This data is utilized in the Lesson 1.1 What is Climate activity on the MI EnviroLearning Hub Climate Change page.Station data accessed was accessed from NOAA. Data was imported into ArcGIS Pro where Coordinate Table to Point was used to spatially enable the originating CSV. This feature service, which incorporates Census Designated Places from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics, was used to spatially join weather stations to the nearest incorporated area throughout Michigan.Email Egle-Maps@Michigan.gov for questions.Former name: MichiganStationswAvgs19912020_WithinIncoproatedArea_UpdatedName Display Name Field Name Description

STATION_ID MichiganStationswAvgs19912020_W Station ID where weather data is collected

STATION MichiganStationswAvgs19912020_1 Station name where weather data is collected

ELEVATION MichiganStationswAvgs19912020_6 Elevation above mean sea level-meters

MLY-PRCP-NORMAL MichiganStationswAvgs19912020_8 Long-term averages of monthly precipitation total-inches

MLY-TAVG-NORMAL MichiganStationswAvgs19912020_9 Long-term averages of monthly average temperature -F

OID MichiganStationswAvgs1991202_10 Object ID for weather dataset

Join_Count MichiganStationswAvgs1991202_11 Spatial join count of weather station data to specific weather station

TARGET_FID MichiganStationswAvgs1991202_12 Spatial Join ID

Current place ANSI code MichiganStationswAvgs1991202_13 Census codes for identification of geographic entities (used for join)

Geographic Identifier MichiganStationswAvgs1991202_14 Geographic identifier (used for join)

Current class code MichiganStationswAvgs1991202_15 Class (CLASSFP) code defines the current class of a geographic entity

Current functional status MichiganStationswAvgs1991202_16 Status of weather station

Area of Land (Square Meters) MichiganStationswAvgs1991202_17 Area of land in square meters

Area of Water (Square Meters) MichiganStationswAvgs1991202_18 Area of water in square meters

Current latitude of the internal point MichiganStationswAvgs1991202_19 Latitude

Current longitude of the internal point MichiganStationswAvgs1991202_20 Longitude

Name MichiganStationswAvgs1991202_21 Location name of weather station

Current consolidated city GNIS code MichiganStationswAvgs1991202_22 Geographic Names Information System for an incorporated area

OBJECTID MichiganStationswAvgs1991202_23 Object ID for point dataset

Author: Titus, Maxwell (mtitus@esri.com)Last Updated: 3/4/2025Intended Environment: ArcGIS ProPurpose: This Notebook was designed to automate updates for Hosted Feature Services hosted in ArcGIS Online (or ArcGIS Portal) from ArcGIS Pro and a spatial join of two live datasets.Description: This Notebook was designed to automate updates for Hosted Feature Services hosted in ArcGIS Online (or ArcGIS Portal) from ArcGIS Pro. An associated ArcGIS Dashboard would then reflect these updates. Specifically, this Notebook would:First, pull two datasets - National Weather Updates and Public Schools - from the Living Atlas and add them to an ArcGIS Pro map.Then, the Notebook would perform a spatial join on two layers to give Public Schools features information on whether they fell within an ongoing weather event or alert. Next, the Notebook would truncate the Hosted Feature Service in ArcGIS Online - that is, delete all the data - and then append the new data to the Hosted Feature ServiceAssociated Resources: This Notebook was used as part of the demo for FedGIS 2025. Below are the associated resources:Living Atlas Layer: NWS National Weather Events and AlertsLiving Atlas Layer: U.S. Public SchoolsArcGIS Demo Dashboard: Demo Impacted Schools Weather DashboardUpdatable Hosted Feature Service: HIFLD Public Schools with Event DataNotebook Requirements: This Notebook has the following requirements:This notebook requires ArcPy and is meant for use in ArcGIS Pro. However, it could be adjusted to work with Notebooks in ArcGIS Online or ArcGIS Portal with the advanced runtime.If running from ArcGIS Pro, connect ArcGIS Pro to the ArcGIS Online or ArcGIS Portal environment.Lastly, the user should have editable access to the hosted feature service to update.

