Class I and II surface water classification. The Clean Water Act requires that the surface waters of each state be classified according to designated uses. Florida has six classes with associated designated uses, which are arranged in order of degree of protection required: Class I - Potable Water Supplies Fourteen general areas throughout the state including: impoundments and associated tributaries, certain lakes, rivers, or portions of rivers, used as a drinking water supply. Class II - Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting Generally coastal waters where shellfish harvesting occurs. For a more detailed description of classes and specific waterbody designations, see 62-302.400.

The 2014 update of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States (2014 NSHM; Petersen and others, 2014; https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1128/) included probabilistic ground motion maps for 2 percent and 10 percent probabilities of exceedance in 50 years, derived from seismic hazard curves for peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 0.2 and 1.0 second spectral accelerations (SAs) with 5 percent damping for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site class boundary B/C (time-averaged shear wave velocity in the upper 30 meters [VS30]=760 meters per second [m/s]). This data release provides 0.1 degree by 0.1 degree gridded seismic hazard curves, 0.1 degree by 0.1 degree gridded probabilistic ground motions, and seismic hazard maps calculated for additional periods and additional uniform NEHRP site classes using the 2014 NSHM. For both the central and eastern U.S. (CEUS) and western U.S. (WUS), data and maps are provided for PGA, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 second SAs with 5% damping for the NEHRP site class boundary B/C for 2, 5, and 10% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years. The WUS additionally includes data and maps for 0.75, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 SAs. The use of region-specific suites of weighted ground motion models (GMMs) in the 2014 NSHM precluded the calculation of ground motions for a uniform set of periods and site classes for the conterminous U.S. At the time of development of the 2014 NSHM, there was no consensus in the CEUS on an appropriate site-amplification model to use, therefore, we calculated hazard curves and maps for NEHRP Site Class A (VS30 = 2000 m/s), for which most stable continental GMMs were original developed, based on simulations for hard rock conditions. In the WUS, however, the GMMs allow amplification based on site class (defined by VS30), so we calculated hazard curves and maps for NEHRP site classes B (VS30 = 1080 m/s), C (VS30 = 530 m/s), D (VS30 = 260 m/s), and E (VS30 = 150 m/s) and site class boundaries A/B (VS30 = 1500 m/s), B/C (VS30 = 760 m/s), C/D (VS30 = 365 m/s), and D/E (VS30 = 185 m/s). Further explanation about how the data and maps were generated can be found in the accompanying U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018-1111 (https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181111). First Posted - July 18, 2018 Revised - February 20, 2019 (ver. 1.1)

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. Spatial data from field observation points and quantitative plots were used to edit the formation-level maps of Petersburg National Battlefield to better reflect vegetation classes. Using ArcView 3.3, polygon boundaries were revised onscreen over leaf-off photography. Units used to label polygons on the map (i.e. map classes) are equivalent to one or more vegetation classes from the regional vegetation classification, or to a land-use class from the Anderson (Anderson et al. 1976) Level II classification system. Each polygon on the Petersburg National Battlefield map was assigned to one of twenty map classes based on plot data, field observations, aerial photography signatures, and topographic maps. The mapping boundary was based on park boundary data obtained from Petersburg National Battlefield in May 2006. Spatial data depicting the locations of earthworks was obtained from the park and used to identify polygons of the cultural map classes Open Earthworks and Forested Earthworks. One map class used to attribute polygons combines two similar associations that, in some circumstances, are difficult to distinguish in the field. The vegetation map was clipped at the park boundary because areas outside the park were not surveyed or included in the accuracy assessment. Twenty map classes were used in the vegetation map for Petersburg National Battlefield. Map classes are equivalent to one or more vegetation classes from the regional vegetation classification, or to a land-use class from the Anderson (Anderson et al. 1976) Level II classification system.

