Maps depicting the occupied seasonal habitat distributions and movement corridors of Nevada big game species. These delineations were determined by Nevada Department of Wildlife field biologists, supervisors, and wildlife staff specialists. Species include mule deer, black bear, elk, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and mountain goat.

Vector polygon map data of city limits from Las Vegas, Nevada containing 87 features.

City limits GIS (Geographic Information System) data provides valuable information about the boundaries of a city, which is crucial for various planning and decision-making processes. Urban planners and government officials use this data to understand the extent of their jurisdiction and to make informed decisions regarding zoning, land use, and infrastructure development within the city limits.

By overlaying city limits GIS data with other layers such as population density, land parcels, and environmental features, planners can analyze spatial patterns and identify areas for growth, conservation, or redevelopment. This data also aids in emergency management by defining the areas of responsibility for different emergency services, helping to streamline response efforts during crises..

This city limits data is available for viewing and sharing as a map in a Koordinates map viewer. This data is also available for export to DWG for CAD, PDF, KML, CSV, and GIS data formats, including Shapefile, MapInfo, and Geodatabase.

Maps depicting the occupied seasonal habitat distributions and movement corridors of Nevada big game species. These delineations were determined by Nevada Department of Wildlife field biologists, supervisors, and wildlife staff specialists. Species include mule deer, black bear, elk, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and mountain goat.

Chukar distribution in Nevada was delineated from USGS 1:250K topographic orthoquads based upon field biologist expert knowledge and known chukar occurrences extracted from the NDOW 240 Sight Record and Scientific Collection databases. These data are intended to represent the total known range of chukar throught Nevada.

Occupied habitat distributions of Nevada small game species. These delineations were deteremined by Nevada Department of Wildlife field biologists and wildlife staff specialists. Species include California quail, chukar, dusky grouse, Gambel's quail, Himalayan snowcock, mountain quail, ruffed grouse, sooty grouse, white-tailed jackrabbit, and wild turkey.

The project leads for the collection of this data were Sara Holm and Julie Garcia. Mule deer (11 adult females) from the Downieville-Nevada City herd were captured and equipped with Lotek Iridium Track MGPS collars, transmitting data from 2018-2021. GPS fixes were between 11-14 hours. The Downieville-Nevada City herd migrates from winter ranges in the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada range north and east of Nevada City to high altitude terrain near Rattlesnake Mountain north of Interstate 80 and Jackson Meadows Reservoir. To improve the quality of the data set as per Bjørneraas et al. (2010), the GPS data were filtered prior to analysis to remove locations which were: i) further from either the previous point or subsequent point than an individual deer is able to travel in the elapsed time, ii) forming spikes in the movement trajectory based on outgoing and incoming speeds and turning angles sharper than a predefined threshold , or iii) fixed in 2D space and visually assessed as a bad fix by the analyst. The methodology used for this migration analysis allowed for the mapping of winter ranges and the identification of migration corridors. Brownian Bridge Movement Models (BBMMs; Sawyer et al. 2009) were constructed with GPS collar data from 8 migrating deer, including 19 migration sequences, _location, date, time, and average _location error as inputs in Migration Mapper. The average migration time and average migration distance for deer was 14.11 days and 32.18 km, respectively. Corridors and stopovers were prioritized based on the number of animals moving through a particular area. BBMMs were produced at a spatial resolution of 50 m using a sequential fix interval of less than 27 hours. Due to the majority of BBMMs producing variance rates greater than 8000, a fixed motion variance of 1000 was set per migration sequence. Winter range analyses were based on data from 8 individual deer and 10 wintering sequences using a fixed motion variance of 1000. Winter range designations for this herd may expand with a larger sample, filling in some of the gaps between winter range polygons in the map. This collar project was not specifically designed to pinpoint precise migration routes or winter range designations, hence the low sample size. Additional migration routes and winter range areas likely exist beyond what was modeled in our output.Corridor tiers (low, medium, high) could not be computed with such a small dataset. Therefore, all corridors were given the same weight and designation in this analysis. Stopovers were calculated as the top 10 percent of the population level utilization distribution during migrations and can be interpreted as high use areas. Stopover polygon areas less than 20,000 m2were removed, but remaining small stopovers may be interpreted as short-term resting sites, likely based on a small concentration of points from an individual animal. Winter range is visualized as the 50th percentile contour of the winter range utilization distribution.

