To download this dataset, click below:Zipped TIFF File: LC_FCD_RECLASS_2016.zip (2GB)The reclassified landcover dataset was derived from the 2016 landcover, one of the products available as part of the the LARIAC program.NOTE: The extent of the derived dataset only covers the area located within the County's flood control district. This raster dataset was combined with the County's parcel layer to produce a file geodatabase of impermeable and permeable areas by parcel for use by the County's Safe Clean Water program.Attributes0 = Permeable1 = ImpermeableThe 2016 landcover dataset was reclassified as follows:Tree Canopy - PermeableGrass/Shrubs - PermeableBare Soil - PermeableWater - PermeableBuildings - ImpermeableRoads/Railroads - ImpermeableOther Paved - ImpermeableTall Shrubs - PermeableFor more information, please contact Bowen Liang (bliang@dpw.lacounty.gov)

The Vermont Water Quality Standards (VTWQS) are rules intended to achieve the goals of the Vermont Surface Water Strategy, as well as the objective of the federal Clean Water Act which is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's water. The classification of waters is in included in the VTWQS. The classification of all waters has been established by a combination of legislative acts and by classification or reclassification decisions issued by the Water Resources Board or Secretary pursuant to 10 V.S.A. � 1253. Those waters reclassified by the Secretary to Class A(1), A(2), or B(1) for any use shall include all waters within the entire watershed of the reclassified waters unless expressly provided otherwise in the rule. All waters above 2,500 feet altitude, National Geodetic Vertical Datum, are designated Class A(1) for all uses, unless specifically designated Class A(2) for use as a public water source. All waters at or below 2,500 feet altitude, National Geodetic Vertical Datum, are designated Class B(2) for all uses, unless specifically designated as Class A(1), A(2), or B(1) for any use.

NLCD 2019 - reclassification to suitable/unsuitable for alligator gar spawning - LouisianaSuitable: any low open vegetation classes: emergent herbaceous, agriculture, grassland, shrub/scrub Unsuitable: all other classesThis version of the information highlights "woody wetlands" and "barren" which are unlikely to provide suitable alligator gar spawning habitat. Used in conjunction with other layers to evaluate the accuracy of a statewide (Louisiana) assessment of habitat suitable for alligator gar spawning using the techniques described in Allen et. al 2020. Allen, Y., K. Kimmel, and G. Constant. 2020. Using Remote Sensing to Assess Alligator Gar Spawning Habitat Suitability in the Lower Mississippi River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 40:580–594.

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. We followed methods in Anderson and Merrill (1998) for combining gradient layers into an “ecological land units” map (also referred to as a “biophysical units” map). Our goal was to use this information to create sampling strata that capture the range of environments observed. The Anderson and Merrill (1998) method (implemented as a set of GIS scripts by F. Biasi (2001)) builds an ecological units map by classifying and combining individual environmental gradient maps in a GIS. Maps of aspect, moisture, slope, and slope shape are reclassified and assembled to produce maps of landform units. These landform units are then combined with reclassified elevation and geologic maps to produce a final ecological land units or “ELU” map. We used these methods as a guide to building an ecological land units map for Shenandoah National Park, adapting the procedures for local conditions. Individual steps in the process and maps resulting from intermediate and final stages are described in the report.