• Spatial join of precintvotingdata in Counties *Change the symbology for quantities of normalization yes_votes.

This project aims to identify areas in Los Angeles that are at high risk of crime in the future and to propose optimal locations for new police stations in those areas. By applying machine learning to post-COVID-19 crime data and various socioeconomic indicators, we predict crime risk at the ZIP Code level. Using a location-allocation model, we then determine suitable locations for new police stations to improve coverage of high-risk zones. The results of our analysis can support the efficient allocation of public safety resources in response to growing demand and budget constraints, helping city officials optimize law enforcement services. The content of the archive- Jupyter Notebook- Data (GeoJSON, CSV)- Summary report PDF FileThe platform on which the notebook should be run.This notebook is designed to run on Datahub.Project materials - Project Material we created on AGOL 1 Los Angeles Crime Hotspothttps://ucsdonline.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=4bddbae65c164f2d9b0285e09cb2820e 2 Choropleth Map of Predicted Crime Levels by ZIP Codehttps://ucsdonline.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=e47abb448f0a411ab77c6ac754ba0c34 3. Optimizing LA Police Station: A Location Allocation Analysishttps://ucsdonline.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=2409da85c3fe410e9578a0eaaed8471e - ArcGIS StoryMaphttps://ucsdonline.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=cfbd4fc27a3b400296e4e31555951d27 Software dependencies - pandas: Used for loading, formatting, and performing matrix operations on tabular data.- geopandas: Used for loading and processing spatial data, including spatial joins and coordinate transformations.- shapely.geometry.Point: Used to create spatial point objects from latitude and longitude coordinates.- arcgis.gis, arcgis.features, arcgis.geometry, arcgis.geoenrichment: Used to retrieve and manipulate geographic data from ArcGIS Online and to extract population statistics using the GeoEnrichment module.- numpy: Used for feature matrix formatting and numerical computations prior to model training.- IPython.display (display, Markdown, Image): Used to format and display Markdown text, data tables, and images within Jupyter Notebooks.- scikit-learn: Used for building and evaluating machine learning models. Specifically, it was used for data preprocessing (StandardScaler), splitting data (train_test_split), model selection and tuning (GridSearchCV, cross_val_score), training various regressors (e.g.,LinearRegression, RandomForestRegressor, KNeighborsRegressor), and assessing performance using metrics such as R², RMSE, and MAE.Other Components we used - ArcGIS Online: Used to create and host interactive web maps for spatial visualization and public presentation purposes.- Flourish: Used to create interactive graphs and charts for visualizing trends and supporting the analysis.

For every address in the City of Kitchener, a GIS spatial join has been created to select the closest Park, Playground, Elementary School, etc

Connecticut Erosion Susceptibility a 1:24,000-scale, polygon feature-based layer that was developed as a predictive tool to show areas most susceptible to terrace escarpment type erosion. The layer compiled from the soils and quaternary geology data layers and was field tested during October-December, 2005. The Erosion Susceptilibity layer was developed as part of Project #03-02 Statewide GIS Analysis and Mapping of the Geologic Conditions Contributing to Eroding Terrace Escarpments. The layer does not represent eroding conditions at any one particular point in time, but rather base or general conditions which can be accounted for during planning or management strategies. The layer includes 4 types of areas susceptible to erosion, ranked 1 (most susceptible) through 4, and their descriptive attribute. Areas outside of the mapped polygons can be considered less susceptible to erosion. Data is compiled at 1:24,000 scale. This data is not updated.

Connecticut Erosion Sites is a site specific, point feature-based layer developed at 1:24,000-scale that includes decriptive information regarding the character of the erosion (severity, slope, geologic factors) at selected locations through out the state. The layer is based on information collected and compiled during October-December, 2005 while field testing the applicability of the Erosion Susceptilibity layer developed as part of Project #03-02 Statewide GIS Analysis and Mapping of the Geologic Conditions Contributing to Eroding Terrace Escarpments. The layer represents conditions at a particular point in time. The layer includes 83 locations and descriptive attributes (site name, severity of erosion, description, etc) as well as attributes from a spatial join with merged soils and quaternary geology layers. Features are point locations that represent the selected study areas within the state; it is NOT a comprehensive inventory of erosion locations. Data is compiled at 1:24,000 scale. This data is not updated.

