51685 - Collin County Field Notes from GLO - April 3, 1846

51749 - Field Notes of the Boundary Line Between Fannin and Collin Counties - Sep. 11 1850

Tour locations and points of interest for a story map about NWI and the St. Louis River Estuary in Minnesota for the 2017 Binational Great Lakes Remote SensingWetlands and Forests Workshop.

These data polygons are sites which were visited by Dr. Jozsef Toth during his 1964 to 1969 fieldwork. Dr. Toth is a distinguished hydrogeologist who developed and published his landmark 'Unit Basin' theory of steady state flow leading to the fundamental concept in hydrogeology known as 'Tothian flow system theory'. His contributions to hydrogeology turned the Research Council of Alberta, and subsequently the University of Alberta, into internationally renowned institutions for hydrogeological research. The sites in this data set show the locations of wetlands referenced in Alberta Geological Survey report INF 143 and they are numbered accordingly. The data are in ESRI shapefile format.

These data vectors are digitized from field maps created by Dr. Jozsef Toth during his 1964 to 1969 fieldwork. Dr. Toth is a distinguished hydrogeologist who developed and published his landmark 'Unit Basin' theory of steady state flow leading to the fundamental concept in hydrogeology known as 'Tothian flow system theory'. His contributions to hydrogeology turned the Research Council of Alberta, and subsequently the University of Alberta, into internationally renowned institutions for hydrogeological research. Within this shapefile there are three regional lines which run parallel to dip in the Alberta basin. These lines are the boundaries used by Dr. Toth to restrict his groundwater field investigations. There are also vectors which he has highlighted as areas of recharge and discharge that relate to some of the sites in Alberta Geological Survey report INF 143 report, but are not directly referenced. There are a few vectors in the Wainwright mapsheet which were not labeled or referenced in the report so they were omitted. The data are in ESRI shapefile format.

This database was prepared using a combination of materials that include aerial photographs, topographic maps (1:24,000 and 1:250,000), field notes, and a sample catalog. Our goal was to translate sample collection site locations at Yellowstone National Park and surrounding areas into a GIS database. This was achieved by transferring site locations from aerial photographs and topographic maps into layers in ArcMap. Each field site is located based on field notes describing where a sample was collected. Locations were marked on the photograph or topographic map by a pinhole or dot, respectively, with the corresponding station or site numbers. Station and site numbers were then referenced in the notes to determine the appropriate prefix for the station. Each point on the aerial photograph or topographic map was relocated on the screen in ArcMap, on a digital topographic map, or an aerial photograph. Several samples are present in the field notes and in the catalog but do not correspond to an aerial photograph or could not be found on the topographic maps. These samples are marked with “No” under the LocationFound field and do not have a corresponding point in the SampleSites feature class. Each point represents a field station or collection site with information that was entered into an attributes table (explained in detail in the entity and attribute metadata sections). Tabular information on hand samples, thin sections, and mineral separates were entered by hand. The Samples table includes everything transferred from the paper records and relates to the other tables using the SampleID and to the SampleSites feature class using the SampleSite field.

The layer contains GPS mapped points during various projects in Ethiopia. The primary purpose of this layer is only a supplementary source of information for the Soil Survey. It is a live layer that undergoes constant changes based on ongoing soil surveys.

Following categories are recorded:

Category
Description


Erosion Control Measures (SWCM)
Soil and water Erosion Measures such as: Soil bunds, Terraces, Half-moon or Fanya Juu. The SWCM is in most cases accompanied by photo. If information are available, it also contain information about year of construction and state of maintenance. The category also includes Closure Areas SWCM.


Erosion Degradation
Soil Degradation category: Gullies, Sheet and rill erosion, road erosion, extended degraded areas and landslides......


Facilities, Point of Interest (POI)
Subcategories such as: Farming Training Centre (FTC), Woreda Agriculture Office, Kebele meeting points, Markets, Schools, Healthcare centre, Water Tank etc. 


Land Use / Land Cover (LUL/LC)
Basic LULC catogories: Agriculture/farmland, Grasslands and Pastures, Forest, Wetlands, Agroforestry, Wetland.....


Photo
Photos of soil, soil profiles, degraded areas.....


Other
It mostly contains some notes for soil survey and sampling.