Please note that this dataset is not an official City of Toronto land use dataset. It was created for personal and academic use using City of Toronto Land Use Maps (2019) found on the City of Toronto Official Plan website at https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-guidelines/official-plan/official-plan-maps-copy, along with the City of Toronto parcel fabric (Property Boundaries) found at https://open.toronto.ca/dataset/property-boundaries/ and Statistics Canada Census Dissemination Blocks level boundary files (2016). The property boundaries used were dated November 11, 2021. Further detail about the City of Toronto's Official Plan, consolidation of the information presented in its online form, and considerations for its interpretation can be found at https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-guidelines/official-plan/ Data Creation Documentation and Procedures Software Used The spatial vector data were created using ArcGIS Pro 2.9.0 in December 2021. PDF File Conversions Using Adobe Acrobat Pro DC software, the following downloaded PDF map images were converted to TIF format. 9028-cp-official-plan-Map-14_LandUse_AODA.pdf 9042-cp-official-plan-Map-22_LandUse_AODA.pdf 9070-cp-official-plan-Map-20_LandUse_AODA.pdf 908a-cp-official-plan-Map-13_LandUse_AODA.pdf 978e-cp-official-plan-Map-17_LandUse_AODA.pdf 97cc-cp-official-plan-Map-15_LandUse_AODA.pdf 97d4-cp-official-plan-Map-23_LandUse_AODA.pdf 97f2-cp-official-plan-Map-19_LandUse_AODA.pdf 97fe-cp-official-plan-Map-18_LandUse_AODA.pdf 9811-cp-official-plan-Map-16_LandUse_AODA.pdf 982d-cp-official-plan-Map-21_LandUse_AODA.pdf Georeferencing and Reprojecting Data Files The original projection of the PDF maps is unknown but were most likely published using MTM Zone 10 EPSG 2019 as per many of the City of Toronto's many datasets. They could also have possibly been published in UTM Zone 17 EPSG 26917 The TIF images were georeferenced in ArcGIS Pro using this projection with very good results. The images were matched against the City of Toronto's Centreline dataset found here The resulting TIF files and their supporting spatial files include: TOLandUseMap13.tfwx TOLandUseMap13.tif TOLandUseMap13.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap13.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap14.tfwx TOLandUseMap14.tif TOLandUseMap14.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap14.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap15.tfwx TOLandUseMap15.tif TOLandUseMap15.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap15.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap16.tfwx TOLandUseMap16.tif TOLandUseMap16.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap16.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap17.tfwx TOLandUseMap17.tif TOLandUseMap17.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap17.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap18.tfwx TOLandUseMap18.tif TOLandUseMap18.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap18.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap19.tif TOLandUseMap19.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap19.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap20.tfwx TOLandUseMap20.tif TOLandUseMap20.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap20.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap21.tfwx TOLandUseMap21.tif TOLandUseMap21.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap21.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap22.tfwx TOLandUseMap22.tif TOLandUseMap22.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap22.tif.ovr TOLandUseMap23.tfwx TOLandUseMap23.tif TOLandUseMap23.tif.aux.xml TOLandUseMap23.tif.ov Ground control points were saved for all georeferenced images. The files are the following: map13.txt map14.txt map15.txt map16.txt map17.txt map18.txt map19.txt map21.txt map22.txt map23.txt The City of Toronto's Property Boundaries shapefile, "property_bnds_gcc_wgs84.zip" were unzipped and also reprojected to EPSG 26917 (UTM Zone 17) into a new shapefile, "Property_Boundaries_UTM.shp" Mosaicing Images Once georeferenced, all images were then mosaiced into one image file, "LandUseMosaic20211220v01", within the project-generated Geodatabase, "Landuse.gdb" and exported TIF, "LandUseMosaic20211220.tif" Reclassifying Images Because the original images were of low quality and the conversion to TIF made the image colours even more inconsistent, a method was required to reclassify the images so that different land use classes could be identified. Using Deep learning Objects, the images were re-classified into useful consistent colours. Deep Learning Objects and Training The resulting mosaic was then prepared for reclassification using the Label Objects for Deep Learning tool in ArcGIS Pro. A training sample, "LandUseTrainingSamples20211220", was created in the geodatabase for all land use types as follows: Neighbourhoods Insitutional Natural Areas Core Employment Areas Mixed Use Areas Apartment Neighbourhoods Parks Roads Utility Corridors Other Open Spaces General Employment Areas Regeneration Areas Lettering (not a land use type, but an image colour (black), used to label streets). By identifying the letters, it then made the reclassification and vectorization results easier to clean up of unnecessary clutter caused by the labels of streets. Reclassification Once the... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3A3e3f055bf6281f979484f847d0ed5eeb96143a369592149328c370fe5776742b for complete metadata about this dataset.