This dataset is one of several segments of a regional high detailed stream flowpath dataset. The data was separated using the TOPO 50 map series extents.The stream network was originally created for the purpose of high detailed work along rivers and streams in the Wellington region. It was started as a pilot study for the Mangatarere subcatchment of the Waiohine River for the Environmental Sciences department who was attempting to measure riparian vegetation. The data was sourced from a modelled stream network created using the 2013 LiDAR digital elevation model. Once the Mangatarere was complete the process was expanded to cover the entire region on an as needed basis for each whaitua. This dataset is one of several that shows the finished stream datasets for the Wairarapa region.The base stream network was created using a mixture of tools found in ArcGIS Spatial Analyst under Hydrology along with processes located in the Arc Hydro downloadable add-on for ArcGIS. The initial workflow for the data was based on the information derived from the help files provided at the Esri ArcGIS 10.1 online help files. The updated process uses the core Spatial Analyst tools to generate the streamlines while digital dams are corrected using the DEM Reconditioning tool provided by the Arc Hydro toolset. The whaitua were too large for processing separated into smaller units according to the subcatchments within it. In select cases like the Taueru subcatchment of the Ruamahanga these subcatchments need to be further defined to allow processing. The catchment boundaries available are not as precise as the LiDAR information which causes overland flows that are on edges of the catchments to become disjointed from each other and required manual correction.Attributes were added to the stream network using the River Environment Classification (REC) stream network from NIWA. The Spatial Join tool in Arcmap was used to add the Reach ID to each segment of the generated flow path. This ID was used to join a table which had been created by intersecting stream names (generated from a point feature class available from LINZ) with the REC subcatchment dataset. Both of the REC datasets are available from NIWA's website.

Reason for SelectionMigratory fish presence reflects uninterrupted connections between freshwater, estuarine, and marine ecosystems. Aquatic connectivity benefits diadromous fish and is considered a high priority for the integrity of aquatic ecosystems. Larger diadromous fish, like sturgeon, are often more sensitive to disruptions in aquatic connectivity. Smaller fish can make better use of fish ladders and other fish passage measures than larger fish. Input Data

  Southeast Aquatic Connectivity Assessment Project (SEACAP); see the final report for more information

SEACAP developed linear spatial data on the presence of priority diadromous species. These layers are modified versions of the NHDPlus Version 2. These data were altered to contain presence of Alabama shad using data from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (produced for the ASMFC by the Biodiversity and Spatial Information Center at North Carolina State University, Alexa McKerrow), and expert knowledge of the SEACAP Workgroup.

SEACAP also developed a functional river network layer (final SEACAP report, page 9). A functional river network is defined by those stream reaches that are accessible to a hypothetical fish within that network. The functional river network is defined by lines (streams). SEACAP also calculated “functional catchments,” which are polygons that represent the catchment area that is associated with each of those functional networks.

Note: A catchment is the local drainage area of a specific stream segment based on the surrounding elevation. Catchments are defined based on surface water features, watershed boundaries, and elevation data. It can be difficult to conceptualize the size of a catchment because they vary significantly in size based on the length of a particular stream segment and its surrounding topography—as well as the level of detail used to map those characteristics. To learn more about catchments and how they’re defined, check out these resources:

An article from USGS explaining the differences between various NHD products
The glossary at the bottom of this tutorial for an EPA water resources viewer, which defines some key terms

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Gulf Sturgeon Critical Habitat
Estimated Floodplain Map of the Conterminous U.S. from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) EnviroAtlas; see this factsheet for more information; download the data 

The EPA Estimated Floodplain Map of the Conterminous U.S. displays “...areas estimated to be inundated by a 100-year flood (also known as the 1% annual chance flood). These data are based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood inundation maps with the goal of creating a seamless floodplain map at 30-m resolution for the conterminous United States. This map identifies a given pixel’s membership in the 100-year floodplain and completes areas that FEMA has not yet mapped” (EPA 2018).

