Analysis of ‘2018 CT Data Catalog (Non GIS)’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/fe457197-5afe-4a20-a131-1bdcf9bd8ace on 26 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Catalog of high value data inventories produced by Connecticut executive branch agencies and compiled by the Office of Policy and Management. This catalog does not contain information about high value GIS data, which is compiled in a separate data inventory at the following link: https://data.ct.gov/Government/CT-Data-Catalog-GIS-/p7we-na27

As required by Public Act 18-175, executive branch agencies must annually conduct a high value data inventory to capture information about the high value data that they collect.

High value data is defined as any data that the department head determines (A) is critical to the operation of an executive branch agency; (B) can increase executive branch agency accountability and responsiveness; (C) can improve public knowledge of the executive branch agency and its operations; (D) can further the core mission of the executive branch agency; (E) can create economic opportunity; (F) is frequently requested by the public; (G) responds to a need and demand as identified by the agency through public consultation; or (H) is used to satisfy any legislative or other reporting requirements.

This dataset was last updated 3/4/2019 and will continue to be updated as high value data inventories are submitted to OPM.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Analysis of ‘PLACES: Census Tract Data (GIS Friendly Format), 2021 release’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/023e0c0a-9abf-4582-8531-c4577cc58160 on 12 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

This dataset contains model-based census tract level estimates for the PLACES 2021 release in GIS-friendly format. PLACES is the expansion of the original 500 Cities project and covers the entire United States—50 states and the District of Columbia (DC)—at county, place, census tract, and ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) levels. It represents a first-of-its kind effort to release information uniformly on this large scale for local areas at 4 geographic levels. Estimates were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Population Health, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. PLACES was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in conjunction with the CDC Foundation. Data sources used to generate these model-based estimates include Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2019 or 2018 data, Census Bureau 2010 population estimates, and American Community Survey (ACS) 2015–2019 or 2014–2018 estimates. The 2021 release uses 2019 BRFSS data for 22 measures and 2018 BRFSS data for 7 measures (all teeth lost, dental visits, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, core preventive services among older adults, and sleeping less than 7 hours a night). Seven measures are based on the 2018 BRFSS data because the relevant questions are only asked every other year in the BRFSS. These data can be joined with the census tract 2015 boundary file in a GIS system to produce maps for 29 measures at the census tract level. An ArcGIS Online feature service is also available for users to make maps online or to add data to desktop GIS software. https://cdcarcgis.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3b7221d4e47740cab9235b839fa55cd7

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

This dataset is a modified version of the FWS developed data depicting “Highly Important Landscapes”, as outlined in Memorandum FWS/AES/058711 and provided to the Wildlife Habitat Spatial analysis Lab on October 29th 2014. Other names and acronyms used to refer to this dataset have included: Areas of Significance (AoSs - name of GIS data set provided by FWS), Strongholds (FWS), and Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs - BLM). The BLM will refer to these data as Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs). Data were provided as a series of ArcGIS map packages which, when extracted, contained several datasets each. Based on the recommendation of the FWS Geographer/Ecologist (email communication, see data originator for contact information) the dataset called “Outiline_AreasofSignificance” was utilized as the source for subsequent analysis and refinement. Metadata was not provided by the FWS for this dataset. For detailed information regarding the dataset’s creation refer to Memorandum FWS/AES/058711 or contact the FWS directly. Several operations and modifications were made to this source data, as outlined in the “Description” and “Process Step” sections of this metadata file. Generally: The source data was named by the Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab to identify polygons as described (but not identified in the GIS) in the FWS memorandum. The Nevada/California EIS modified portions within their decision space in concert with local FWS personnel and provided the modified data back to the Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab. Gaps around Nevada State borders, introduced by the NVCA edits, were then closed as was a large gap between the southern Idaho & southeast Oregon present in the original dataset. Features with an area below 40 acres were then identified and, based on FWS guidance, either removed or retained. Finally, guidance from BLM WO resulted in the removal of additional areas, primarily non-habitat with BLM surface or subsurface management authority. Data were then provided to each EIS for use in FEIS development. Based on guidance from WO, SFAs were to be limited to BLM decision space (surface/sub-surface management areas) within PHMA. Each EIS was asked to provide the limited SFA dataset back to the National Operations Center to ensure consistent representation and analysis. Returned SFA data, modified by each individual EIS, was then consolidated at the BLM’s National Operations Center retaining the three standardized fields contained in this dataset.Several Modifications from the original FWS dataset have been made. Below is a summary of each modification.1. The data as received from FWS: 16,514,163 acres & 1 record.2. Edited to name SFAs by Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab:Upon receipt of the “Outiline_AreasofSignificance” dataset from the FWS, a copy was made and the one existing & unnamed record was exploded in an edit session within ArcMap. A text field, “AoS_Name”, was added. Using the maps provided with Memorandum FWS/AES/058711, polygons were manually selected and the “AoS_Name” field was calculated to match the names as illustrated. Once all polygons in the exploded dataset were appropriately named, the dataset was dissolved, resulting in one record representing each of the seven SFAs identified in the memorandum.3. The NVCA EIS made modifications in concert with local FWS staff. Metadata and detailed change descriptions were not returned with the modified data. Contact Leisa Wesch, GIS Specialist, BLM Nevada State Office, 775-861-6421, lwesch@blm.gov, for details.4. Once the data was returned to the Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab from the NVCA EIS, gaps surrounding the State of NV were closed. These gaps were introduced by the NVCA edits, exacerbated by them, or existed in the data as provided by the FWS. The gap closing was performed in an edit session by either extending each polygon towards each other or by creating a new polygon, which covered the gap, and merging it with the existing features. In addition to the gaps around state boundaries, a large area between the S. Idaho and S.E. Oregon SFAs was filled in. To accomplish this, ADPP habitat (current as of January 2015) and BLM GSSP SMA data were used to create a new polygon representing PHMA and BLM management that connected the two existing SFAs.5. In an effort to simplify the FWS dataset, features whose areas were less than 40 acres were identified and FWS was consulted for guidance on possible removal. To do so, features from #4 above were exploded once again in an ArcMap edit session. Features whose areas were less than forty acres were selected and exported (770 total features). This dataset was provided to the FWS and then returned with specific guidance on inclusion/exclusion via email by Lara Juliusson (lara_juliusson@fws.gov). The specific guidance was:a. Remove all features whose area is less than 10 acresb. Remove features identified as slivers (the thinness ratio was calculated and slivers identified by Lara Juliusson according to https://tereshenkov.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/fighting-sliver-polygons-in-arcgis-thinness-ratio/) and whose area was less than 20 acres.c. Remove features with areas less than 20 acres NOT identified as slivers and NOT adjacent to other features.d. Keep the remainder of features identified as less than 40 acres.To accomplish “a” and “b”, above, a simple selection was applied to the dataset representing features less than 40 acres. The select by location tool was used, set to select identical, to select these features from the dataset created in step 4 above. The records count was confirmed as matching between the two data sets and then these features were deleted. To accomplish “c” above, a field (“AdjacentSH”, added by FWS but not calculated) was calculated to identify features touching or intersecting other features. A series of selections was used: first to select records 6. Based on direction from the BLM Washington Office, the portion of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument (UMRBNM) that was included in the FWS SFA dataset was removed. The BLM NOC GSSP NLCS dataset was used to erase these areas from #5 above. Resulting sliver polygons were also removed and geometry was repaired.7. In addition to removing UMRBNM, the BLM Washington Office also directed the removal of Non-ADPP habitat within the SFAs, on BLM managed lands, falling outside of Designated Wilderness’ & Wilderness Study Areas. An exception was the retention of the Donkey Hills ACEC and adjacent BLM lands. The BLM NOC GSSP NLCS datasets were used in conjunction with a dataset containing all ADPP habitat, BLM SMA and BLM sub-surface management unioned into one file to identify and delete these areas.8. The resulting dataset, after steps 2 – 8 above were completed, was dissolved to the SFA name field yielding this feature class with one record per SFA area.9. Data were provided to each EIS for use in FEIS allocation decision data development.10. Data were subset to BLM decision space (surface/sub-surface) within PHMA by each EIS and returned to the NOC.11. Due to variations in field names and values, three standardized fields were created and calculated by the NOC:a. SFA Name – The name of the SFA.b. Subsurface – Binary “Yes” or “No” to indicated federal subsurface estate.c. SMA – Represents BLM, USFS, other federal and non-federal surface management 12. The consolidated data (with standardized field names and values) were dissolved on the three fields illustrated above and geometry was repaired, resulting in this dataset.