This shapefile represents proposed management categories (Core, Priority, General, and Non-Habitat) derived from the intersection of habitat suitability categories and lek space use. Habitat suitability categories were derived from a composite, continuous surface of sage-grouse habitat suitability index (HSI) values for Nevada and northeastern California formed from the multiplicative product of the spring, summer, and winter HSI surfaces. Summary of steps to create Management Categories: HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX: The HSI was derived from a generalized linear mixed model (specified by binomial distribution and created using ArcGIS 10.2.2) that contrasted data from multiple environmental factors at used sites (telemetry locations) and available sites (random locations). Predictor variables for the model represented vegetation communities at multiple spatial scales, water resources, habitat configuration, urbanization, roads, elevation, ruggedness, and slope. Vegetation data was derived from various mapping products, which included NV SynthMap (Petersen 2008, SageStitch (Comer et al. 2002, LANDFIRE (Landfire 2010), and the CA Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP 2006). The analysis was updated to include high resolution percent cover within 30 x 30 m pixels for Sagebrush, non-sagebrush, herbaceous vegetation, and bare ground (C. Homer, unpublished; based on the methods of Homer et al. 2014, Xian et al. 2015 ) and conifer (primarily pinyon-juniper, P. Coates, unpublished). The pool of telemetry data included the same data from 1998 - 2013 used by Coates et al. (2014) as well as additional telemetry location data from field sites in 2014. The dataset was then split according to calendar date into three seasons. Spring included telemetry locations (n = 14,058) from mid-March to June; summer included locations (n = 11,743) from July to mid-October; winter included locations (n = 4862) from November to March. All age and sex classes of marked grouse were used in the analysis. Sufficient data (i.e., a minimum of 100 locations from at least 20 marked Sage-grouse) for modeling existed in 10 subregions for spring and summer, and seven subregions in winter, using all age and sex classes of marked grouse. It is important to note that although this map is composed of HSI values derived from the seasonal data, it does not explicitly represent habitat suitability for reproductive females (i.e., nesting and with broods). Insufficient data were available to allow for estimation of this habitat type for all seasons throughout the study area extent. A Resource Selection Function (RSF) was calculated for each subregion using R software (v 3.13) and season using generalized linear models to derive model-averaged parameter estimates for each covariate across a set of additive models. For each season, subregional RSFs were transformed into Habitat Suitability Indices, and averaged together to produce an overall statewide HSI whereby a relative probability of occurrence was calculated for each raster cell. The three seasonal HSI rasters were then multiplied to create a composite annual HSI. In order to account for discrepancies in HSI values caused by varying ecoregions within Nevada, the HSI was divided into north and south extents using a slightly modified flood region boundary (Mason 1999) that was designed to represent respective mesic and xeric regions of the state. North and south HSI rasters were each relativized according to their maximum value to rescale between zero and one, then mosaicked once more into a state-wide extent. HABITAT CATEGORIZATION: Using the same ecoregion boundaries described above, the habitat classification dataset (an independent data set comprising 10% of the total telemetry location sample) was split into locations falling within respective north and south regions. HSI values from the composite and relativized statewide HSI surface were then extracted to each classification dataset location within the north and south region. The distribution of these values were used to identify class break values corresponding to 0.5 (high), 1.0 (moderate), and 1.5 (low) standard deviations (SD) from the mean HSI. These class breaks were used to classify the HSI surface into four discrete categories of habitat suitability: High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat. In terms of percentiles, High habitat comprised greater than 30.9 % of the HSI values, Moderate comprised 15 – 30.9%, Low comprised 6.7 – 15%, and Non-Habitat comprised less than 6.7%.The classified north and south regions were then clipped by the boundary layer and mosaicked to create a statewide categorical surface for habitat selection. Each habitat suitability category was converted to a vector output where gaps within polygons less than 1.2 million square meters were eliminated, polygons within 500 meters of each other were connected to create corridors and polygons less than 1.2 million square meters in one category were incorporated to the adjacent category. The final step was to mask major roads that were buffered by 50m (Census, 2014), lakes (Peterson, 2008) and urban areas, and place those masked areas into the non-habitat category. The existing urban layer (Census 2010) was not sufficient for our needs because it excluded towns with a population lower than 1,500. Hence, we masked smaller towns (populations of 100 to 1500) and development with Census Block polygons (Census 2015) that had at least 50% urban development within their boundaries when viewed with reference imagery (ArcGIS World Imagery Service Layer). SPACE USE INDEX CALCULATION: Updated lek coordinates and associated trend count data were obtained from the 2015 Nevada Sage-grouse Lek Database compiled by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW, S. Espinosa, 9/20/2015). Leks count data from the California side of the Buffalo-Skedaddle and Modoc PMU's that contributed to the overall space-use model were obtained from the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA), and included count data up to 2014. We used NDOW data for border leks (n = 12), and WAFWA data for those fully in California and not consistently surveyed by NDOW. We queried the database for leks with a ‘LEKSTATUS’ field classified as ‘Active’ or ‘Pending’. Active leks comprised leks with breeding males observed within the last 5 years (through the 2014 breeding season). Pending leks comprised leks without consistent breeding activity during the prior 3 - 5 surveys or had not been surveyed during the past 5 years; these leks typically trended towards ‘inactive’, or newly discovered leks with at least 2 males. A sage-grouse management area (SGMA) was calculated by buffering Population Management Units developed by NDOW by 10km. This included leks from the Buffalo-Skedaddle PMU that straddles the northeastern California – Nevada border, but excluded leks for the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment. The 5-year average (2011 - 2015) for the number of male grouse (or NDOW classified 'pseudo-males' if males were not clearly identified but likely) attending each lek was calculated. Compared to the 2014 input lek dataset, 36 leks switched from pending to inactive, and 74 new leks were added for 2015 (which included pending ‘new’ leks with one year of counts. A total of 917 leks were used for space use index calculation in 2015 compared to 878 leks in 2014. Utilization distributions describing the probability of lek occurrence were calculated using fixed kernel density estimators (Silverman 1986) with bandwidths estimated from likelihood based cross-validation (CVh) (Horne and Garton 2006). UDs were weighted by the 5-year average (2011 - 2015) for the number of males grouse (or unknown gender if males were not identified) attending leks. UDs and bandwidths were calculated using Geospatial Modelling Environment (Beyer 2012) and the ‘ks’ package (Duong 2012) in Program R. Grid cell size was 30m. The resulting raster was re-scaled between zero and one by dividing by the maximum pixel value. The non-linear effect of distance to lek on the probability of grouse spatial use was estimated using the inverse of the utilization distribution curves described by Coates et al. (2013), where essentially the highest probability of grouse spatial use occurs near leks and then declines precipitously as a non-linear function. Euclidean distance was first calculated in ArcGIS, reclassified into 30-m distance bins (ranging from 0 - 30,000m), and bins reclassified according to the non-linear curve in Coates et al. (2013). The resulting raster was re-scaled between zero and one by dividing by the maximum cell value. A Spatial Use Index (SUI) was calculated by taking the average of the lek utilization distribution and non-linear distance-to-lek rasters in ArcGIS, and re-scaled between zero and one by dividing by the maximum cell value. The volume of the SUI at cumulative at specific isopleths was extracted in Geospatial Modelling Environment (Beyer 2012) with the command ‘isopleth’. Interior polygons (i.e., donuts’ > 1.2 km2) representing no probability of use within a larger polygon of use were erased from each isopleth. The 85% isopleth, which provided greater spatial connectivity and consistency with previously used agency standards (e.g., Doherty et al. 2010), was ultimately recommended by the Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. The 85% SUI isopleth was clipped by the Nevada state boundary. MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES: The process for category determination was directed by the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical team. Sage-grouse habitat was categorized into 4 classes: High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat as described above, and intersected with the space use index to form the following management categories . 1) Core habitat: Defined as the intersection between all suitable habitat (High, Moderate, and Low) and the 85% Space Use Index (SUI). 2) Priority habitat: Defined as all high quality habitat