The geospatial data presented here as ArcGIS layers denote landcover/landuse classifications to support field sampling efforts that occurred within the Cache Creek Settling Basin (CCSB) from 2010-2017. Manual photointerpretation of a National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) dataset collected in 2012 was used to characterize landcover/landuse categories (hereafter habitat classes). Initially 9 categories were assigned based on vegetation structure (Vegtype1). These were then parsed into two levels of habitat classes that were chosen for their representativeness and use for statistical analyses of field sampling. At the coarsest level (Landcover 1), five habitat classes were assigned: Agriculture, Riparian, Floodplain, Open Water, and Road. At the more refined level (Landcover 2), ten habitat classes were nested within these five categories. Agriculture was not further refined within Landcover 2, as little consistency was expected between years as fields rotated between corn, pumpkin, tomatoes, and other row crops. Riparian habitat, marked by large canopy trees (such as Populus fremontii (cottonwood)) neighboring stream channels, also was not further refined. Floodplain habitat was separated into two categories: Mixed NonWoody (which included both Mowed and Barren habitats) and Mixed Woody. This separation of the floodplain habitat class (Landcover1) into Woody and NonWoody was performed with a 100 m2 moving window analysis in ArcGIS, where habitats were designated as either ≥50% shrub or tree cover (Woody) or <50%, and thus dominated by herbaceous vegetation cover (NonWoody). Open Water habitat was refined to consider both agricultural Canal (created) and Stream (natural) habitats. Road habitat was refined to separate Levee Roads (which included both the drivable portion and the apron on either side) and Interior roads, which were less managed. The map was tested for errors of omission and commission on the initial 9 categories during November 2014. Random points (n=100) were predetermined, and a total of 80 were selected for field verification. Type 1 (false positive) and Type 2 (false negative) errors were assessed. The survey indicated several corrections necessary in the final version of the map. 1) We noted the presence of woody species in “NonWoody” habitats, especially Baccharus salicilifolia (mulefat). Habitats were thus classified as “Woody” only with ≥50% presence of canopy species (e.g. tamarisk, black willow) 2) Riparian sites were over-characterized, and thus constrained back to “near stream channels only”. Walnut (Juglans spp) and willow stands alongside fields and irrigation canals were changed to Mixed Woody Floodplain. Fine tuning the final habitat distributions was thus based on field reconnaissance, scalar needs for classifying field data (sediment, water, bird, and fish collections), and validation of data categories using species observations from scientist field notes. Calibration was made using point data from the random survey and scientist field notes, to remove all sources of error and reach accuracy of 100%. The coverage “CCSB_Habitat_2012” is provided as an ARCGIS shapefile based on a suite of 7 interconnected ARCGIS files coded with the suffixes: cpg, dbf, sbn, sbx, shp, shx, and prj. Each file provides a component of the coverage (such as database or projection) and all files are necessary to open the “CCSB_Habitat_2012.shp” file with full functionality.

51757 - Field Notes of the Western Boundary Line of Collin County and Part of Denton County - 1850

The files linked to this reference are the geospatial data created as part of the completion of the baseline vegetation inventory project for the NPS park unit. Current format is ArcGIS file geodatabase but older formats may exist as shapefiles. After fieldwork was completed, ecologists used field data (plot data, observation points, photographs, and field notes) and digital aerial imagery (NAIP 2005) to map draft vegetation polygons for SAND within an ESRI personal geodatabase. Vegetation polygons were drawn based on aerial photo signatures and plot and observation point data. Photographs, field notes, and plot data were used to refine visual analysis of aerial photo signatures in order to draw final polygons. Table relationships were used to create a drop-down list of plant associations and map unit categories in the attribute table to ensure consistent data entry. A CNHP GIS Specialist then cleaned the layer topology, removing overlaps, gaps, slivers, and any data inconsistencies. FGDC compliant metadata was created for the vegetation layers and the layers were exported from the geodatabase as ESRI shapefiles. The layers are all in the coordinate system UTM Zone 13, North American Datum 1983.

About this map

Field Maps was used to map the areas where the White and Green Ash trees are located in Brandywine Park, Wilmington, DE. This data will serve as a catalog to better locate these trees which get treated to prevent damage from the invasive species, the Emerald Ash Borer. Also mapped are all other trees in the park which will act as a database for all current trees and their conditions.

What's included

The Field Notes map includes the following items:

Field Notes Points (point layer) Field Notes Lines (line layer) Field Notes Areas (polygon layer)

Peachtree Corners Ditch in the Right of Way The purpose of this project is to update the Stormwater infrastructure inventory for the City of Peachtree Corners in order to meet the Georgia State Environmental Protection Division (EPD) permitting standards and utilize the Stormwater data for flood modeling. In order to accomplish this task new data has been recently converted from digital Computer Aided Drawings (CAD). This new data will now be attributed to meet the standards required by the city described in this document.From the assessment of digital CAD data, hardcopy CAD drawings and field notes there are indications that capital improvements have been made in an effort to protect flood prone areas, and new land development has altered drainage pathways within the City limits. Because of the additional drainage information, improvements, and alterations, it has become necessary to update the existing converted CAD data. The updated feature classes will make it possible to more accurately assess the impact of projected growth, analyze alternatives for flood protection, and support the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).The newly converted portion of the Stormwater infrastructure inventory geodatabase will be attributed using a combination of surveyed hardcopy Computer Aided Drawings (CAD) and the digital Computer Aided Drawings (CAD) data. Field notes and engineering drawings attached to the hardcopy CAD drawings will also be referenced to derive the necessary dimensions that are not readily visible in the CAD drawings.