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD), accessed 8-11-2020: HUC6s, HUC12s; download the data
Base Blueprint 2022 extent
Southeast Blueprint 2023 extent

Mapping Steps

Combine all the linework for Gulf Sturgeon using the ArcPy Data Management Merge function. This includes line data from SEACAP and the NOAA critical habitat. Add and calculate a field showing that these are sturgeon lines.
Combine all the linework for the Alabama shad, American shad, or striped bass from SEACAP using the ArcPy Data Management Merge function. Add and calculate a field showing these lines represent the above species. 
Assign the values from the two sets of linework above to HUC12s using two separate ArcPy Analysis Spatial Join functions.
Add and calculate a new field. If it intersects a sturgeon line, give it a value of 2. Otherwise, if it intersects the other species linework, give it a value of 1.
Covert the HUC12s from polygons to a 30 m raster using the field above.
Convert the polygon layers from the Gulf sturgeon critical habitat to 30 m rasters and give those pixels a value of 2.
Combine the two rasters above using the ArcPy Spatial Analyst Cell Statistic “MAX” function.
Clip the resulting layer to the EPA estimated floodplain. 
Use the HUC6 layer to remove from the resulting raster areas outside the Gulf drainage where those 4 species ranges occur. The Atlantic drainages are represented in the Blueprint by the Atlantic Migratory Fish Habitat Indicator.
Use the HUC6 layer to add zero values to the above raster representing the Gulf range of the 4 species listed above. Zero values are intended to help users better understand the extent of this indicator and make it perform better in online tools.
Clip to the spatial extent of Base Blueprint 2023.
As a final step, clip to the spatial extent of Southeast Blueprint 2023.

Note: For more details on the mapping steps, code used to create this layer is available in the Southeast Blueprint Data Download under > 6_Code. Final indicator values Indicator values are assigned as follows: 2 = Presence of Gulf sturgeon 1 = Presence of Alabama shad, American shad, or striped bass 0 = Not identified as Gulf migratory fish habitat (east of the Mississippi River) Known Issues

This indicator does not account for smaller dams/culverts that serve as barriers to fish passage.
Where the SEACAP linear spatial data interests a dam, the indicator can extend to reservoirs that are not accessible to fish due to fish passage barriers (e.g., Ross R. Barnett Reservoir in MS).
The EPA Estimated Floodplain layer sometimes misses the small, linear connections made by artificial canals, especially when they go through areas that wouldn’t naturally be part of the floodplain. As a result, some areas (like lakes) that are connected via canals may appear to be disconnected, but still receive high scores.
While this indicator generally includes the open water area of reservoirs, some open water portions of reservoirs are missing from the estimated floodplain dataset.
Estuaries where Gulf sturgeon are not present are often underprioritized because data for the other species do not extend into the estuaries.
This indicator does not account for instream habitat quality, which can also be a barrier to fish passage.
This indicator likely underestimates the value of some areas for American eel. That species is not included in the indicator due to a lack of integrated regionwide data depicting how far upstream American eels have been observed.

Disclaimer: Comparing with Older Indicator Versions There are numerous problems with using Southeast Blueprint indicators for change analysis. Please consult Blueprint staff if you would like to do this (email hilary_morris@fws.gov). Literature Cited Martin, E. H, Hoenke, K., Granstaff, E., Barnett, A., Kauffman, J., Robinson, S. and Apse, C.D. 2014. SEACAP: Southeast Aquatic Connectivity Assessment Project: Assessing the ecological impact of dams on Southeastern rivers. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Division Conservation Science, Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership. [https://secassoutheast.org/pdf/SEACAP_Report.pdf].