This webmap is a subset of Global Urban Density Footprint in 2020 Tile Image Layer. This layer represents an estimate of the footprint of urban settings in 2020. It is intended as a fast-drawing cartographic layer to augment base maps and to focus a map reader's attention on the location of human population. This layer is not intended for analysis. This layer was derived from the 2020 slice of the WorldPop Population Density 2000-2020 100m and 1km layers.Also see the Populated Footprint layer, which like this layer, is intended to provide a fast-drawing cartographic context for the footprint of total population.The following processing steps were used to produce this layer in ArcGIS Pro:1. Int tool (Spatial Analyst) to truncate double precision values; all values less than 0.99 become 0.2. Reclassify tool (Spatial Analyst) to set values 0 through 1499 to NoData (Null) and all other values become 1.3. Copy Raster tool with Output Coordinate System environment set to Web Mercator, bit depth to 1 bit, and NoData Value to 0.Source:WorldPop Population Density 2000-2020 100m, which is created from WorldPop (www.worldpop.org - School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton; Department of Geography and Geosciences, University of Louisville; Departement de Geographie, Universite de Namur) and Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University (2018). Global High Resolution Population Denominators Project - Funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The DOI for the original WorldPop.org total population population data is 10.5258/SOTON/WP00645.

This GIS dataset represents a reclassification of existing surficial map information for the purpose of portraying the distribution of sand and gravel deposits in Alberta. The surficial geology of Alberta ungeneralised digital mosaic (Alberta Geological Survey DIG2013-0001) represents the primary source of information used in this reclassification. This dataset was updated with more recently published 1:100,000 scale surficial geology maps, and where appropriate new polygon features that were digitized from line features in the Glacial Landforms of Alberta (Alberta Geological Survey Map 604 and DIG2014-0022). The updated surficial geology mosaic was then reclassified using a thematically-based attribute table which categorizes the original surficial geology features based on their sand and gravel component. Attributes within this table comprise: (1) an approximation of the material type (MATERIAL). (2) the aerial proportion that this material represents of the polygon, as a percentage (PROPORTION). (3) an indication of whether the sand and gravel unit is mapped at the land surface or is buried (SRF_BURIED). (4) the depositional environment relating to the sand and gravel unit (GENESIS). (5) the reference source to the original data (SOURCE_MAP). (6) the GIS dataset from which the features were derived (DATASET). and (7) the mapping scale (SCALE). The MATERIAL honours the original surficial geology polygons when sufficiently precise texture/material information was provided. Otherwise MATERIAL is based on the typical range of materials that are associated with each surficial geology unit on a litho-genetic basis, using the standard Alberta Geological Survey surficial geology legend. When multiple surficial geological units that contain sand and gravel are present within a single polygon (i.e. 60% eolian deposits and 40% fluvial deposits), MATERIAL reflects the unit with the greatest proportion. For geological units whose material properties are of marginal significance as a sand and gravel deposit, particularly those that contain a mixture of silt and sand, a hierarchy was used to determine whether they are included as sand and gravel deposits. Fluvial deposits, littoral and nearshore deposits, and eolian deposits with a silt textural modifier in the original mapping data were included as potential sand and/or gravel deposits because these units are often interspersed with sand and/or gravel materials. Glaciolacustrine deposits with a silt textural modifier were not included because this environment generally does not result in the deposition of extensive sand and gravel sediments. After all of the attributes had been updated, all polygons that may contain some component of sand or gravel were extracted from this dataset to create the sand and gravel potential for Alberta digital mosaic. With this dataset, users can view the extent of surficial sand and gravel deposits in the province in a single GIS layer without the need to interpret this information from a variety of legends in the original surficial geology datasets. Users can further highlight polygons that may represent more suitable targets for sand and gravel based on the estimated material type (i.e. by eliminating polygons that typically contain large amounts of silt and fine sand), the estimated proportion of sand and gravel within the polygon, and depositional environment. This dataset best portrays sand and gravel potential that occurs at the land surface or in the very near surface, and does not attempt evaluate the sub-surface distribution of sand and gravel units. This dataset also does not provide any direct assessment of aggregate quality or thickness, and the material information is mostly inferred from the general association between certain surficial material types and their geological, depositional environment. Furthermore, the sand and gravel potential dataset is based on surficial geology maps produced at different scales and using different legends, therefore the detail and amount of information provided by these polygons will exhibit regional variations. The mapping scale for each polygon is provided in the SCALE attribute.