This polygon files contains 2015-2016 school-year data delineating school attendance boundaries. These data were collected and processed as part of the School Attendance Boundary Survey (SABS) project which was funded by NCES to create geography delineating school attendance boundaries. Original source information that was used to create these boundary files were collected were collected over a web-based self-reporting system, through e-mail, and mailed paper maps. The web application provided instructions and assistance to users via a user guide, a frequently asked questions document, and instructional videos. Boundaries supplied outside of the online reporting system typically fell into one of six categories: a digital geographic file, such as a shapefile or KML file; digital image files, such as jpegs and pdfs; narrative descriptions; an interactive web map; Excel or pdf address lists; and paper maps. 2015 TIGER/line features (that consist of streets, hydrography, railways, etc.) were used to digitize school attendance boundaries and was the primary source of information used to digitize analog information. This practice works well as most school attendance boundaries align with streets, railways, water bodies and similar line features included in the 2015 TIGER/line "edges" files. In those few cases in which a portion of a school attendance boundary serves both sides of a street contractor staff used Esri’s Imagery base map to estimate the property lines of parcels. The data digitized from analog maps and verbal descriptions do not conform to cadastral data (and many of the original GIS files created by school districts do not conform with cadastral or parcel data).The SABS 2015-2016 file uses the WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere coordinate system.Additional information about SABS can be found on the EDGE website.The SABS dataset is intended for research purposes only and reflects a single snapshot in time. School boundaries frequently change from year to year. To verify legal descriptions of boundaries, users must contact the school district directly.All information contained in this file is in the public domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data.

(Link to Metadata) The BNDHASH dataset depicts Vermont villages, towns, counties, Regional Planning Commissions (RPC), and LEPC (Local Emergency Planning Committee) boundaries. It is a composite of generally 'best available' boundaries from various data sources (refer to ARC_SRC and SRC_NOTES attributes). However, this dataset DOES NOT attempt to provide a legally definitive boundary. The layer was originally developed from TBHASH, which was the master VGIS town boundary layer prior to the development and release of BNDHASH. By integrating village, town, county, RPC, and state boundaries into a single layer, VCGI has assured vertical integration of these boundaries and simplified maintenance. BNDHASH also includes annotation text for town, county, and RPC names. BNDHASH includes the following feature classes: 1) VILLAGES = Vermont villages 2) TOWNS = Vermont towns 3) COUNTIES = Vermont counties 4) RPCS = Vermont's Regional Planning Commissions 5) LEPC = Local Emergency Planning Committee boundaries 6) VTBND = Vermont's state boundary The master BNDHASH layer is managed as ESRI geodatabase feature dataset by VCGI. The dataset stores villages, towns, counties, and RPC boundaries as seperate feature classes with a set of topology rules which binds the features. This arrangement assures vertical integration of the various boundaries. VCGI will update this layer on an annual basis by reviewing records housed in the VT State Archives - Secretary of State's Office. VCGI also welcomes documented information from VGIS users which identify boundary errors. NOTE - VCGI has NOT attempted to create a legally definitive boundary layer. Instead the idea is to maintain an integrated village/town/county/rpc boundary layer which provides for a reasonably accurate representation of these boundaries (refer to ARC_SRC and SRC_NOTES). BNDHASH includes all counties, towns, and villages listed in "Population and Local Government - State of Vermont - 2000" published by the Secretary of State. BNDHASH may include changes endorsed by the Legislature since the publication of this document in 2000 (eg: villages merged with towns). Utlimately the Vermont Secratary of State's Office and the VT Legislature are responsible for maintaining information which accurately describes the location of these boundaries. BNDHASH should be used for general mapping purposes only. * Users who wish to determine which boundaries are different from the original TBHASH boundaries should refer to the ORIG_ARC field in the BOUNDARY_BNDHASH_LINE (line featue with attributes). Also, updates to BNDHASH are tracked by version number (ex: 2003A). The UPDACT field is used to track changes between versions. The UPDACT field is flushed between versions.