EPA EnviroAtlas. 2018. Estimated Floodplain Map of the Conterminous U.S. [https://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/DataFactSheets/pdf/Supplemental/EstimatedFloodplains.pdf].

Data Source: The primary data source used for this analysis are point-level business establishment data from InfoUSA. This commercial database produced by InfoGroup provides a comprehensive list of businesses in the SCAG region, including their industrial classification, number of employees, and several additional fields. Data have been post-processed for accuracy by SCAG staff and have an effective date of 2016. Locally-weighted regression: First, the SCAG region is overlaid with a grid, or fishnet, of 1km, 2km, and ½-km per cell. At the 1km cell size, there are 16,959 cells covering the SCAG region. Using the Spatial Join feature in ArcGIS, a sum total of business establishments and total employees (i.e., not separated by industrial classification) were joined to each grid cell. Note that since cells are of a standard size, the employment total in a cell is the equivalent of the employment density. A locally-weighted regression (LWR) procedure was developed using the R Statistical Software package in order to identify subcenters. The below procedure is described for 1km grid cells, but was repeated for 2km and 1/2km cells. 1.) Identify local maxima candidates. Using R’s lwr package, each cell’s 120 nearest neighbors, corresponding to roughly 5.5 km in each direction, was explored to identify high outliers or local maxima based on the total employment field. Cells with a z-score of above 2.58 were considered local maxima candidates. 2.) Identify local maxima. LWR can result in local maxima existing within close proximity. This step used a .dbf-format spatial weights matrix (knn=120 nearest neighbors) to identify only cells which are higher than all of their 120 nearest neighbors. At the 1km scale, 84 local maxima were found, which will form the “peak” of each individual subcenter. 3.) Search adjacent cells to include as part of each subcenter. In order to find which cells also are part of each local maximum’s subcenter, we use a queen (adjacency) contiguity matrix to search adjacent cells up to 120 nearest neighbors, adding cells if they are also greater than the average density in their neighborhood. A total of 695 cells comprise subcenters at the 1km scale. A video from Kane et al. (2018) demonstrates the above aspects of the methodology (please refer to 0:35 through 2:35 of https://youtu.be/ylTWnvCCO54), with the following differences: - Different years and slightly different post-processing steps for InfoUSA data - Video study covers 5-county region (Imperial county not included) - Limited to 1km scale subcenters - Due to these differences, the final map of subcenters is different. A challenge arises in that using 1km grid cells may fail to identify the correct local maximum for a particularly large employment center whose experience of high density occurs over a larger area. The process was repeated at a 2km scale, resulting in 54 “coarse scaled” subcenters. Similarly, some centers may exist with a particularly tightly-packed area of dense employment which is not detectable at the medium, 1km scale. The process was repeated again with ½-km grid cells, resulting in 95 “fine scaled” subcenters. In many instances, boundaries of fine, medium, and coarse scaled subcenters were similar, but differences existed. The final step involved qualitatively comparing results at each scale to create the final map of 69 job centers across the region. Most centers are medium scale, but some known areas of especially employment density were better captured at the 2km scale while . Giuliano and Small’s (1991) “ten jobs per acre” threshold was used as a rough guide to test for reasonableness when choosing a larger or smaller scale. For example, in some instances, a 1km scale included much additional land which reduced job density well below 10 jobs per acre. In this instance, an overlapping or nearby 1/2km scaled center provided a better reflection of the local employment peak. Ultimately, the goal was to identify areas where job density is distinct from nearby areas.