This dataset has been published by the Human Resources Department of the City of Virginia Beach and data.virginiabeach.gov. The mission of data.virginiabeach.gov is to provide timely and accurate City information to increase government transparency and access to useful and well organized data by the general public, non-governmental organizations, and City of Virginia Beach employees.Distributed bydata.virginiabeach.gov2405 Courthouse Dr.Virginia Beach, VA 23456EntityEmployee SalariesPoint of ContactHuman ResourcesSherri Arnold, Human Resources Business Partner IIIsharnold@vbgov.com757-385-8804Elda Soriano, HRIS Analystesoriano@vbgov.com757-385-8597AttributesColumn: DepartmentDescription: 3-letter department codeColumn: Department DivisionDescription: This is the City Division that the position is assigned to.Column: PCNDescription: Tracking number used to reference each unique position within the City.Column: Position TitleDescription: This is the title of the position (per the City’s pay plan).Column: FLSA Status Description: Represents the position’s status with regards to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) “Exempt” - These positions do not qualify for overtime compensation – Generally, a position is classified as FLSA exempt if all three of the following criteria are met: 1) Paid at least $47,476 per year ($913 per week); 2) Paid on a salary basis - generally, salary basis is defined as having a guaranteed minimum amount of pay for any work week in which the employee performs any work; 3) Perform exempt job duties - Job duties are split between three classifications: executive, professional, and administrative. All three have specific job functions which, if present in the employee’s regular work, would exempt the individual from FLSA. Employees may also be exempt from overtime compensation if they are a “highly compensated employee” as defined by the FLSA or the position meets the criteria for other enumerated exemptions in the FLSA.“Non-exempt” – These positions are eligible for overtime compensation - positions classified as FLSA non-exempt if they fail to meet any of exempt categories specified in the FLSA. Column: Initial Hire DateDescription: This is the date that the full-time employee first began employment with the City.Column: Date in TitleDescription: This is the date that the full-time employee first began employment in their current position.Column: SalaryDescription: This is the annual salary of the full-time employee or the hourly rate of the part-time employee.Frequency of dataset updateMonthly

THIS DATASET WAS COMPILED BY MERGING THE EIS-SPECIFIC DATASETS BELOW INTO A SINGLE RANGE-WIDE LAYER. THESE INPUT LAYERS ARE DESCRIBED BELOW.ID/SW MTGreater Sage-Grouse Management Areas (habitat) in the Proposed Plan of the Great Basin Region, Idaho-SW Montana Sub-region, Greater Sage-grouse Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as Priority, Important, and General. Management Areas were delineated by BLM, U.S. Forest Service, State of Idaho and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on considerations of sage-grouse occupancy, landscape, habitat and land use/adaptive management opportunities.This data was developed as the Administrative Draft Proposed Plan (ADPP) for the Great Basin Region, Idaho-SW Montana Sub-region, Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This layer was edited 5/7/2015 at the WO direction to add three areas of non-habitat in the Sagebrush Focal Areas as PHMA. See procesing steps. UPDATEAs of 09/17/2015, the areas of PHMA that were originally non-habitat in Sagebrush Focal Areas were removed from this dataset if they fell on NFS lands.Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) have the highest conservation value based on various sage-grouse population and habitat considerations and reflect the most restrictive management designed to promote sage-grouse conservation. Important Habitat Management Areas (IHMA) are closely aligned with PHMA, but management is somewhat less restrictive, providing additional management flexibility. The General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA) designation is the least restrictive due to generally lower occupancy of sage-grouse and more marginal habitat conditions.A decision was made in September 2014 by the Washington Office that all sub-regions would use a consistent naming convention for identifying Habitat Management Areas (HMA). These are Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA) and General Habitat Management Area (GHMA). The Idaho and Southwestern Montana sub-region has an additional HMA identified as Important Habitat Management Area (IHMA). Attributes in this layer were updated 9/26/2014. Core updated to PHMA, Important updated to IHMA, and General updated to GHMA.The layer was renamed from ManagementZones_Alt_G_05272014_Final to ManagementAreas_Alt_G_05272014_final. The field identifying the Management Areas was renamed from Management_Zone to Habitat_Management_Area.ManagementAreas_Alt_G_05272014_final renamed to Habitat_ADPP on 01212015This habitat data provided for Alt G for the IDMT EIS has been clipped to the official IDMT FS GRSG EIS boundaries.NV/CAFull description of base data available at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/more_programs/geographic_sciences/gis/geospatial_data.html. This data has been isolated to NFS lands within the official NV/CA FS GRSG EIS boundaries.UTThis data set was created to facilitate the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy in the Utah Sub-Region. This data was developed and addressed, and used during preparation of an environmental impact statement to consider amendments to 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah, as well as 6 Forest Service land use plans. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Final Environmental Impact Statement, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on May 29, 2015. The purpose of the planning process is to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process will prepare a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with the US Forest Service, which is a cooperating agency on this planning effort. The planning effort will address the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, and will address the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS.The data include the identification of priority and general habitat management areas, as well as a portion occupied habtiat within the planning area identified as neither priority or general. Definitions of priority and general, as well as the management associated with each, is located in the Final EIS.This dataset has been isolated to NFS lands within the official UT FS GRSG EIS boundaries.WYThis dataset shows the proposed Greater Sage-grouse Prioirity Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) (including Priority-Core and Priority-Connectivity) and General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA) for Alternative E within the Wyoming 9-Plan FS GRSG EIS boundaries. It was built, using the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset ("No Action" data) as a base. Alterations were made to reflect proposed changes under Alternative E in the WY 9-Plan GRSG EIS, which included adding areas of proposed 'Priority-Core' and 'Priority-Connectivity' (both delineations considered as PHMA), predominately within areas previously categorized as 'General' habitat.Please refer to the bottom of this section for more details on the data and workflow used in altering the 'No Action' data for Alternative E. This layer was initially completed on 08/27/2014, and later finalized for publication and distribution on 10/01/2015.The metadata associated with the Wyoming portion of the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset is listed below:Wyoming –PPHand PGH: FINAL DRAFT; Developed by the Wyoming Governor’s Sage-Grouse Implementation Team and Wyoming Game and Fish Department in cooperation with Wyoming BLM (PGH modified from Distribution of Sage-Grouse in North America. Schroeder et al., 2004).Alterations were only made to areas on the Bridger-Teton NF and the Thunder Basin NG. The following data was supplied:From the BTNF: (1) BT_added_occupied.shp; (2) BTProposedCoreSG_April2014.shpFrom TBNG: (1) ProposedSageGrouseCore.shpThe following general steps were taken to complete this dataset:1. The 'BT_added_occupied' dataset was merged with the existing PGH data from the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset. In places where the 'BT_added_occupied' data intersected exiting PPH or the proposed core or connectivity data, the PPH/core/connectivity delineation was maintained. 2. The 'BTProposedCoreSG_April2014' and 'ProposedSageGrouseCore' datasets were added to the existing PPH data from the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset. Any overlap in the proposed core or connectivity data with existing PPH were maintained as existing PPH. 3. The dataset resulting from Step 2 was erased from the dataset resulting from Step 1.4. The dataset resulting from Step 3 was merged with the dataset resulting from Step 2.5. The dataset resulting from Step 4 was clipped to the official WY 9-Plan FS GRSG EIS Boundaries.NWCOThis dataset is a combination of the General and Priority habitat component files that were provided to the FS. The following is the metdata associated with that data. This dataset does not include linkages, and has been isolated to NFS lands within the official NWCO FS GRSG EIS boundaries.Greater sage-grouse GIS data set identifying Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) within Colorado. This data is a combination of mapped grouse occupied range, production areas, and modeled habitat (summer, winter, and breeding).PPH is defined as areas of high probability of use (summer or winter, or breeding models) within a 4 mile buffer around leks that have been active within the last 10 years. Isolated areas with low activity were designated as general habitat.PGH is defined as Greater sage-grouse Occupied Range outside of PPH.Datasets used to create PPH and PGH:Summer, winter, and breeding habitat models. Rice, M. B., T. D. Apa, B. L. Walker, M. L. Phillips, J. H. Gammonly, B. Petch, and K. Eichhoff. 2012. Analysis of regional species distribution models based on combined radio-telemetry datasets from multiple small-scale studies. Journal of Applied Ecology in review.Production Areas are defined as 4 mile buffers around leks which have been active within the last 10 years (leks active between 2002-2011).Occupied range was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife –CPW) biologists and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in early 2012. Occupied Habitat is defined as areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are mapped as occupied habitat unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use. Mapped from any combination of telemetry locations, sightings of sage grouse or sage grouse sign, local biological expertise, GIS analysis, or other data sources. This information was derived from field personnel. A variety of data capture techniques were used including the SmartBoard Interactive Whiteboard using stand-up, real-time digitizing atvarious scales (Cowardin, M., M. Flenner. March 2003. Maximizing Mapping Resources. GeoWorld 16(3):32-35).Update August 2012: This dataset was modified by the Bureau of Land Management as requested by CPW GIS Specialist, Karin Eichhoff. Eichhoff requested that this dataset, along with the GrSG managment zones (population range zones) dataset, be snapped to county boundaries along the UT-CO border and WY-CO border. The county boundaries dataset was provided by Karin Eichhoff. In addition, a few minor topology errors were corrected where PPH and PGH were overlapping.Update October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat, as