MassGIS Level 3 Parcel Data: Data Fiscal Year: Aquinnah 2019, Chilmark 2020, Edgartown 2021, Gosnold 2015, Oak Bluffs 2021, Tisbury 2021, West Tisbury 2021.Building Info Table: Acquired by MVC from Town Assessors in FY20.Downloaded from MassGIS,, this polygon file represents the parcel bounds for the 7 towns in Dukes County MA (Aquinnah, Chilmark, Edgartown, Godnold, Oak Bluffs, Tisbury, West Tisbury). Each town has their own parcel data consultant and then the data are forwarded to MassGIS for final processing. All data comply with the MassGIS Level 3 Parcel Data Standard. This file geodatabase only includes the TaxPar feature class and Assess table for each town. All TaxPar feature classes were appended into one feature class (Parcels_duk) by the MVC.Each assess table is utilized in that town's respective relationship join (1 to Many) for linking the parcel polygon to the related record(s) in the Assess table. The Assess Table contains info about ownership and assessed values. This is not a detailed building table. If there are multiple owners associated with a property, then the Assess table will have multiple records for that property/parcel (such as for condo parcels).Each building table is utilized in that town's respective relationship join (1 to Many) for linking the parcel polygon to the related record(s) in the Bldg table. The Bldg (building) table contains info about each building on the parcel (such as number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, the living area square footage, etc.). NOTES of CAUTION: The Living Area Square Footage may not represent the exact same thing in each town. As a generalization, Living Area is interior space that is heated. Regarding West Tisbury, their building table only contains info for one building on the parcel. It is uncertain at this time if the info is the most recent, most primary, or some kind of summarization where multiple buildings on a parcel exist.The field of [assess_mYB] represents the Minimum/Earliest Year Built for any building on the parcel and is appended to the TaxPar feature class based on an analysis of the info provided in the building table. This field [assess_mYB] is utilized in the Historic Structures App found in ArcGIS OnLine.

The School Attendance Boundaries Survey (SABS) was an experimental survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) with assistance from the U.S. Census Bureau to collect school attendance boundaries for regular schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Attendance boundaries, sometimes known as school catchment areas, define the geographic extent served by a local school for the purpose of student assignments. School district administrators create attendance areas to help organize and plan district-wide services, and districts may adjust individual school boundaries to help balance the physical capacity of local schools with changes in the local school-age population. The SABS collection includes boundaries for more than 70,000 schools in over 12,000 school districts throughout the U.S.All information contained in this file is in the public domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data.

The VA_TOWN dataset is a feature class component of the Virginia Administrative Boundaries dataset from the Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN). VA_COUNTY represents the best available city and county boundary information to VGIN.VGIN initially sought to develop an improved locality and town boundary dataset in late 2013, spurred by response of the Virginia Administrative Boundaries Workgroup community. The feature class initially started from the locality boundaries from the Census TIGER dataset for Virginia. VGIN solicited input from localities in Virginia through the Road Centerlines data submission process as well as through public forums such as the Virginia Administrative Boundaries Workgroup and VGIN listservs. Data received were analyzed and incorporated into the VA_COUNTY feature class where locality data were a superior representation of the city or county boundary.

© Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN), and the Census and Localities and Towns submitting data to the project

This layer is a component of Feature classes representing locality (county, city, and town) boundaries in the Commonwealth of Virginia..

State Boundaries dataset current as of 1990. Townships - polygon feature class in ESRI format.

The prison boundary feature class contains secure detention facilities. These facilities range in jurisdiction from federal (excluding military) to local governments. Polygon geometry is used to describe the extent of where the incarcerated population is located (fence lines or building footprints). This feature class’s attribution describes many physical and social characteristics of detention facilities in the United States and some of its territories. The attribution for this feature class was populated by open source search methodologies of authoritative sources. Changes from the previous version include 70 records added, 72 closed, and 37 removed.

This digital, geographically referenced data set was developed to identify the county boundaries of the Des Moines 9 County Regional GIS community.This feature class is one many feature classes developed for and maintained by the Des Moines Area Regional GIS for the purpose of performing internal and external functions of the local government it covers.