Attribute reclassification for fixed Cmin and varying amplitude.

Buildings_BACI

   File Geodatabase Feature Class


   Thumbnail Not Available

   Tags

   Buildings, structures, ruins, storage tanks, silos, water towers, Baltimore City Planimetric, Biophysical Resources, Land, Socio-Economic Resources, Capital




   Summary


   This data was created as a landbase feature as part of the planimetric data.


   Description


   This dataset represents photogrammetrically captured Building footprints => 100sq. ft. including storage tanks, silos, water towers, power plants, substations, and structures under construction and ruins. Feature capture rules:


   Buildings - Outline edge of roofline. All buildings shall be captured as polygons. In commercial areas especially, it is important that the plotted building represent the face of the building where it meets the sidewalk. Polygons shall be created for the outer boundary of the building when a partywall exists. Does not include sheds and small temporary structures. Attached garages shall be represented as part of the building structure. Large structures such as stadiums shall also be represented.

   Structures under construction or demolition - Delineate the rooflines of all buildings under construction as interpreted from aerial photography. If roofline is not visible compile visible foundation or walls

   Ruins - Delineate old overgrown areas of old structures that have been demolished or are in disrepair. Original data will be reclassified to define as separate subtype.

   Storage tanks, silos, and water towers - Outlines of all storage tanks, silos and water towers. . Original data will be reclassified to define as separate subtype.

   Power plants and substations - Outline of power plant and substation structure. . Original data will be reclassified to define as separate subtype.


   Credits

   There are no credits for this item.


   Use limitations


   Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of these data. The City of Baltimore, Maryland makes no representations nor warranties, either express or implied, regarding the accuracy of this information or its suitability for any particular purpose whatsoever. The data is licensed "as is" and the City of Baltimore will not be liable for its use or misuse by any party. Reliance of these data is at the risk of the user.


   Extent



   West -76.714715  East -76.525355 

   North 39.375162  South 39.193953 




   Scale Range

   There is no scale range for this item.