Eelgrass Beds 93-95 Set:

Eelgrass Sample Points is a 1:24,000-scale, point feature-based layer that depicts the locations where eelgrass (Zostera marina) was either observed or where a location would be potentially favorable for future eelgrass growth. Sample points were taken along Connecticut's coast in Long Island Sound, and in major bays, harbors and rivers along the shoreline. The point features in this layer were compiled from field research using global positioning system (GPS) equipment. Feature locations were not always exact due to equipment failure or lack of satellite reception. In those cases, points were estimated from field notes. Some point locations were corrected based on field notes or hydrography and bathymetry conditions at the sample point location. The number of field points that were altered were as follows: In 1993, 32 of 290 points (11%); in 1994, 93 of 454 points (20%); in 1995, 37 of 105 points (35%). Data compilation occurred on 17 days between 7/21/1993 and 11/16/1995; exact dates of each source's data collection are noted in the attribute table. A total of 849 point locations were surveyed. The westernmost point is Frash Pond in Stratford, Connecticut and the easternmost point is the Pawcatuck River on the Connecticut/Rhode Island Border. Eelgrass was found at 484 locations and was described as either high, medium, or low density, or simply as present or absent. Eelgrass was absent at 365 locations. Publication of the datalayer was in 1997. This layer is not updated. This layer does not represent current conditions.

Observed Eelgrass Beds is a 1:24,000 scale, polygon feature-based layer that depicts the locations of observed eelgrass beds in Long Island Sound, in major rivers, and within bays, harbors and other waterbodies along Connecticut's coast. The layer is based on information from the Eelgrass Sample Points layer. It represents conditions at a particular point in time (1993 to 1995). During the 1993-95 field seasons a team of researchers from the University of Connecticut Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology led by Charles Yarish, equipped with a Global Positioning System (GPS), SCUBA, and a 20' boat surveyed over 800 potential eelgrass locations. Their GPS coordinates and field notes were used to create a point coverage entitled Eelgrass Sample Points, which was plotted and checked on a 1:24000 scale base map of the Connecticut shore. These point locations, observations, and the nearshore bathymetry were then used to delineate areas representing both observed and potential eelgrass beds. Eelgrass beds were initially digitized at 1:24,000 scale, but have been edited and revised on screen at higher resolution. Keeping in mind the temporal and spatial variability of eelgrass, beds may vary in size, shape, and density from year to year. Feature locations may not always be exact due to equipment failure or lack of satellite reception. In those cases, points were estimated from field notes. It should be noted that the Observed Eelgrass Beds layer is not a complete dataset of all observed eelgrass sites in Connecticut and/or Long Island Sound. This layer was published in 1997 and is not updated. It does not represent current conditions. There are 101 polygon features representing observed eelgrass beds in this layer. Geographic locations are as follows: westernmost areas: Clinton Harbor; easternmost areas: Little Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island waters. Observed beds range in size from .003 acre (131 sq. ft.) to 49 acres (2,136,608 sq. ft.). The total area of observed beds is 632.6 acres.

Potential Eelgrass Beds is a 1:24,000 scale, polygon feature-based layer that depicts the locations of potential eelgrass beds in Long Island Sound, in major rivers, and within bays, harbors and other waterbodies along Connecticut's coast. The layer is based on information from the Observed Eelgrass Beds and Eelgrass Sample Points layers. It represents conditions at a particular point in time (1993 to 1995). During the 1993-95 field seasons a team of researchers from the University of Connecticut Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology led by Charles Yarish, equipped with a Global Positioning System (GPS), SCUBA, and a 20' boat surveyed over 800 potential eelgrass locations. Their GPS coordinates and field notes were used to create a point coverage entitled Eelgrass Sample Points, which was plotted and checked on a 1:24000 scale base map of the Connecticut shore. These point locations, observations, and the nearshore bathymetry were then used to delineate areas representing both observed and potential eelgrass beds. Eelgrass beds were initially digitized at 1:24,000 scale, but have been edited and revised on screen at higher resolution. Potential beds, where not individually delineated, were created by buffering observed beds a distance of 33 feet (10 meters). These buffered polygons were intersected with buffered (distance of 5 ft.) shoreline arcs to keep potential polygons a minimum distance off the shoreline. These potential beds are considered to be areas where eelgrass is likely to spread to under ideal conditions, where eelgrass may exist in small isolated patches, where eelgrass may exhibit high temporal variability, or perhaps where restoration projects could be undertaken. Feature locations may not always be exact due to equipment failure or lack of satellite reception. In those cases, points were estimated from field notes. It should be noted that the Potential Eelgrass Beds layer is not a complete dataset of all potential eelgrass sites in Connecticut and/or Long Island Sound. This layer was published in 1997 and is not updated. It does not represent current conditions. There are 67 polygon features representing potential eelgrass beds in this layer. Geographic locations are as follows: westernmost areas: Clinton Harbor; easternmost areas: Little Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island waters. Potential beds range in size from .179 acre (318 sq. ft.) to 471 acres (20,551,582 sq. ft.). Potential beds contain 0 to 9 observed beds, and from 0 to 88.1% area covered by observed beds. The total area of potential beds is 2,196 acres.