This layer displays Noise Control Boundaries identified in the Taupō District Plan. The ‘Class’ field/column refers to the boundary area (ANB = Airport Air Noise Boundary, OCB = Airport Outer Control Boundary, NC40 = Noise Control Boundary 40 dBA leq). Noise boundaries have been placed around power stations within the District and the Taupō airport. The Taupō District Plan has been operative since 2007. Selected datasets from the Taupō District Plan have been made available for download to allow for better public access to the data underlying the plan. Note that some features mapped for district plan purposes may have changed over time. Taupō District Council does not make any representation or give any warranty as to the accuracy or exhaustiveness of the District Plan data released for public download. The data provided is indicative only and does not purport to be a complete database of all information in Taupō District Council's possession or control. Taupō District Council shall not be liable for any loss, damage, cost or expense (whether direct or indirect) arising from reliance upon or use of any data provided, or Council's failure to provide this data. While you are free to crop, export and repurpose the data, we ask that you attribute the Taupō District Council and clearly state that your work is a derivative and not the authoritative data source. Please include this statement when distributing any work derived from this data:This work is a derivative of the Taupō District Plan. You can view the full Taupō District E-Plan here: https://taupo.isoplan.co.nz/eplan/

(Link to Metadata) The BNDHASH dataset depicts Vermont village, town, county, and Regional Planning Commission (RPC) boundaries. It is a composite of generally 'best available' boundaries from various data sources (refer to ARC_SRC and SRC_NOTES attributes). However, this dataset DOES NOT attempt to provide a legally definitive boundary. The layer was originally developed from TBHASH, which was the master VGIS town boundary layer prior to the development and release of BNDHASH. By integrating village, town, county, RPC, and state boundaries into a single layer, VCGI has assured vertical integration of these boundaries and simplified maintenance. BNDHASH also includes annotation text for town, county, and RPC names. BNDHASH includes the following feature classes: 1) BNDHASH_POLY_VILLAGES = Vermont villages 2) BNDHASH_POLY_TOWNS = Vermont towns 3) BNDHASH_POLY_COUNTIES = Vermont counties 4) BNDHASH_POLY_RPCS = Vermont's Regional Planning Commissions 5) BNDHASH_POLY_VTBND = Vermont's state boundary 6) BNDHASH_LINE = Lines on which all POLY feature classes are built The master BNDHASH data is managed as an ESRI geodatabase feature dataset by VCGI. The dataset stores village, town, county, RPC, and state boundaries as seperate feature classes with a set of topology rules which binds the features. This arrangement assures vertical integration of the various boundaries. VCGI will update this layer on an annual basis by reviewing records housed in the VT State Archives - Secretary of State's Office. VCGI also welcomes documented information from VGIS users which identify boundary errors. NOTE - VCGI has NOT attempted to create a legally definitive boundary layer. Instead the idea is to maintain an integrated village/town/county/RPC/state boundary layer which provides for a reasonably accurate representation of these boundaries (refer to ARC_SRC and SRC_NOTES). BNDHASH includes all counties, towns, and villages listed in "Population and Local Government - State of Vermont - 2000" published by the Secretary of State. BNDHASH may include changes endorsed by the Legislature since the publication of this document in 2000 (eg: villages merged with towns). Utlimately the Vermont Secratary of State's Office and the VT Legislature are responsible for maintaining information which accurately describes the locations of these boundaries. BNDHASH should be used for general mapping purposes only. * Users who wish to determine which boundaries are different from the original TBHASH boundaries should refer to the ORIG_ARC field in the BOUNDARY_BNDHASH_LINE (line feature with attributes). Also, updates to BNDHASH are tracked by version number (ex: 2003A). The UPDACT field is used to track changes between versions. The UPDACT field is flushed between versions.

GDB Version: ArcGIS Pro 3.3Additional Resources:Shapefile DownloadShapefile Download (Clipped to VIMS shoreline)Administrative Boundary Data Standard REST Endpoint (Unclipped) - REST Endpoint (Clipped)The Administrative Boundary feature classes represent the best available boundary information in Virginia. VGIN initially sought to develop an improved city, county, and town boundary dataset in late 2013, spurred by response of the Virginia Administrative Boundaries Workgroup community. The feature class initially started from an extraction of features from the Census TIGER dataset for Virginia. VGIN solicited input from localities in Virginia through the Road Centerlines data submission process as well as through public forums such as the Virginia Administrative Boundaries Workgroup and VGIN listservs. Data received were analyzed and incorporated into the appropriate feature classes where locality data were a superior representation of boundaries. Administrative Boundary geodatabase and shapefiles are unclipped to hydrography features by default. The clipped to hydro dataset is included as a separate shapefile download below.