The Cooperative Land Cover Map is a project to develop an improved statewide land cover map from existing sources and expert review of aerial photography. The project is directly tied to a goal of Florida's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) to represent Florida's diverse habitats in a spatially-explicit manner. The Cooperative Land Cover Map integrates 3 primary data types: 1) 6 million acres are derived from local or site-specific data sources, primarily on existing conservation lands. Most of these sources have a ground-truth or local knowledge component. We collected land cover and vegetation data from 37 existing sources. Each dataset was evaluated for consistency and quality and assigned a confidence category that determined how it was integrated into the final land cover map. 2) 1.4 million acres are derived from areas that FNAI ecologists reviewed with high resolution aerial photography. These areas were reviewed because other data indicated some potential for the presence of a focal community: scrub, scrubby flatwoods, sandhill, dry prairie, pine rockland, rockland hammock, upland pine or mesic flatwoods. 3) 3.2 million acres are represented by Florida Land Use Land Cover data from the FL Department of Environmental Protection and Water Management Districts (FLUCCS). The Cooperative Land Cover Map integrates data from the following years: NWFWMD: 2006 - 07 SRWMD: 2005 - 08 SJRWMD: 2004 SFWMD: 2004 SWFWMD: 2008 All data were crosswalked into the Florida Land Cover Classification System. This project was funded by a grant from FWC/Florida's Wildlife Legacy Initiative (Project 08009) to Florida Natural Areas Inventory. The current dataset is provided in 10m raster grid format.Changes from Version 1.1 to Version 2.3:CLC v2.3 includes updated Florida Land Use Land Cover for four water management districts as described above: NWFWMD, SJRWMD, SFWMD, SWFWMDCLC v2.3 incorporates major revisions to natural coastal land cover and natural communities potentially affected by sea level rise. These revisions were undertaken by FNAI as part of two projects: Re-evaluating Florida's Ecological Conservation Priorities in the Face of Sea Level Rise (funded by the Yale Mapping Framework for Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Adaptation) and Predicting and Mitigating the Effects of Sea-Level Rise and Land Use Changes on Imperiled Species and Natural communities in Florida (funded by an FWC State Wildlife Grant and The Kresge Foundation). FNAI also opportunistically revised natural communities as needed in the course of species habitat mapping work funded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. CLC v2.3 also includes several new site specific data sources: New or revised FNAI natural community maps for 13 conservation lands and 9 Florida Forever proposals; new Florida Park Service maps for 10 parks; Sarasota County Preserves Habitat Maps (with FNAI review); Sarasota County HCP Florida Scrub-Jay Habitat (with FNAI Review); Southwest Florida Scrub Working Group scrub polygons. Several corrections to the crosswalk of FLUCCS to FLCS were made, including review and reclassification of interior sand beaches that were originally crosswalked to beach dune, and reclassification of upland hardwood forest south of Lake Okeechobee to mesic hammock. Representation of state waters was expanded to include the NOAA Submerged Lands Act data for Florida.Changes from Version 2.3 to 3.0: All land classes underwent revisions to correct boundaries, mislabeled classes, and hard edges between classes. Vector data was compared against high resolution Digital Ortho Quarter Quads (DOQQ) and Google Earth imagery. Individual land cover classes were converted to .KML format for use in Google Earth. Errors identified through visual review were manually corrected. Statewide medium resolution (spatial resolution of 10 m) SPOT 5 images were available for remote sensing classification with the following spectral bands: near infrared, red, green and short wave infrared. The acquisition dates of SPOT images ranged between October, 2005 and October, 2010. Remote sensing classification was performed in Idrisi Taiga and ERDAS Imagine. Supervised and unsupervised classifications of each SPOT image were performed with the corrected polygon data as a guide. Further visual inspections of classified areas were conducted for consistency, errors, and edge matching between image footprints. CLC v3.0 now includes state wide Florida NAVTEQ transportation data. CLC v3.0 incorporates extensive revisions to scrub, scrubby flatwoods, mesic flatwoods, and upland pine classes. An additional class, scrub mangrove – 5252, was added to the crosswalk. Mangrove swamp was reviewed and reclassified to include areas of scrub mangrove. CLC v3.0 also includes additional revisions to sand beach, riverine sand bar, and beach dune previously misclassified as high intensity urban or extractive. CLC v3.0 excludes the Dry Tortugas and does not include some of the small keys between Key West and Marquesas.Changes from Version 3.0 to Version 3.1: CLC v3.1 includes several new site specific data sources: Revised FNAI natural community maps for 31 WMAs, and 6 Florida Forever areas or proposals. This data was either extracted from v2.3, or from more recent mapping efforts. Domains have been removed from the attribute table, and a class name field has been added for SITE and STATE level classes. The Dry Tortugas have been reincorporated. The geographic extent has been revised for the Coastal Upland and Dry Prairie classes. Rural Open and the Extractive classes underwent a more thorough reviewChanges from Version 3.1 to Version 3.2:CLC v3.2 includes several new site specific data sources: Revised FNAI natural community maps for 43 Florida Park Service lands, and 9 Florida Forever areas or proposals. This data is from 2014 - 2016 mapping efforts. SITE level class review: Wet Coniferous plantation (2450) from v2.3 has been included in v3.2. Non-Vegetated Wetland (2300), Urban Open Land (18211), Cropland/Pasture (18331), and High Pine and Scrub (1200) have undergone thorough review and reclassification where appropriate. Other classification errors were opportunistically corrected as found or as reported by users to landcovermap@myfwc.com.Changes from Version 3.2.5 to Version 3.3: The CLC v3.3 includes several new site specific data sources: Revised FNAI natural community maps for 14 FWC managed or co-managed lands, including 7 WMA and 7 WEA, 1 State Forest, 3 Hillsboro County managed areas, and 1 Florida Forever proposal. This data is from the 2017 – 2018 mapping efforts. Select sites and classes were included from the 2016 – 2017 NWFWMD (FLUCCS) dataset. M.C. Davis Conservation areas, 18331x agricultural classes underwent a thorough review and reclassification where appropriate. Prairie Mesic Hammock (1122) was reclassified to Prairie Hydric Hammock (22322) in the Everglades. All SITE level Tree Plantations (18333) were reclassified to Coniferous Plantations (183332). The addition of FWC Oyster Bar (5230) features. Other classification errors were opportunistically corrected as found or as reported by users to landcovermap@myfwc.com, including classification corrections to sites in T.M. Goodwin and Ocala National Forest. CLC v3.3 utilizes the updated The Florida Land Cover Classification System (2018), altering the following class names and numbers: Irrigated Row Crops (1833111), Wet Coniferous Plantations (1833321) (formerly 2450), Major Springs (4131) (formerly 3118). Mixed Hardwood-Coniferous Swamps (2240) (formerly Other Wetland Forested Mixed).Changes from Version 3.4 to Version 3.5: The CLC v3.5 includes several new site specific data sources: Revised FNAI natural community maps for 16 managed areas, and 10 Florida Forever Board of Trustees Projects (FFBOT) sites. This data is from the 2019 – 2020 mapping efforts. Other classification errors were opportunistically corrected as found or as reported by users to landcovermap@myfwc.com. This version of the CLC is also the first to include land identified as Salt Flats (5241).Changes from Version 3.5 to 3.6: The CLC v3.6 includes several new site specific data sources: Revised FNAI natural community maps for 11 managed areas, and 24 Florida Forever Board of Trustees Projects (FFBOT) sites. This data is from the 2018 – 2022 mapping efforts. Other classification errors were opportunistically corrected as found or as reported by users to landcovermap@myfwc.com.Changes from Version 3.6 to 3.7: The CLC 3.7 includes several new site specific data sources: Revised FNAI natural community maps for 5 managed areas (2022-2023). Revised Palm Beach County Natural Areas data for Pine Glades Natural Area (2023). Other classification errors were opportunistically corrected as found or as reported by users to landcovermap@myfwc.com. In this version a few SITE level classifications are reclassified for the STATE level classification system. Mesic Flatwoods and Scrubby Flatwoods are classified as Dry Flatwoods at the STATE level. Upland Glade is classified as Barren, Sinkhole, and Outcrop Communities at the STATE level. Lastly Upland Pine is classified as High Pine and Scrub at the STATE level.