Initial attack frequency zones are used by pilots and dispatchers for purposes of response to incidents such as wildland fires. Initial attack frequency zones are agreed upon annually by the Communications Duty Officer at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), other frequency managers, and the FAA, and can't be changed during the year without required approval from the CDO at NIFC. Each zone has assigned to it FAA-issued frequencies that are to be used only within the zone boundary. The initial attack frequency zones are delineated to help ensure that frequencies used do not "bleed" over into other incident areas and causing issues for incident communications. The data contains no actual frequencies, but does contain the zones in which they are used. 01/12/2023 - Tabular changes only. Oregon Initial Attack Frequency Zones renumbered per Kim Albracht, Communications Duty Officer, with input from other Northwest personnel. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. Changes are as follows:OR09 changed to OR02OR02 changed to OR03OR03 changed to OR04OR04 changed to OR05OR05 changed to OR07OR07 changed to OR08OR08 changed to OR09OR01 and OR06 remained unchanged.01/10/2023 - Geospatial and tabular changes made. Two islands on west side of OR05 absorbed into OR03. Change made to both Initial Attack Frequency Zones-Federal and to Dispatch Boundaries per Kaleigh Johnson (Asst Ctr Mgr), Jada Altman (Dispatch Ctr Mgr), and Jerry Messinger (Air Tactical Group Supervisor). Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. 01/09/2023 - Geospatial and tabular changes to align Federal Frequency Zones to Dispatch Area boundaries in Northwest GACC. No alignments made to USWACAC, USWAYAC, or USORWSC. Changes approved by Ted Pierce (NW Deputy Coordination Ctr Mgr), Kaleigh Johnson (Assistant Ctr Mgr), and Kim Albracht (Communications Duty Officer). Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. Specific changes include: WA02 changed to WA04. New WA02 carved out of WA01 and OR01. OR09 carved out of OR01 and OR02. Boundary adjustments between OR07, OR05, and OR03.11/8/2022 - Geospatial and tabular changes. Boundary modified between Big Horn and Rosebud Counties of MT07 and MT08 per KSorenson and KPluhar. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. 09/06/2022-09/26/2022 - Geospatial and tabular changes in accordance with proposed GACC boundary re-alignments between Southern California and Great Basin in the state of Nevada. Boundary modified between CA03 and NV03, specifically between Queen Valley and Mono Valley. The team making the changes is made up of Southern Calif (JTomaselli) and Great Basin (GDingman) GACCs, with input from Ian Mills and Lance Rosen (BLM). Changes proposed will be put into effect for the 2023 calendar year, and will also impact alignments of GACC boundaries and Dispatch boundaries in the area described. Initial edits provided by Ian Mills and Daniel Yarborough. Final edits by JKuenzi, USFS. A description of the change is as follows: The northwest end of changes start approximately 1 mile west of Mt Olsen and approximately 0.5 mile south of the Virginia Lakes area.Head northwest passing on the northeast side of Red Lake and the south side of Big Virginia Lake to follow HWY 395 North east to CA 270.East through Bodie to the CA/NV state line.Follows the CA/NV State Line south to HWY CA 167/NV 359.East on NV359 to where the HWY intersects the corner of FS/BLM land.Follows the FS/BLM boundary to the east and then south where it ties into the current GACC boundary. 09/07/2022 - 09/08/2022 - Tabular and geospatial changes. Multiple boundaries modified in Northern Rockies GACC to bring Dispatch Boundaries and Initial Attack Frequency Zone lines closer in accordance with State boundaries. Information provided by Don Copple, State Fire Planning & Intelligence Program Manager for Montana Dept of Natural Resources & Conservation (DNRC), Kathy Pipkin, Northern Rockies GACC Center Manager, and Kat Sorenson, R1 Asst Aircraft Coordinator. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. The following changes were made:Initial Attack Frequency Zone changes made to the following: Dillon Interagency Dispatch Ctr (USMTDDC) (MT03), Helena Interagency Dispatch Ctr (USMTHDC) (MT04), Lewistown Interagency Dispatch Ctr (USMTLEC) (MT06), and Missoula Interagency Dispatch Ctr (USMTMDC) (MT02).Talk was also directed to removing the Initial Attack Frequency Zone line between MT05 and MT07, but that currently remains unchanged until Telecommunications (Kimberly Albracht) can get approval from the Frequency Managers and the FAA.10/15/2021 - Geospatial and tabular changes. Boundary alignments for the Duck Valley Reservation in southern Idaho along the Nevada border. Changes impacting ID02 and NV01. The Duck Valley Reservation remains within NV01. The only change was to the alignment of the physical boundary surrounding the Reservation in accordance with the boundary shown on the 7.5 minute quadrangle maps and data supplied by CClay/JLeguineche/Gina Dingman-USFS Great Basin Coordination Center (GBCC) Center Manager. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. 9/30/2021 - Geospatial and tabular changes. Boundary alignments for Idaho on Hwy 95 NE of Weiser between Boise Dispatch Center and Payette Interagency Dispatch Center - per CClay/JLeguineche/Gina Dingman-USFS Great Basin Coordination Center (GBCC) Center Manager. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. Boundary changes at: Weiser (T11N R5W Sec 32), (T11N, R5W, Sec 3), (T12N R5W, Sec 25), and Midvale.9/21/2021 - Geospatial and tabular changes in accordance with proposed GACC boundary re-alignments between Southwestern and Southern GACCs where a portion of Texas, formerly under Southwestern GACC direction was moved to the Southern GACC. Changes to Federal Initial Attack Frequency Zones by Kim Albracht, Communications Duty Officer (CDO) include the following: State designation TXS06 changed to federal TX06.State designation TXS05 changed to federal TX05.State designation TXS04 changed to federal TX04.State designation TXS03 changed to federal TX03.State designation TXS02 changed to federal TX02.State designation TXS01 changed to federal TX01.The Oklahoma Panhandle, formerly TXS01 changed to OK04.All changes proposed for implementation starting in January 2022. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. See also data sets for Geographic Area Coordination Centers (GACC), and Dispatch Boundary for related changes.8/17/2021 - Tabular changes only. As part of GACC realignment for 2022, area changed from state designation TXS01 to federal TX01 per Kim Albracht, Communications Duty Officer (CDO) at National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. 2/19/2021 - Geospatial and tabular changes. Boundary changes for Idaho originally submitted in 2016 but never completed in entirety. Changes between Initial Attack Zones ID01 and ID02 and with Dispatch Boundaries - per Chris Clay-BLM Boise, DeniseTolness-DOI/BLM ID State Office GIS Specialist, and Gina Dingman-USFS Great Basin Coordination Center (GBCC) Center Manager. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. Boundary changes at: (T13N R3E Sec 25), (T15N R3E Sec 31), (T16N R3E Sec 18-20, and 30), and (T16N R2E Sec 13) all from ID02 to ID01. (T10N R4E Sec 4-9,17-18, 20) and (T11N R4E Sec15-16, 21-22, 27-29, 34-31) from ID01 to ID02. 11/10/2020 - Michigan split from MI01 only, to MI01(Upper Penninsula) and MI02 in the south, per Kim Albracht, Communications Duty Officer. No change made to Dispatch Zone Boundary. Edits by JKuenzi. 11/4/2020 - Oregon OR07 divided into OR07 and OR08 per Kim Albracht, Communications Duty Officer. Edits by JKuenzi.10/26/2020 - Multiple boundary changes made to Federal Initial Attack Zones, but without any change to Dispatch Zone Boundaries: Raft River District of Sawtooth National Forest changed from UT01 to ID04; land east of Black Pine District of Sawtooth National Forest changed from ID05 to ID04. Direction from Denise Tolness, DOI/BLM GIS Specialist, and Gina Dingman, Great Basin Coordination Center Manager. Parts of Craters of the Moon National Monument changed from ID04 to ID05; Sheep Mountain (Red Rocks) area changed from MT03 to ID05, per Denise Tolness, Gina Dingman, and Kathryn "Kat" Sorenson, R1 Assistant Aircraft Coordinator. Edits for all changes made by JKuenzi.4/2/2020 - State owned land added and a portion of the boundary modified between MT01 and MT02 per Mike J Gibbons, Flathead Dispatch Center Mgr, and Kathryn "Kat" Sorenson, R1 Assistant Aircraft Coordinator. Edits by JKuenzi.2/21/2020 - Existing boundaries are updated, where possible, to a uniform base layer using the August 2019 Census State & County boundaries, along with Geographic Area Command Center boundaries, Dispatch Zone Boundaries, and Initial Attack State Zones. Edits by JKuenzi.2019-2020 - Initial Attack Frequency Zone data was provided by Kim Albracht, Acting and Permanent Communications Duty Officer (CDO) at National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), and maintained by Jill Kuenzi, USFS Fire & Aviation Mgt Geospatial Coordinator, NIFC, Boise, ID. Efforts made to tie changes with the Initial Attack Frequency Zones to other closely related datasets such as Geospatial Area Command Centers (GACCs),and Dispatch Areas, Major work completed to bring all the datasets up to date on consistent base data (8/2019 Census data), into alignment where possible, and to establish a scheduled update cycle for the nation. 2017-2019 - Initial Attack Frequency Zone data was provided by Gary Stewart, Communications Duty Officer (CDO) at National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), and maintained by Jill Kuenzi, USFS Fire & Aviation Mgt Geospatial Coordinator, NIFC, Boise, ID.2015-2016 - Initial Attack Frequency Zone data was provided by Gary Stewart, Communications Duty Officer (CDO) at National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), and maintained by Dianna Sampson, BLM Geospatial Data Analyst, NIFC, Boise, ID.