50 year Projected Urban Growth scenarios. Base year is 2000. Projected year in this dataset is 2050.

By 2020, most forecasters agree, California will be home to between 43 and 46 million residents-up from 35 million today. Beyond 2020 the size of California's population is less certain. Depending on the composition of the population, and future fertility and migration rates, California's 2050 population could be as little as 50 million or as much as 70 million. One hundred years from now, if present trends continue, California could conceivably have as many as 90 million residents. Where these future residents will live and work is unclear. For most of the 20th Century, two-thirds of Californians have lived south of the Tehachapi Mountains and west of the San Jacinto Mountains-in that part of the state commonly referred to as Southern California. Yet most of coastal Southern California is already highly urbanized, and there is relatively little vacant land available for new development. More recently, slow-growth policies in Northern California and declining developable land supplies in Southern California are squeezing ever more of the state's population growth into the San Joaquin Valley. How future Californians will occupy the landscape is also unclear. Over the last fifty years, the state's population has grown increasingly urban. Today, nearly 95 percent of Californians live in metropolitan areas, mostly at densities less than ten persons per acre. Recent growth patterns have strongly favored locations near freeways, most of which where built in the 1950s and 1960s. With few new freeways on the planning horizon, how will California's future growth organize itself in space? By national standards, California's large urban areas are already reasonably dense, and economic theory suggests that densities should increase further as California's urban regions continue to grow. In practice, densities have been rising in some urban counties, but falling in others.

These are important issues as California plans its long-term future. Will California have enough land of the appropriate types and in the right locations to accommodate its projected population growth? Will future population growth consume ever-greater amounts of irreplaceable resource lands and habitat? Will jobs continue decentralizing, pushing out the boundaries of metropolitan areas? Will development densities be sufficient to support mass transit, or will future Californians be stuck in perpetual gridlock? Will urban and resort and recreational growth in the Sierra Nevada and Trinity Mountain regions lead to the over-fragmentation of precious natural habitat? How much water will be needed by California's future industries, farms, and residents, and where will that water be stored? Where should future highway, transit, and high-speed rail facilities and rights-of-way be located? Most of all, how much will all this growth cost, both economically, and in terms of changes in California's quality of life? Clearly, the more precise our current understanding of how and where California is likely to grow, the sooner and more inexpensively appropriate lands can be acquired for purposes of conservation, recreation, and future facility siting. Similarly, the more clearly future urbanization patterns can be anticipated, the greater our collective ability to undertake sound city, metropolitan, rural, and bioregional planning.

Consider two scenarios for the year 2100. In the first, California's population would grow to 80 million persons and would occupy the landscape at an average density of eight persons per acre, the current statewide urban average. Under this scenario, and assuming that 10% percent of California's future population growth would occur through infill-that is, on existing urban land-California's expanding urban population would consume an additional 5.06 million acres of currently undeveloped land. As an alternative, assume the share of infill development were increased to 30%, and that new population were accommodated at a density of about 12 persons per acre-which is the current average density of the City of Los Angeles. Under this second scenario, California's urban population would consume an additional 2.6 million acres of currently undeveloped land. While both scenarios accommodate the same amount of population growth and generate large increments of additional urban development-indeed, some might say even the second scenario allows far too much growth and development-the second scenario is far kinder to California's unique natural landscape.

This report presents the results of a series of baseline population and urban growth projections for California's 38 urban counties through the year 2100. Presented in map and table form, these projections are based on extrapolations of current population trends and recent urban development trends. The next section, titled Approach, outlines the methodology and data used to develop the various projections. The following section, Baseline Scenario, reviews the projections themselves. A final section, entitled Baseline Impacts, quantitatively assesses the impacts of the baseline projections on wetland, hillside, farmland and habitat loss.