The High Priority Zones (HPZs) polygons for Franklin's bumble bee are a subset of geographic areas within the historic range of the species. The HPZs are areas where Franklin's bumble bee are more likely to occur, and within which actions (such as habitat management) and events (such as wildfire) are more likely to have affects on the species. The HPZs have been modelled based off of known historic Franklin's bumble bee occurrences, along with a reclassified National Land Cover Database (2019) layer. The High Priority Zones (HPZs) is fundamentally based on a cost distance analysis using historic Franklin's bumble bee observations as source points and a reclassified National Land Cover Database (2019) layer as the barrier surface. This method follows closely with that used for the rusty patched bumble bee. For a complete workflow process document and downloadable spatial files, see: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/143332.

This map shows the global vulnerability with respect to natural hazards. To derive the vulnerability using the above described resilience the population density is used as the main impact factor for the vulnerability. So the more people live at a certain place, the higher the vulnerability.To calculate the vulnerability the value gained from the population reclassification is divided by the value from the global resilience map.The population density is evaluated by the following reclass table:• < 0.1 person/km²: not being used• 0.1 - 10 person/km²: 1• 10 - 100 person/km²: 2• 100 - 1 000 person/km²: 3• 1 000 - 10 000 person/km²: 4• > 10 000 person/km²: 5The resulting raster values have a range between 0 (low vulnerability) and 4 (high vulnerability).DataPopulation density © Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC)Airports © ourairports.comWorld Port Index © msi.nga.milTerrain Data (250 grid resolution) © SRTMGlobal Needs Assessment - Vulnerability Index and Crisis Index 2013 © European Commission ECHOMedical Care © www.laenderdaten.deIncome © World BankHuman rights and state stability © The Global Slavery Index 2013Education © World BankBackgroundBasemap © Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors

This tile layer, UCR_Project_Area_Slopes, provides the slope steepness within the boundaries of the Upper Cheat River project, proposed by the U.S. Forest Service in the Monongahela National Forest of West Virginia. Purpose:This data was included to provide additional environmental context for the user’s understanding of the project’s likely environmental impacts.Source & Date:The data was downloaded from the WV Elevation and LIDAR Download Tool, hosted by the West Virginia GIS Technical Center. The data was collected in 2018, and downloaded on 7/20/2021 from (DEM_Mosaic_FEMA_2019-19_Tucker-Randolph_WV_1m_UTM17).Processing:The slope was calculated from the 1-meter LIDAR-derived digital elevation model. The slope model was reclassified, as shown below. ABRA published the reclassified mosaic to ArcGIS Online as a tile layer.Symbology:Project Area Slopes (%):0-10%: dark green10-20%: light green20-30%: yellow30-40%: orange40-50%: red>50%: brown

GEBCO’s gridded bathymetric data sets are global terrain models for ocean and land. This map shows the areas where changes in elevation/depth have occurred between GEBCO Gridded products. Change values are represented in meters. This particular layer shows the absolute value of the difference (in meters) between GEBCO 2021 and GEBCO 2022 gridded data products. The equation used to compute change is abs(GEBCO 2022 - GEBCO 2021). Then a reclass is applied to reclassify all pixels that are equal to zero as "No Data", helping further emphasize the locations where change has occurred. GEBCO aims to provide the most authoritative, publicly available bathymetry data sets for the world’s oceans.More Information about GEBCO: https://www.gebco.net/Dataset attribution for products used to create this layer:GEBCO Compilation Group (2021) GEBCO 2021 Grid (doi:10.5285/c6612cbe-50b3-0cff-e053-6c86abc09f8f)GEBCO Compilation Group (2022) GEBCO_2022 Grid (doi:10.5285/e0f0bb80-ab44-2739-e053-6c86abc0289c)For more GEBCO related layers and maps please visit the GEBCO ArcGIS Online Group.

This tile layer displays percent slope in the Bromley Hollow area of the Eastern Divide Insect & Disease Control management project being undertaken by the USFS in the Jefferson National Forest.Purpose:The data was included to provide additional environmental context for the user’s understanding of the project’s likely environmental impactsSource & Date:Downloaded from the Virginia Geographic Information Network's (VGIN's) Virginia GIS Clearinghouse on 3/31/2021. Data was collected in 2016.Processing:The slope was calculated from the 1-meter LIDAR-derived digital elevation model mosaic. The slope raster was reclassified, as shown below. ABRA published the reclassified raster to ArcGIS Online as a tile layer.Symbology:EDID Dismal Creek Slope0 - 5%: Gray5 - 10%: Dark Green10 - 15%: Med Green15 - 20%: Light Green20 - 25%: Yellow-Green25 - 30%: Yellow30 - 40%: Light Orange40 -50%: Dark Orange50 - 60%: Orange-Red> 60%: Dark Red