The physical location covered by an interagency, dispatch center for the effective coordination, mobilization and demobilization of emergency management resources. A dispatch center actively supports incidents within its boundaries and the resources assigned to those incidents. 1/11/2023 - Tabular and geospatial changes. USMTBFAC (Blackfeet Reservation) merged into USMTGDC (Great Falls Interagency Dispatch Center). USMTBFAC remains as 4th Tier Dispatch. USMTFHA (Flathead Reservation) merged into USMTMDC (Missoula Interagency Dispatch Center). USMTFHA remains as 4th Tier Dispatch. Changes made by Kat Sorenson, R1 Asst Aircraft Coordinator, and Kara Stringer, IRWIN Business Lead. Edits by JKuenzi. 1/10/2023 - Tabular and geospatial changes. Two islands on west edge of John Day Dispatch area (USORJDCC) absorbed into USORCOC Dispatch per direction from Kaleigh Johnson (Asst Ctr Mgr), Jada Altman (Central Oregon Center Mgr), and Jerry Messinger (Air Tactical Group Supervisor). Update made to Dispatch and Initial Attack Frequency Zone boundaries. Edits by JKuenzi, 11/08/2022 - Tabular and geospatial changes. Update made to Dispatch and Initial Attack Frequency Zone boundaries between Miles City Interagency Dispatch Center (USMTMCC) and Billings Interagency Dispatch Center (USMTBDC), along Big Horn and Rosebud County line near Little Wolf Mountains, per Kat Sorenson, R1 Asst Aircraft Coordinator, and Kelsey Pluhar, DNRC Asst. Center Manager at Miles City Interagency Dispatch Center. Area in Big Horn County is dispatched by MTMCC. Edits by JKuenzi, 09/06/2022-09/26/2022 - Geospatial and tabular changes in accordance with proposed GACC boundary re-alignments between Southern California and Great Basin in the state of Nevada. Boundary modified between CAOVCC (Owens Valley Interagency Communications Center) and NVSFC (Sierra Front Interagency Dispatch Center), specifically between Queen Valley and Mono Valley. The team making the change is made up of Southern Calif (JTomaselli) and Great Basin (GDingman) GACCs, with input from Ian Mills and Lance Rosen (BLM). Changes proposed will be put into effect for the 2023 calendar year, and will also impact alignments of Initial Attack Frequency Zone boundaries and GACC boundaries in the area described. Initial edits provided by Ian Mills and Daniel Yarborough. Final edits by JKuenzi, USFS. A description of the change is as follows: The northwest end of changes start approximately 1 mile west of Mt Olsen and approximately 0.5 mile south of the Virginia Lakes area. Head northwest passing on the northeast side of Red Lake and the south side of Big Virginia Lake to follow HWY 395 North east to CA 270. East through Bodie to the CA/NV state line. Follows the CA/NV State Line south to HWY CA 167/NV 359. East on NV359 to where the HWY intersects the corner of FS/BLM land. Follows the FS/BLM boundary to the east and then south where it ties into the current GACC boundary. 09/22/2022 - Tabular changes only. The DispLocation value of "Prineville, OR", was updated to "Redmond, OR", and the ContactPhone value was updated for Central Oregon Interagency Dispatch Ctr (USORCOC) per direction from Desraye Assali, Supervisory GIS Specialist in Region 6. The original correction had been made 9/30/2020, in the National Dispatch Office Location dataset, but had been missed in the National Dispatch Boundary dataset. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. 09/07/2022 - 09/08/2022 - Tabular and geospatial changes. Multiple boundaries modified in Northern Rockies GACC to bring lines closer in accordance with State boundaries. Information provided by Don Copple, State Fire Planning & Intelligence Program Manager for Montana Dept of Natural Resources & Conservation (DNRC), Kathy Pipkin, Northern Rockies GACC Center Manager, and Kat Sorenson, R1 Asst Aircraft Coordinator. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. The following changes were made:Boundary changes made to the following: Bitterroot Interagency Dispatch Ctr (USMTBDC), Dillon Interagency Dispatch Ctr (USMTDDC), Flathead Dispatch (USMTFHA), Great Falls Interagency Dispatch Ctr (USMTGDC), Helena Interagency Dispatch Ctr (USMTHDC), Kalispell Interagency Dispatch Ctr (USMTKIC), Lewistown Interagency Dispatch Ctr (USMTLEC), and Missoula Interagency Dispatch Ctr (USMTMDC).9/7/2022 - Tabular and geospatial changes. Completed change of Dispatch Boundary started 4/4/2022, USMTBZC (Bozeman Interagency Dispatch) was absorbed into USMTBDC (Billings Dispatch Center). This information for use in 2023. Change to the Initial Attack Frequency Zone Boundary will be dependent on FAA and frequency manager input which will be given by 2/28/2023. Information provided by Kathy Pipkin, Northern Rockies Center Manager, and Kat Sorenson, R1 Asst Aircraft Coordinator. Edits by JKuenzi. 07/08/2022 - Tabular change only. DispName corrected from "Columbia Cascades Communication Center" to "Columbia Cascade Communication Center" , per Desraye Assali, R6 Fire and Aviation GIS Coordinator. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. 