A habitat suitability model at a 250 m resolution for the Koala Phascolarctos cinereus in north-eastern New South Wales using ‘presence only’ records and MaxEnt modelling. Model extent was based on the extent of Crafti vegetation mapping for north east NSW. Substantial spatial clustering of records in coastal urban areas was reduced using a 2 km spatial filter and by modelling separately two sub-regions divided by the 500 m elevation contour. An average of 1086 occurrence records was used to develop models. A bias file was prepared that accounted for variable survey effort, including the concentration of Koala records along sealed and unsealed roads. A reduced set of 14 variables was used in model building. The models were evaluated using a test set of 25 % of the records, with a resulting good fit for each model, as measured by AUC. Frequency of wildfire, Australian Soil Classification, floristic mapping and elevation had the highest relative contribution to the model, whilst a number of other variables made minor contributions. The model was field validated at 65 ground-truth sites.

Export Data Access API A Series of models describing Fauna habitat suitability and occurrence as probability. More information: https://portal.spatial.nsw.gov.au/portal/home/item.html?id=78e6ae3d34aa45d2b8118fd0308d6459 Metadata Portal Metadata InformationContent TitleFauna Species occupancy and Distribution Baselines in NSW RFA RegionsContent TypeOtherDescriptionA Series of models describing Fauna habitat suitability and occurrence as probability.Initial Publication Date06/08/2022Data Currency01/01/2000Data Update FrequencyOtherContent SourceFile TypeTIFFAttributionData Theme, Classification or Relationship to other DatasetsAccuracySpatial Reference System (dataset)GDA94Spatial Reference System (web service)EPSG:4326WGS84 Equivalent ToGDA94Spatial ExtentContent LineageData ClassificationUnclassifiedData Access PolicyOpenData QualityTerms and ConditionsCreative CommonsStandard and SpecificationData CustodianNatural Resources CommissionPoint of Contactnrc@nrc.nsw.gov.auData AggregatorData DistributorAdditional Supporting InformationTRIM Number

Access APICore Koala HabitatThe statewide Koala Habitat Information Base has been developed as part of the NSW Koala Strategy. It delivers the best available state-wide spatial data on koala habitat, likelihood, koala preferred trees and koala sightings for NSW.Metadata Portal Metadata InformationContent TitleCore Koala HabitatContent TypeWeb MapDescriptionThe statewide Koala Habitat Information Base has been developed as part of the NSW Koala Strategy. It delivers the best available state-wide spatial data on koala habitat, likelihood, koala preferred trees and koala sightings for NSW.Initial Publication Date31/08/2019Data Currency31/08/2019Data Update FrequencyOtherContent SourceAPIFile TypeMap Feature ServiceAttributionData Theme, Classification or Relationship to other DatasetsAccuracySpatial Reference System (dataset)GDA94Spatial Reference System (web service)OtherWGS84 Equivalent ToGDA94Spatial ExtentContent LineageData ClassificationUnclassifiedData Access PolicyOpenData QualityTerms and ConditionsCreative CommonsStandard and SpecificationData CustodianDPIEPoint of ContactDPIEData AggregatorData DistributorAdditional Supporting InformationTRIM Number

Map of koala movement corridors and priority restoration areas in a study area in south-western Sydney. Koala movement corridors are classified as primary, secondary and tertiary according to the level of connectivity of core koala habitat which are critical for the long-term viability of the regional koala population in the study area. Koala corridor categories also consider corridor dimensions such as minimum widths. Koala corridors are likely to extend outside of the study area. They are named, largely by geographic area or river/creek catchment. The mapping, along with key koala conservation principles, form the basis of advice by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment related to the conservation of the regional koala population extending from Holsworthy and Moorebank, through Campbelltown and Wollondilly, to Wingecarribee. For further information on the data layer and its development, please see Conserving koalas in Wollondilly and Campbelltown Local Government Areas. Also available for download from Data and resources below.

The Recommended Plan divides the Dawson planning region into 21 discrete areas of land called Landscape Management Units. They are generally based upon differences in use, ecology, land status, habitat and physical landscape features such as watersheds. Each Landscape Management Unit has its own management direction. The Recommended Plan's Land Use Designation System describes the management intent of each Landscape Management Unit. The system recommended for the Dawson planning region is similar to other planning regions in Yukon. Distributed from [GeoYukon](https://yukon.ca/GeoYukon) by the [Government of Yukon](https://yukon.ca) . Discover more digital map data and interactive maps from Yukon's digital map data collection. For more information: [geomatics.help@yukon.ca](mailto:geomatics.help@yukon.ca)

Ecoregions by state were extracted from the seamless national shapefile. Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas. The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the analysis of patterns of biotic and abiotic phenomena, including geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels for ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 50 regions (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997). At Level III, the continental United States contains 105 regions whereas the conterminous United States has 85 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). Level IV ecoregions are further subdivisions of Level III ecoregions. Methods used to define the ecoregions are explained in Omernik (1995, 2004), Omernik and others (2000), and Gallant and others (1989). Literature cited: Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America- toward a common perspective: Montreal, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p. Gallant, A. L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/3-89/060, 152p. Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions - a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria-tools for water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p.49-62. Omernik, J.M., Chapman, S.S., Lillie, R.A., and Dumke, R.T., 2000, Ecoregions of Wisconsin: Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, v. 88, p. 77-103. Omernik, J.M., 2004, Perspectives on the nature and definitions of ecological regions: Environmental Management, v. 34, Supplement 1, p. s27-s38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Level III and IV ecoregions of the continental United States. U.S. EPA, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon, Map scale 1:3,000,000. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states. Comments and questions regarding Ecoregions should be addressed to Glenn Griffith, USGS, c/o US EPA., 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541)-754-4465, email:griffith.glenn@epa.gov Alternate: James Omernik, USGS, c/o US EPA, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541)-754-4458, email:omernik.james@epa.gov

Ecoregions by state were extracted from the seamless national shapefile. Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas. The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the analysis of patterns of biotic and abiotic phenomena, including geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels for ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 50 regions (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997). At Level III, the continental United States contains 105 regions whereas the conterminous United States has 85 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). Level IV ecoregions are further subdivisions of Level III ecoregions. Methods used to define the ecoregions are explained in Omernik (1995, 2004), Omernik and others (2000), and Gallant and others (1989). Literature cited: Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America- toward a common perspective: Montreal, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p. Gallant, A. L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/3-89/060, 152p. Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions - a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria-tools for water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p.49-62. Omernik, J.M., Chapman, S.S., Lillie, R.A., and Dumke, R.T., 2000, Ecoregions of Wisconsin: Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, v. 88, p. 77-103. Omernik, J.M., 2004, Perspectives on the nature and definitions of ecological regions: Environmental Management, v. 34, Supplement 1, p. s27-s38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Level III and IV ecoregions of the continental United States. U.S. EPA, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon, Map scale 1:3,000,000. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states. Comments and questions regarding Ecoregions should be addressed to Glenn Griffith, USGS, c/o US EPA., 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541)-754-4465, email:griffith.glenn@epa.gov Alternate: James Omernik, USGS, c/o US EPA, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541)-754-4458, email:omernik.james@epa.gov