File-based data for download:https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/6556549dd34ee4b6e05c4822This layer calculated changes between the first and last time steps from the Sagebrush Conservation Design dataset. Calculations were done by adding the first and second time step rasters using the Raster Calculator tool in ArcGIS Pro. The later raster was reclassified with the following values Non-Rangeland Areas = 0, Core Sagebrush Areas = 10, Growth Opportunity Areas = 20, Other Rangeland Areas = 30. This created a raster showing change with the following values. Non-Rangeland to Non-Rangeland = 0Core to Non-Rangeland =1, Growth to Non-Rangeland = 2,Other to Non-Rangeland = 3Non-Rangeland to Core = 10Core to Core = 11Growth to Core = 12Other to Core = 13Non-Rangeland to Growth = 20Core to Growth = 21Growth to Growth = 22Other to Growth = 23Non-Rangeland to Other = 30Core to Other = 31Growth to Other = 32Other to Other = 33The purpose of these data are to provide a biome-wide, consistent, quantitative information about changes in sagebrush core habitat and growth areas. These data may be used to enable better prioritization of landscapes for conservation, and to inform which treatments or other conservation actions are appropriate in specific areas.Original Data cited as:Doherty, K., Theobald, D.M., Holdrege, M.C., Wiechman, L.A., and Bradford, J.B., 2022, Biome-wide sagebrush core habitat and growth areas estimated from a threat-based conservation design: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P94Y5CDV.Supporting literature for original dataset:Doherty, K., Theobald, D.M., Bradford, J.B., Wiechman, L.A., Bedrosian, G., Boyd, C.S., Cahill, M., Coates, P.S., Creutzburg, M.K., Crist, M.R., Finn, S.P., Kumar, A.V., Littlefield, C.E., Maestas, J.D., Prentice, K.L., Prochazka, B.G., Remington, T.E., Sparklin, W.D., Tull, J.C., Wurtzebach, Z., and Zeller, K.A., 2922, A sagebrush conservation design to proactively restore America’s sagebrush biome: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2022–1081, 38 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20221081.

The Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal Harm Act (BEACH Act, Pub. L.118-117) was enacted on November 25, 2024. This law amended the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) and adopted 195 new or revised maps for 454 units of the CBRS in 13 states. The revised maps were produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) through the Hurricane Sandy Remapping Project and other efforts and are available through the CBRS Mapper.

The revised maps remove about 1,400 acres from the CBRS, correcting mapping errors affecting about 955 structures. The revised maps also expand the CBRS by about 294,000 acres and add 275 structures to the CBRS. The revised maps reclassify certain areas from System Units to Otherwise Protected Areas and vice versa. Learn more about the differences between these two types of units. This web map is a component of the FWS BEACH Act viewer, which allows users to see where these changes were made. The change polygons in this layer are a visualization tool only and may include some errors, such as:

Offshore areas depicted as either “additions” or “removals” where we altered the length of the boundaries where they extend into bodies of water. These are not actual changes, as the offshore extent of the units is not defined by the polygons, but by either the 30- or 20-foot bathymetric contour (depending on the area).

Minor topological differences that occur in the nationwide dataset that did not exist in the locally projected data (these errors are imperceptible except through geoprocessing).For more information, including summaries of the changes made to each unit, visit our webpage on the BEACH Act.

Users seeking documentation regarding whether a particular property is within or outside of the CBRS should use the CBRS Validation Tool rather than this web map. Questions? Contact cbra@fws.gov.

Historic flowways in Lee County, Florida represent historic paths of surface water conveyance. This dataset was developed from reclassification of the soils layer and aerial photo interpretation.A flowway for the purpose of this analysis is generally described as the lowest "pathway" allowing for the successive conveyance of surface waters. These areas were delineated by visual interpretation of the spatial differences between that shown on the 2005 aerials and that determined from the categorical reclassification of the soils layer.See associated layers, FlowwayArrows and FlowwaysHistoricConnections

GEBCO’s gridded bathymetric data sets are global terrain models for ocean and land. This map shows the areas where changes in elevation/depth has occurred between GEBCO Gridded products. Change values are represented in meters. This particular layer shows the absolute value of the difference (in meters) between GEBCO 2020 and GEBCO 2021 gridded data products. The equation used to compute change is abs(GEBCO 2021 - GEBCO 2020). Then a reclass is applied to reclassify all pixels that are equal to zero as "No Data", helping further emphasize the locations where change has occurred. GEBCO aims to provide the most authoritative, publicly available bathymetry data sets for the world’s oceans.More Information about GEBCO: https://www.gebco.net/Dataset attribution for products used to create this layer:GEBCO Compilation Group (2020) GEBCO 2020 Grid (doi:10.5285/a29c5465-b138-234d-e053-6c86abc040b9)GEBCO Compilation Group (2021) GEBCO 2021 Grid (doi:10.5285/c6612cbe-50b3-0cff-e053-6c86abc09f8f)For more GEBCO related layers and maps please visit the GEBCO ArcGIS Online Group.