04/04/2022 - Tabular changes only. USCAMVIC (Monte Vista Interagency Center) changed to USCASDIC (San Diego Interagency Center). Information provided by James Tomaselli, R5 GACC Center Mgr, and Kara Stringer, Wildland Fire Data Management Business Operations Lead. Edits by JKuenzi. Tabular change only. Following discussion between NRCC (Northern Rockies Geographic Area Coordination Center), USMTBZC in Bozeman, MT, and USMTBDC in Billings, MT, plans to merge Bozeman into Billings anticipated to start 4/18/2022, but will transition throughout 2022 year and be finalized on or near January 2023. The Dispatch Boundary between USMTBZC (Bozeman Interagency Dispatch) and USMTBDC in Billings, MT, will remain in place on the map until January 2023. Tabular change made to show that MTBDC was doing dispatch duty for MTMCC. Information provided by Kathy Pipkin, Northern Rockies Center Manager, and Kat Sorenson, R1 Asst Aircraft Coordinator. Edits by JKuenzi. 03/24/2022 - Geospatial and tabular changes. Update made to 2 small polygons along the Rio Grande near a National Recreation Area and the Amistad Reservoir, which were changed from USNMADC to USTXTIC as a result of 2022 GACC Boundary change per Calvin Miller, Southern Area Coordination Center Deputy Manager, and Kenan Jaycox, Southwest Coordination Center Manager 01/05/2022 - Geospatial and tabular changes. USMTFPAC (Fort Peck Dispatch) was found to have been closed/stopped as of 03/09/2020 per WFMI (Wildland Fire Management Information) application. USMTFPAC polygon was merged into USMTLEC per USMTLEC Center Manager. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS.10/27/2021 - Geospatial and tabular changes. The area of USWASAC is merged into USWANEC per Ted Pierce, Deputy Northwest Geographic Area Coordination Center Manager, and Jill Jones, Interagency Dispatch Center Manager NE Washington Interagency Communications Center. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS.10/15/2021 - Geospatial and tabular changes. Boundary alignments for the Duck Valley Reservation in southern Idaho along the Nevada border. Changes impacting USIDBDC and USNVEIC. The Duck Valley Reservation remains under the Dispatch authority of USNVEIC. The only change was to the alignment of the physical boundary surrounding the Reservation in accordance with the boundary shown on the 7.5 minute quadrangle maps and data supplied by CClay/JLeguineche/Gina Dingman-USFS Great Basin Coordination Center (GBCC) Manager. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS.9/30/2021 - Geospatial and tabular changes. Boundary alignments for Idaho on Hwy 95 NE of Weiser between Boise Dispatch Center and Payette Interagency Dispatch Center - per CClay/JLeguineche/Gina Dingman-USFS Great Basin Coordination Center (GBCC) Manager. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. Boundary changes at: Weiser (T11N R5W Sec 32), (T11N, R5W, Sec 3), (T12N R5W, Sec 25), and Midvale.9/21/2021 - Geospatial and tabular changes in accordance with proposed GACC boundary re-alignments between Southwestern and Southern GACCs where a portion of Texas, formerly under Southwestern GACC direction was moved to the Southern GACC. Changes to Dispatch Boundary include the following: Lake Meredith National Recreation Area changed from TXLAP to NMABC.Buffalo Lake NWR changed from TXBFR to NMABC.Amarillo BLM changed from TXAMD to NMABC.Muleshoe NWR changed from TXMLR to NMABC.Optima NWR changed from TXOPR to NMABC.Big Bend National Park changed from TXBBP to NMADC.Chamizal National Memorial changed from TXCHP to NMADC.Fort Davis Historic Site changed from TXFDP to NMADC.Amistad National Recreation Area changed from TXAMP to NMADC.All changes proposed for implementation starting 1/10/2022. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. See also data sets for Geographic Area Coordination Centers (GACC), and Initial Attack Frequency Zones Federal for related changes.3/30/2021 - Geospatial and tabular changes. Boundary changes for Washington, Columbia Cascades Communication Center per Ted Pierce, acting NW GACC Deputy Center Mgr, and Justin Ashton-Sharpe, Fire Planner on the Gifford Pinchot and Mt Hood National Forests. North edge of USWACCC modified to include Mt Ranier National Park. West edge modified slightly to include more of Washington (Burke Island, Bachelor Island, Martin Island, Mt Pleasant, Green Mtn, and the eastern three quarters of Silver Lake. No changes made to Oregon side of USWACCC. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. 2/19/2021 - Geospatial and tabular changes. Boundary changes for Alaska. Fairbanks Area Forestry Dispatch, Delta Area Forestry Dispatch, and Tok Area Forestry Dispatch merged into Northern Forestry Dispatch Center (USAKNFDC) per Jennifer L Jenkins - BLM GIS Specialist, and Ray Crowe - BLM Alaska Interagency Coordination Center (AICC) Center Manager, Dan Labarre - DNR, and Gabriella Branson - DNR. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS. 2/18/2021 - Geospatial and tabular changes. Boundary changes for Idaho originally submitted in 2016 but never completed in entirety. Changes between Boise Dispatch Center and Payette Interagency Dispatch Center - per