Resilient Coastal SitesUsers can select their geography to access the data (Gulf of America, South Atlantic, Northeast)https://conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/edc/reportsdata/climate/CoastalResilience/Pages/default.aspx Report citations:Northeast: Anderson, M.G. and Barnett, A. 2017. Resilient Coastal Sites for Conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic US. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science.South Atlantic: Anderson, M.G. and Barnett, A. 2019. Resilient Coastal Sites for Conservation in the South Atlantic US. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science. Resilient Sites: Terrestrial & Coastal integratedhttps://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=2b0ff2a8fb5340a5a5e91ff9c185aa1d Credit: Center for Resilient Conservation Science, The Nature ConservancyTo 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.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 marshcordgrass 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. https://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 (ASCE), and reprinted with permission of ASCE(https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/).National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management. “VA_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “NC_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “SC_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “GA_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “FL_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER”. Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) Regional Land Cover. Charleston, SC: NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed September 2017 at https://.coast.noaa.gov/ccapftp.Schuerch, M.; Spencer, T.; Temmerman, S.; Kirwan, M L.; Wolff, C.; Linck, D.; McOwen, C.J.; Pickering, M.D.; Reef, R.; Vafeidis, A.T.; Hinkel J.; Nicholls, R.J.; and Sally Brown. 2018. Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature 561: 231-234.

This layer provides a reference index for the 2021 King County Tree Point layer. The tree point layer contains a total of 100,961,590 points, so it has been split into tiles of 1 - 2 million points each for better performance.The tiles are aligned with the IDXP7500 tiling grid that is used for raster data processing at King County. The 7,500 foot tiles were assigned a PLSS township/range value based on a spatial join with the center of the 7,500 foot tile. This means that the Tree Point Index grid and tree point tiles roughly align with the PLSS grid, but not exactly.Use the Tree Point Index to identify which tiles you need to access to cover your area of interest. All tree point features are turned on by default, but restricted to a max of 1:10,000 scale for visibility. If you don't see tree points, zoom in further and wait a few seconds for the layer to render. To improve performance, turn off tree point tile layers you don't need.

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.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 (ASCE), and reprinted with permission of ASCE(https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/).National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management. “VA_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “NC_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “SC_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “GA_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “FL_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER”. Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) Regional Land Cover. Charleston, SC: NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed September 2017 at www.coast.noaa.gov/ccapftp.Schuerch, M.; Spencer, T.; Temmerman, S.; Kirwan, M L.; Wolff, C.; Linck, D.; McOwen, C.J.; Pickering, M.D.; Reef, R.; Vafeidis, A.T.; Hinkel J.; Nicholls, R.J.; and Sally Brown. 2018. Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature 561: 231-234.

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.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 (ASCE), and reprinted with permission of ASCE(https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/).National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management. “VA_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “NC_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “SC_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “GA_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “FL_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER”. Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) Regional Land Cover. Charleston, SC: NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed September 2017 at www.coast.noaa.gov/ccapftp.Schuerch, M.; Spencer, T.; Temmerman, S.; Kirwan, M L.; Wolff, C.; Linck, D.; McOwen, C.J.; Pickering, M.D.; Reef, R.; Vafeidis, A.T.; Hinkel J.; Nicholls, R.J.; and Sally Brown. 2018. Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature 561: 231-234.

The feature is (primarily) a 10' latitude x 10' longitudinal vector grid that defines spatial units for summarizing commercial fishing off the coast of California. The grid cells start at 32° 10.0' N latitude (just below the U.S. / Mexico border) and continue northward to 42° 40.0' N latitude (just north of the California / Oregon border). This file was generated by a fishnet (XTools) function run in ArcGIS 10.6.1 and the index IDs were transferred from the previous file through a spatial join. The origin of these block definitions can be found in CDFG Fish Bulletin 44 - The Commercial Fish Catch of California for the Years 1930-1934, Inclusive and CDFG Fish Bulletin 86 - The Commercial Fish Catch of California for the Year 1950 with A Description of Methods Used in Collecting and Compiling the Statistics. Some revision of block boundaries and indices occurred in the late 1990's or early 2000 (exact date unknown). Improvements over the previous version include correction to a small shift in cell positions, adjustments to blocks around the Mexican border and addition the large offshore 4-digit blocks previously managed in a separate file. Attributes: Block_ID: Unique identifier for commercial fishing block. locationDescription: Generalized description of block location.