This feature class is used for cartographic purposes, for generating statistical data, and for clipping data. Ideally, state and federal agencies should be using the same framework data for common themes such as county boundaries. This layer provides an initial offering as "best available" at 1:24,000 scale for counties.Incorporated cities were merged from the Board of Equalization's 11/16/2021 City and County boundaries dataset. The Cal Fire FRAP County boundaries v 19_1 were maintained for consistency with other use in CA Nature.

An area encompassing all the National Forest System lands administered by an administrative unit. The area encompasses private lands, other governmental agency lands, and may contain National Forest System lands within the proclaimed boundaries of another administrative unit. All National Forest System lands fall within one and only one Administrative Forest Area. This data is intended for read-only use. These data were prepared to describe Forest Service administrative area boundaries. The purpose of the data is to provide display, identification, and analysis tools for determining current boundary information for Forest Service managers, GIS Specialists, and others. The Forest Service has multiple types of boundaries represented by different feature classes (layers): Administrative, Ownership and Proclaimed. 1) ADMINISTRATIVE boundaries (e.g. AdministrativeForest and RangerDistrict feature classes) encompass National Forest System lands managed by an administrative unit. These are dynamic layers that should not be considered "legal" boundaries as they are simply intended to identify the specific organizational units that administer areas. As lands are acquired and disposed, the administrative boundaries are adjusted to expand or shrink accordingly. Please note that ranger districts are sub units of National Forests. An administrative forest boundary can contain one or more Proclaimed National Forests, National Grasslands, Purchase Units, Research and Experimental Areas, Land Utilization Projects and various "Other" Areas. If needed, OWNERSHIP boundaries (e.g. BasicOwnership and SurfaceOwnership feature classes) should be reviewed along with these datasets to determine parcels that are federally managed within the administrative boundaries. 2) OWNERSHIP boundaries (e.g. BasicOwnership and SurfaceOwnership feature classes) represent parcels that are tied to legal transactions of ownership. These are parcels of Federal land managed by the USDA Forest Service. Please note that the BasicOwnership layer is simply a dissolved version of the SurfaceOwnership layer. 3) PROCLAIMED boundaries (e.g. ProclaimedForest and ProclaimedForest_Grassland) encompass areas of National Forest System land that is set aside and reserved from public domain by executive order or proclamation. Please note that the ProclaimedForest layer contains only proclaimed forests while ProclaimedForest_Grassland layer contains both proclaimed forests and proclaimed grasslands. For boundaries that reflect current National Forest System lands managed by an administrative unit, see the ADMINISTRATIVE boundaries (AdministrativeForest and RangerDistrict feature classes). For a visual comparison of the different kinds of USFS boundary datasets maintained by the USFS, see the Forest Service Boundary Comparison map at https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/CompareAnalysis/index.html?appid=fe7b9f56217949a291356f08cfccb119. USFS boundaries are often referenced in national datasets maintained by other federal agencies. Please note that variations may be found between USFS data and other boundary datasets due to differing update frequencies. PAD-US (Protected Areas Database of the United States), maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey, is a "best available" inventory of protected areas including data provided by managing agencies and organizations including the Forest Service. For more information see https://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/metadata/. SMA (Surface Management Agency), maintained by the Bureau of Land Management, depicts Federal land for the United States and classifies this land by its active Federal surface managing agency. It uses data provided by the Forest Service and other agencies, combined with National Regional Offices collection efforts. For more information see https://landscape.blm.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B2A8B8906-7711-4AF7-9510-C6C7FD991177%7D.