The Sheeprocks (UT) was revised to resync with the UT habitat change as reflected in the Oct 2017 habitat data, creating the most up-to-date version of this dataset. Data submitted by Wyoming in February 2018 and by Montana and Oregon in May 2016 were used to update earlier versions of this feature class. The biologically significant unit (BSU) is a geographical/spatial area within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats which is used as the basis for comparative calculations to support evaluation of changes to habitat. This BSU unit, or subset of this unit is used in the calculation of the anthropogenic disturbance threshold and in the adaptive management habitat trigger. BSU feature classes were submitted by individual states/EISs and consolidated by the Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab. They are sometimes referred to as core areas/core habitat areas in the explanations below, which were consolidated from metadata submitted with BSU feature classes. These data provide a biological tool for planning in the event of human development in sage-grouse habitats. The intended use of all data in the BLM's GIS library is to support diverse activities including planning, management, maintenance, research, and interpretation. While the BSU defines the geographic extent and scale of these two measures, how they are calculated differs based on the specific measures to reflect appropriate assessment and evaluation as supported by scientific literature.There are 10 BSUs for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana GRSG EIS sub-region. For the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment FEIS the biologically significant unit is defined as: a geographical/spatial area within greater sage-grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats which is used as the basis for comparative calculations to support evaluation of changes to habitat. Idaho: BSUs include all of the Idaho Fish and Game modeled nesting and delineated winter habitat, based on 2011 inventories within Priority and/or Important Habitat Management Area (Alternative G) within a Conservation Area. There are eight BSUs for Idaho identified by Conservation Area and Habitat Management Area: Idaho Desert Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Desert Conservation Area - Important, Idaho Mountain Valleys Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Mountain Valleys Conservation Area - Important, Idaho Southern Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Southern Conservation Area - Important, Idaho West Owyhee Conservation Area - Priority, and Idaho West Owyhee Conservation Area - Important. Raft River : Utah portion of the Sawtooth National Forest, 1 BSU. All of this areas was defined as Priority habitat in Alternative G. Raft River - Priority. Montana: All of the Priority Habitat Management Area. 1 BSU. SW Montana Conservation Area - Priority. Montana BSUs were revised in May 2016 by the MT State Office. They are grouped together and named by the Population in which they are located: Northern Montana, Powder River Basin, Wyoming Basin, and Yellowstone Watershed. North and South Dakota BSUs have been grouped together also. California and Nevada's BSUs were developed by Nevada Department of Wildlife's Greater Sage-Grouse Wildlife Staff Specialist and Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team Representative in January 2015. Nevada's Biologically Significant Units (BSUs) were delineated by merging associated PMUs to provide a broader scale management option that reflects sage grouse populations at a higher scale. PMU boundarys were then modified to incorporate Core Management Areas (August 2014; Coates et al. 2014) for management purposes. (Does not include Bi-State DPS.) Within Colorado, a Greater Sage-Grouse GIS data set identifying Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) was developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. This data is a combination of mapped grouse occupied range, production areas, and modeled habitat (summer, winter, and breeding). PPH is defined as areas of high probability of use (summer or winter, or breeding models) within a 4 mile buffer around leks that have been active within the last 10 years. Isolated areas with low activity were designated as general habitat. PGH is defined as Greater sage-grouse Occupied Range outside of PPH. Datasets used to create PPH and PGH: Summer, winter, and breeding habitat models. Rice, M. B., T. D. Apa, B. L. Walker, M. L. Phillips, J. H. Gammonly, B. Petch, and K. Eichhoff. 2012. Analysis of regional species distribution models based on combined radio-telemetry datasets from multiple small-scale studies. Journal of Applied Ecology in review. Production Areas are defined as 4 mile buffers around leks which have been active within the last 10 years (leks active between 2002-2011). Occupied range was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife –CPW) biologists and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in early 2012. Occupied Habitat is defined as areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are mapped as occupied habitat unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use. Mapped from any combination of telemetry locations, sightings of sage grouse or sage grouse sign, local biological expertise, GIS analysis, or other data sources. This information was derived from field personnel. A variety of data capture techniques were used including the SmartBoard Interactive Whiteboard using stand-up, real-time digitizing atvarious scales (Cowardin, M., M. Flenner. March 2003. Maximizing Mapping Resources. GeoWorld 16(3):32-35). Update August 2012: This dataset was modified by the Bureau of Land Management as requested by CPW GIS Specialist, Karin Eichhoff. Eichhoff requested that this dataset, along with the GrSG managment zones (population range zones) dataset, be snapped to county boundaries along the UT-CO border and WY-CO border. The county boundaries dataset was provided by Karin Eichhoff. In addition, a few minor topology errors were corrected where PPH and PGH were overlapping. Update October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat, as requested by Jim Cagney, BLM CO Northwest District Manager. 6 water bodies in total were removed (Hog Lake, South Delaney, Williams Fork Reservoir, North Delaney, Wolford Mountain Reservoir (2 polygons)). There were two “SwampMarsh” polygons that resulted when selecting polygons greater than 100 acres; these polygons were not included. Only polygons with the attribute “LakePond” were removed from GrSG habitat. Colorado Greater Sage Grouse managment zones based on CDOW GrSG_PopRangeZones20120609.shp. Modified and renumbered by BLM 06/09/2012. The zones were modified again by the BLM in August 2012. The BLM discovered areas where PPH and PGH were not included within the zones. Several discrepancies between the zones and PPH and PGH dataset were discovered, and were corrected by the BLM. Zones 18-21 are linkages added as zones by the BLM. In addition to these changes, the zones were adjusted along the UT-CO boundary and WY-CO boundary to be coincident with the county boundaries dataset. This was requested by Karin Eichhoff, GIS Specialist at the CPW. She provided the county boundaries dataset to the BLM. Greater sage grouse GIS data set identifying occupied, potential and vacant/unknown habitats in Colorado. The data set was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife biologist and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in the winter of 2005. Occupied Habitat: Areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are mapped as occupied habitat unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use. Mapped from any combination of telemetry locations, sightings of sage grouse or sage grouse sign, local biological expertise, GIS analysis, or other data sources. Vacant or Unknown Habitat: Suitable habitat for sage-grouse that is separated (not contiguous) from occupied habitats that either: 1) Has not been adequately inventoried, or 2) Has not had documentation of grouse presence in the past 10 years Potentially Suitable Habitat: Unoccupied habitats that could be suitable for occupation of sage-grouse if practical restoration were applied. Soils or other historic information (photos, maps, reports, etc.) indicate sagebrush communities occupied these areas. As examples, these sites could include areas overtaken by pinyon-juniper invasions or converted rangelandsUpdate October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat and management zones, as requested by Jim Cagney, BLM CO Northwest District Manager. 6 water bodies in total were removed (Hog Lake, South Delaney, Williams Fork Reservoir, North Delaney, Wolford Mountain Reservoir (2 polygons)). There were two “SwampMarsh” polygons that resulted when selecting polygons greater than 100 acres; these polygons were not included. Only polygons with the attribute “LakePond” were removed from GrSG habitat. Oregon submitted updated BSU boundaries in May 2016 and again in October 2016, which were incorporated into this latest version. In Oregon, the Core Area maps and data were developed as one component of the Conservation Strategy for sage-grouse. Specifically, these data provide a tool in planning and identifying appropriate mitigation in the event of human development in sage-grouse habitats. These maps will assist in making