This database represents structures impacted by wildland fire that are inside or within 100 meters of the fire perimeter. Information such as structure type, construction features, and some defensible space attributes are determined as best as possible even when the structure is completely destroyed. Some attributes may have a null value when they could not be determined.Fire damage and poor access are major limiting factors for damage inspectors. All inspections are conducted using a systematic inspection process, however not all structures impacted by the fire may be identified due to these factors. Therefore, a small margin of error is expected. Two address fields are included in the database. The street number, street name, and street type fields are “field determined.” The inspector inputs this information based on what they see in the field. The Address (parcel) and APN (parcel) fields are added through a spatial join after data collection is complete. Additional fields such as Category and Structure Type are based off fields needed in the Incident Status Summary (ICS 209).Please review the DINS database dictionary for additional information. Damage PercentageDescription>0-10%Affected Damage10-25%Minor Damage25-50%Major Damage50-100%DestroyedNo DamageNo Damage

Survey results are available in two seperate formats. The .csv output contains all non-spatial data from the main survey form, and can be loaded in spreadsheet programs such as Microsoft Excel. The spatial content of the survey is available as a zipped collection of one or more shapefiles. These files can be opened in GIS applications such as ArcGISor QGIS. Please note, only completed survey responses are exported. Those still in draft will be excluded.Output columns in both the CSV and shapefile formats are named based on the exportidspecified in the form field configuration. If you are looking to analyze spatial data from the shapefiles based on attributes collected in the main response form, you can join fields from the CSV file with spatial features by joining on the RESPONSE_ID field.

Summary of category 3 water pollution incidents reported to the Environment Agency are held on the National Incident Reporting System. Sum of incidents reported between 2001 and 2020 summarised by WFD Operational Catchment.Extracted from NIRS for Closed Category 3 and 4 Incidents classified as 3 and 4 in the Water Environmental Level code field from 01/01/2020 until date of extraction 20/05/2024. This data includes grid references for each incident. These Grid references were then used to map each Incident within ArcMap and analyse using the Spatial Join Tool how many incidents are located within each WFD Operational. Within the data tab shows a table of Counts of Category 3 and 4 Incidents within each WFD Operational Catchments from 01/01/2020 to data extraction date (20/05/2024).

Use this layer to join non-spatial data: https://ph-lacounty.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/3e38574c3d31477d908c8028fb864ca4/aboutFor more information about the Community Health Profiles data initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

Aboout the Estuarine Processes, Hazards, and Ecosystems TeamAt the U.S. Geological Survey's Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center we undertake interdisciplinary projects that aim to quantify and understand estuarine processes through observations and numerical modeling. Both the spatial and temporal scales of these mechanisms are important, and therefore require modern instrumentation and state-of-the-art hydrodynamic models. These are mostly collaborative projects that include participation from other U.S. Geological Survey offices, other federal and state agencies, and academic institutions. Estuaries are dynamic environments where complex interactions between the atmosphere, ocean, watershed, ecosystems, and human infrastructure take place. They serve as valuable ecological habitat and provide numerous ecosystem services and recreational opportunities. However, they are modified by physical processes such as storms and sea-level rise, while anthropogenic impacts such as nutrient loading threaten ecosystem function within estuaries. This project collects basic observational data on these processes, develops numerical models of the processes, and applies the models to understand the past, present, and future states of estuaries.Measuring parameters such as water velocity, salinity, sediment concentration, dissolved oxygen and other constituents in watersheds, tidal wetlands, estuaries, and coasts is critical for evaluating the socioeconomic and ecological function of those regions. Technological advances have made it possible to autonomously measure these parameters over timescales of weeks to months. These measurements are necessary to evaluate three-dimensional numerical models that can represent the spatial and temporal complexity of these parameters. Once the models adequately represent relevant aspects of the physical system, they can be used to evaluate possible future scenarios including sea-level rise, streamflow changes, land-use modifications, and geomorphic evolution.

For more information about LA County efforts to provide housing and tenant protections, see the DCBA website.This layer is distinct from similar upload in that this layer has supervisor district (sup_dist) and service planning area (spa) as attributes, based on "center in" spatial join.For more information about this dataset, please contact egis@isd.lacounty.gov