In late 1996, the Dept of Conservation (DOC) surveyed state and federal agencies about the county boundary coverage they used. As a result, DOC adopted the 1:24,000 (24K) scale U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) data set (USGS source) for their Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) but with several modifications. Detailed documentation of these changes is provided by FMMP and included in the Process Step section of the Feature Class metadata. A data set named cnty24k97_1 was made available (approximately 2004) through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CDF - FRAP) and the California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL). In late 2006, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) reviewed cnty24k97_1. Comparisons were made to a high-quality 100K dataset (co100a/county100k from the former Teale Data Center GIS Solutions Group) and legal boundary descriptions from ( http://www.leginfo.ca.gov ). The cnty24k97_1 data set was missing Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands. DFG added the missing islands using previously-digitized coastline data (coastn27 of State Lands Commission origin), corrected a few county boundaries, built region topology, added additional attributes, and renamed the data set to county24k. In 2007, the California Mapping Coordinating Committee (CMCC) requested that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) resume stewardship of the statewide county boundaries data. CAL FIRE adopted the changes made by DFG and collected additional suggestions for the county data from DFG, DOC, and local government agencies. CAL FIRE incorporated these suggestions into the latest revision, which has been renamed cnty24k09_1. Detailed documentation of changes is included in the Process Step section of the Feature Class metadata. This Geo database contains 3 feature classes representing California county boundaries (arc, polygon, and multipart-polygon feature classes) and also contains a polygon feature class representing the state boundary: 1. Line - can be useful for cartographic purposes, especially when different line symbology is needed for different boundaries (e.g. Coastline, Mexico, Nevada, etc). 2. Multipart - features from a common county are combined into a single record (equivalent to a region feature class in a coverage). May be useful for selections and overlays when all parts of a county are needed. 3. Poly - all county features are represented as individual polygons. 4. State Poly - state boundary polygon to be used for cartography or overlay analysis that requires a state polygon.

Standardisation of River Classifications: Framework method for calibrating different biological survey results against ecological quality classifications to be developed for the Water Framework Directive. Problems to be solved: The variety of assessment methods for streams and rivers in Europe provides good opportunities for implementing the Water Framework Directive but their diversity may also result in serious strategic problems. The number of organism groups that will be used to assess Ecological Status, and the number of methods available for doing so are so diverse that inter-calibration and standardisation of methods is crucial. Similarly, protocols need to be devised to integrate the information gathered on the different taxonomic groups. The project aims to derive a detailed picture of which methods are best suited for which circumstances as a basis for standardisation. We propose to develop a standard for determining class boundaries of Ecological Status and another for inter-calibrating existing methods. Scientific objectives and approach: Data will be used to answer the following questions, which form the basis of a conceptual model: 1) How can data resulting from different assessment methods be compared and standardised? 2) Which methods/taxonomic groups are most capable of indicating particular individual stressors? 3) Which method can be used on which scale? 4) Which method is suited for early and late warnings? 5) How are different assessment methods affected by errors? 6) What can be standardised and what should be standardised? For the purposes of this project two 'core streams types' are recognised: small, shallow, upland streams and medium-sized, deeper lowland streams. Besides the evaluation of existing data, a completely new data set is sampled to gain comparable data on macroinvertebrates, phytobenthos, fish and stream morphology taken with a set of different methods from sites representing different stages of degradation. This will be the main source of data for cross-comparisons and the preparation of standards. A number of 'additional stream types' will be investigated in order to extend the range of sites at which field methods and assessment procedures are compared. The participants will be trained in sampling workshops and quality assurance will be implemented through an audit. Using the project database, assessment methods based on benthic macroinvertebrates will be compared and inter-calibrated, particularly in terms of errors, precision, relation to reference conditions and possible class boundaries. The discriminatory power of different organism groups to detect ecological change will be tested through various statistical procedures. Two CEN Workshops will be held during the contracted period. These will result in the formulation of draft standards for circulation, amendment, agreement by participating countries in CEN.STAR will benefit from clustering with the complementary Framework V Project, FAME. Project FAME will develop European fish assessment protocols using existing data. STAR fish sampling will be based on FAME protocols and STAR field data will be used by FAME to test these new protocols. Expected impacts: The project will provide a general concept understanding of how to use different organism groups for stream assessment. The project findings will be implemented through a decision support system. Existing methods based on benthic macroinvertebrates will be inter-calibrated to enable a future comparison of river quality classes throughout Europe. Existing assessment methods will be supplemented by an 'error module'. A matrix of possible class boundaries of grades of 'Ecological Status' associated with different methods and stressors will be developed. Committee drafts for the relevant CEN working group and draft standards on stream assessment methods will be produced. Deliverables: Please see: www.eu-star.at/frameset.htm