Analysis of ‘PLACES: Census Tract Data (GIS Friendly Format), 2020 release’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/36454ff3-3bd6-4626-8607-ed62ff3f4619 on 12 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

This dataset contains model-based census tract level estimates for the PLACES project 2020 release in GIS-friendly format. The PLACES project is the expansion of the original 500 Cities project and covers the entire United States—50 states and the District of Columbia (DC)—at county, place, census tract, and ZIP Code tabulation Areas (ZCTA) levels. It represents a first-of-its kind effort to release information uniformly on this large scale for local areas at 4 geographic levels. Estimates were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Population Health, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. The project was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in conjunction with the CDC Foundation. Data sources used to generate these model-based estimates include Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2018 or 2017 data, Census Bureau 2010 population estimates, and American Community Survey (ACS) 2014-2018 or 2013-2017 estimates. The 2020 release uses 2018 BRFSS data for 23 measures and 2017 BRFSS data for 4 measures (high blood pressure, taking high blood pressure medication, high cholesterol, and cholesterol screening). Four measures are based on the 2017 BRFSS data because the relevant questions are only asked every other year in the BRFSS. These data can be joined with the census tract 2015 boundary file in a GIS system to produce maps for 27 measures at the census tract level. An ArcGIS Online feature service is also available at https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=8eca985039464f4d83467b8f6aeb1320 for users to make maps online or to add data to desktop GIS software.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

This dataset contains 50-ft contours for the Hot Springs shallowest unit of the Ouachita Mountains aquifer system potentiometric-surface map. The potentiometric-surface shows altitude at which the water level would have risen in tightly-cased wells and represents synoptic conditions during the summer of 2017. Contours were constructed from 59 water-level measurements measured in selected wells (locations in the well point dataset). Major streams and creeks were selected in the study area from the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017), and the spring point dataset with 18 spring altitudes calculated from 10-meter digital elevation model (DEM) data (U.S. Geological Survey, 2015; U.S. Geological Survey, 2016). After collecting, processing, and plotting the data, a potentiometric surface was generated using the interpolation method Topo to Raster in ArcMap 10.5 (Esri, 2017a). This tool is specifically designed for the creation of digital elevation models and imposes constraints that ensure a connected drainage structure and a correct representation of the surface from the provided contour data (Esri, 2017a). Once the raster surface was created, 50-ft contour interval were generated using Contour (Spatial Analyst), a spatial analyst tool (available through ArcGIS 3D Analyst toolbox) that creates a line-feature class of contours (isolines) from the raster surface (Esri, 2017b). The Topo to Raster and contouring done by ArcMap 10.5 is a rapid way to interpolate data, but computer programs do not account for hydrologic connections between groundwater and surface water. For this reason, some contours were manually adjusted based on topographical influence, a comparison with the potentiometric surface of Kresse and Hays (2009), and data-point water-level altitudes to more accurately represent the potentiometric surface. Select References: Esri, 2017a, How Topo to Raster works—Help | ArcGIS Desktop, accessed December 5, 2017, at ArcGIS Pro at http://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/tool-reference/3d-analyst/how-topo-to-raster-works.htm. Esri, 2017b, Contour—Help | ArcGIS Desktop, accessed December 5, 2017, at ArcGIS Pro Raster Surface toolset at http://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/tool-reference/3d-analyst/contour.htm. Kresse, T.M., and Hays, P.D., 2009, Geochemistry, Comparative Analysis, and Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Thermal Waters East of Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas, 2006-09: U.S. Geological Survey 2009–5263, 48 p., accessed November 28, 2017, at https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5263/. U.S. Geological Survey, 2015, USGS NED 1 arc-second n35w094 1 x 1 degree ArcGrid 2015, accessed December 5, 2017, at The National Map: Elevation at https://nationalmap.gov/elevation.html. U.S. Geological Survey, 2016, USGS NED 1 arc-second n35w093 1 x 1 degree ArcGrid 2016, accessed December 5, 2017, at The National Map: Elevation at https://nationalmap.gov/elevation.html.

The USDA-ARS Southwest Watershed Research Center (SWRC) operates the Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed (WGEW) in southeastern Arizona as an outdoor laboratory for studying semiarid rangeland hydrologic, ecosystem, climate, and erosion processes. Since its establishment in 1953, the SWRC in Tucson, Arizona, has collected, processed, managed, and disseminated high-resolution, spatially distributed hydrologic data in support of the center’s mission. Data management at the SWRC has evolved through time in response to new computing, storage, and data access technologies. In 1996, the SWRC initiated a multiyear project to upgrade rainfall and runoff sensors and convert analog systems to digital electronic systems supported by data loggers. This conversion was coupled with radio telemetry to remotely transmit recorded data to a central computer, thus greatly reducing operational overhead by reducing labor, maintenance, and data processing time. A concurrent effort was initiated to improve access to SWRC data by creating a system based on a relational database supporting access to the data via the Internet. An SWRC team made up of scientists, IT specialists, programmers, hydrologic technicians, and instrumentation specialists was formed. This effort is termed the Southwest Watershed Research Center Data Access Project (DAP). The goal of the SWRC DAP is to efficiently disseminate data to researchers; land owners, users, and managers; and to the public. Primary access to the data is provided through a Web-based user interface. In addition, data can be accessed directly from within the SWRC network. The first priority for the DAP was to assimilate and make available rainfall and runoff data collected from two instrumented field sites, the WGEW near Tombstone, Arizona, and the Santa Rita Experimental Range (SRER) south of Tucson, Arizona. This web map describes the associated GIS layers. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: GeoData catalog record. File Name: Web Page, url: https://geodata.nal.usda.gov/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/fe4ac74f13484a169899b166159e0bb5

