Conservation Society, Working Paper Number 7.Harrison, D. J., and T. G. Chapin. 1998. Extent and connectivity of habitat for wolves in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 767-775, available at https://wolfology1.tripod.com/id207.htmHearne D., Lewis K., Martin M., Mitton E., and Rocklen C. 2003. Assessing the Landscape: Toward a Viable Gray Wolf Population in Michigan and Wisconsin. Hendricks, S.A., Schweizer, R.M., Harrigan, R.J., Pollinger, J.P., Paquet, P.C., Darimont, C.T., Adams, J.R., Waits, L.P., vonHoldt, B.M., Hohenlohe1, P.A. and R.K. Wayne. 2018. Natural recolonization and admixture of wolves (Canis lupus) in the US Pacific Northwest: challenges for the protection and management of rare and endangered taxa. The Genetics Society. Heredity. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41437-018-0094-x.Jimenez, M.D. et al. 2017. Wolf Dispersal in the Rocky Mountains, Western United States: 1993–2008. The Journal of Wildlife Management 81(4):581–592.Larson, T. and W.J. Ripple. 2006. Modeling Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) habitat in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. Journal of Conservation Planning 2:17-33.Maletzke, B.T. and R.B. Wielgus. 2011. Development of wolf population models for RAMAS© analysis by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Martinez-Meyer E., Gonzalez-Bernal A., Velasco J.A., Swetnam T.L., Gonzalez-Saucedo Z.Y., Servin J., Lopez-Gonzalez C.A., Oakleaf, J.A., Liley S., and Heffelfinger J.R. 2020. Rangewide habitat suitability analysis for the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) to identify recovery areas in its historical distribution. Diversity and Distributions 00:1-13.McNab, W.H., Cleland, D.T., Freeouf, J.A., Keys, Jr., J.E., Nowacki, G.J., Carpenter, C.A., comps. 2007. Description of ecological subregions: sections of the conterminous United States [CD-ROM]. Gen. Tech. Report WO-76B. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80 p.McNab, W.H. and P.E. Avers. 1995. Ecological subregions of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, available at https://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/.Mladenoff, D.J., Sickley, T.A., Haight, R.G. and Wydeven, A.P. 1995. A Regional Landscape Analysis and Prediction of Favorable Gray Wolf Habitat in the Northern Great Lakes RegionMladenoff, D.J. and T.A. Sickley. 1998. Assessing Potential Gray Wolf Restoration in the Northeastern United States: A Spatial Source. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(1): 1-10.Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources. 2001. Minnesota Wolf Management Plan. Minnesota Dept. Natural Resources. 2017a. Gray Wolf, available at https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/wolves/mgmt.html.Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks. 2004. Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.Montana Fish,Wildlife & Parks. 2018. Montana Annual Report 2018: Wolf Conservation and Management.Oakleaf J.K., Murray D.L., Oakleaf J.R., Bangs E.E., Mack C.M., Smith D.W., Fontaine J.A., Jimenez M.D., Meier T.J., and C.C. Niemeyer. 2006. Habitat Selection by Recolonizing Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(2):554-563.Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. Updated mapping potential gray wolf range in Oregon.Potvin M.J., Drummer T.D., Vucetich J.A., Beyer E. Jr., and J.H. Hammill. 2005. Monitoring and Habitat Analysis for Wolves in Upper Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(4):1660-1669.Treves A., Martin K.A., Wiedenhoeft J.E., Wydeven A.P. (2009) Dispersal of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region. In: Wydeven A.P., Van Deelen T.R., Heske E.J. (eds) Recovery of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85952-1_12USGS Gap Analysis Project Species Range and Predicted Habitat: Gray wolf: https://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/apps/species-data-download/Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2017. Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2017 Annual Report.Wiles, G. J., H. L. Allen, and G. E. Hayes. 2011. Wolf conservation and management plan for Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 297 pp.Red Wolf:Historic Range:Red wolf historic range established by USFWS based on information provided by the 2016 Wildlife Management Institute report [ Wildlife Management Institute: A Review and Evaluation of the Red Wolf (Canis rufus) Historic Range, Final Report – 5/25/2016]. The historic range layer is a combination of the following Level II EPA Ecoregions: 1) Mississippi Alluvial and Southeast USA Coastal Plains, 2) Ozark/Ouachita-Appalachian Forests, 3) South Central Semi-Arid Prairies, 4) Southeastern USA Plains, and 5) Texas-Louisiana Coastal PlainsCurrent Range (Recovery Area):Red wolf recovery area adapted from the USFWS current range information.Suitable Habitat:Toivonen L.K. (2018) Assessing red wolf conservation based on analyses of habitat suitability and human perception of carnivores.Karlin M., Vaclavik T., Chadwick J., and R. Meentemeyer. (2016) Habitat use by adult red wolves, Canis rufus, in an agricultural landscape, North Carolina, USA. Mammal Study 41:87-95.