Road segments representing centerlines of all roadways or carriageways in a local government. Typically, this information is compiled from orthoimagery or other aerial photography sources. This representation of the road centerlines support address geocoding and mapping. It also serves as a source for public works and other agencies that are responsible for the active management of the road network. (From ESRI Local Government Model "RoadCenterline" Feature)**This dataset was significantly revised in August of 2014 to correct for street segments that were not properly split at intersections. There may be issues with using data based off of the original centerline file. ** The column Speed Limit was updated in November 2014 by the Transportation Intern and is believed to be accurate** The column One Way was updated in November of 2014 by core GIS and is believed to be accurate.[MAXIMOID] A unique id field used in a work order management software called Maximo by IBM. Maximo uses GIS CL data to assign locations to work orders using this field. This field is maintained by the Transportation GIS specialists and is auto incremented when new streets are digitized. For example, if the latest digitized street segment MAXIMOID = 999, the next digitized line will receive MAXIMOID = 1000, and so on. STREET NAMING IS BROKEN INTO THREE FIELDS FOR GEOCODING:PREFIX This field is attributed if a street name has a prefix such as W, N, E, or S.NAME Domain with all street names. The name of the street without prefix or suffix.ROAD_TYPE (Text,4) Describes the type of road aka suffix, if applicable. CAPCOG Addressing Guidelines Sec 504 U. states, “Every road shall have corresponding standard street suffix…” standard street suffix abbreviations comply with USPS Pub 28 Appendix C Street Abbreviations. Examples include, but are not limited to, Rd, Dr, St, Trl, Ln, Gln, Lp, CT. LEFT_LOW The minimum numeric address on the left side of the CL segment. Left side of CL is defined as the left side of the line segment in the From-To direction. For example, if a line has addresses starting at 101 and ending at 201 on its left side, this column will be attributed 101.LEFT_HIGH The largest numeric address on the left side of the CL segment. Left side of CL is defined as the left side of the line segment in the From-To direction. For example, if a line has addresses starting at 101 and ending at 201 on its left side, this column will be attributed 201.LOW The minimum numeric address on the RIGHT side of the CL segment. Right side of CL is defined as the right side of the line segment in the From-To direction. For example, if a line has addresses starting at 100 and ending at 200 on its right side, this column will be attributed 100.HIGHThe maximum numeric address on the RIGHT side of the CL segment. Right side of CL is defined as the right side of the line segment in the From-To direction. For example, if a line has addresses starting at 100 and ending at 200 on its right side, this column will be attributed 200.ALIAS Alternative names for roads if known. This field is useful for geocode re-matching. CLASSThe functional classification of the centerline. For example, Minor (Minor Arterial), Major (Major Arterial). THIS FIELD IS NOT CONSISTENTLY FILLED OUT, NEEDS AN AUDIT. FULLSTREET The full name of the street concatenating the [PREFIX], [NAME], and [SUFFIX] fields. For example, "W San Antonio St."ROWWIDTH Width of right-of-way along the CL segment. Data entry from Plat by Planning GIS Or from Engineering PICPs/ CIPs.NUMLANES Number of striped vehicular driving lanes, including turn lanes if present along majority of segment. Does not inlcude bicycle lanes. LANEMILES Describes the total length of lanes for that segment in miles. It is manually field calculated as follows (( [ShapeLength] / 5280) * [NUMLANES]) and maintained by Transportation GIS.SPEEDLIMIT Speed limit of CL segment if known. If not, assume 30 mph for local and minor arterial streets. If speed limit changes are enacted by city council they will be recorded in the Traffic Register dataset, and this field will be updating accordingly. Initial data entry made by CIP/Planning GIS and maintained by Transportation GIS.[YRBUILT] replaced by [DateBuilt] See below. Will be deleted. 4/21/2017LASTYRRECON (Text,10) Is the last four-digit year a major reconstruction occurred. Most streets have not been reconstructed since orignal construction, and will have values. The Transportation GIS Specialist will update this field. OWNER Describes the governing body or private entity that owns/maintains the CL. It is possible that some streets are owned by other entities but maintained by CoSM. Possible attributes include, CoSM, Hays Owned/City Maintained, TxDOT Owned/City Maintained, TxDOT, one of four counties (Hays, Caldwell, Guadalupe, and Comal), TxState, and Private.ST_FROM Centerline segments are split at their intersections with other CL segments. This field names the nearest cross-street in the From- direction. Should be edited when new CL segments that cause splits are added. ST_TO Centerline segments are split at their intersections with other CL segments. This field names the nearest cross-street in the To- direction. Should be edited when new CL segments that cause splits are added. PAV_WID Pavement width of street in feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. This data is entered from as-built by CIP GIS. In January 2017 Transportation Dept. field staff surveyed all streets and measured width from face-of-curb to face-of-curb where curb was present, and edge of pavement to edge of pavement where it was not. This data was used to field calculate pavement width where we had values. A value of 1 foot was added to the field calculation if curb and gutter or stand up curb were present (the face-of-curb to back-of-curb is 6 in, multiple that by 2 to find 1 foot). If no curb was present, the value enter in by the field staff was directly copied over. If values were already present, and entered from asbuilt, they were left alone. ONEWAY Field describes direction of travel along CL in relation to digitized direction. If a street allows bi-directional travel it is attributed "B", a street that is one-way in the From_To direction is attributed "F", a street that is one-way in the To_From direction is attributed "T", and a street that does not allow travel in any direction is attibuted "N". ROADLEVEL Field will be aliased to [MINUTES] and be used to calculate travel time along CL segments in minutes using shape length and [SPEEDLIMIT]. Field calculate using the following expression: [MINUTES] = ( ([SHAPE_LENGTH] / 5280) / ( [SPEEDLIMIT] / 60 ))ROWSTATUS Values include "Open" or "Closed". Describes whether a right-of-way is open or closed. If a street is constructed within ROW it is "Open". If a street has not yet been constructed, and there is ROW, it is "Cosed". UPDATE: This feature class only has CL geometries for "Open" rights-of-way. This field should be deleted or re-purposed. ASBUILT field used to hyper link as-built documents detailing construction of the CL. Field was added in Dec. 2016. DateBuilt Date field used to record month and year a road was constructed from Asbuilt. Data was collected previously without month information. Data without a known month is entered as "1/1/YYYY". When month and year are known enter as "M/1/YYYY". Month and Year from asbuilt. Added by Engineering/CIP. ACCEPTED Date field used to record the month, day, and year that a roadway was officially accepted by the City of San Marcos. Engineering signs off on acceptance letters and stores these documents. This field was added in May of 2018. Due to a lack of data, the date built field was copied into this field for older roadways. Going forward, all new roadways will have this date. . This field will typically be populated well after a road has been drawn into GIS. Entered by Engineering/CIP. ****In an effort to make summarizing the data more efficient in Operations Dashboard, a generic date of "1/1/1900" was assigned to all COSM owned or maintained roads that had NULL values. These were roads that either have not been accepted yet, or roads that were expcepted a long time ago and their accepted date is not known. WARRANTY_EXP Date field used to record the expiration date of a newly accepted roadway. Typically this is one year from acceptance date, but can be greater. This field was added in May of 2018, so only roadways that have been excepted since and older roadways with valid warranty dates within this time frame have been populated.

Geographic points depicting the locations of Dispatch Centers within Tier 1, 2, and 3 Dispatch Areas across the nation. Tier 1 refers to the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) which administers the entire country. Tier 2 are the Geographic Area Coordination Centers (GACCs). Tier 3 are the Local Dispatch Centers. Depending on availability of addresses, points may represent actual Dispatch Center offices or only the general city in which the center exists. If no address is listed in the DispAddress field, the location is specific to the city only and not to an address.07/08/2022 - Tabular change only. DispName corrected from "Columbia Cascades Communication Center" to "Columbia Cascade Communication Center" , per Desraye Assali, R6 Fire and Aviation GIS Coordinator. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS.5/5/2022 - Geospatial and tabular changes. Removal of Wellpinit, WA. Change was made to National Dispatch Boundary in 10/27/2021, to combine USWASAC with USWANEC, but removal of corresponding Dispatch Center was missed. Change verified by Ted Pierce, NW GACC Deputy Center Coordinator and Jill Jones, NE Washington Interagency Communications Center Mgr with Washington DNR. Edits by JKuenzi. 04/29/2022 - Tabular change only. Address of Colville Agency Dispatch (USWACAC) changed from "90 Polman Rd" to "90 Mount Tolman Rd". Information provided by Jill Jones, Interagency Dispatch Center Mgr for NE Washington Interagency Comm Center, and verified by call to USWACAC. No other changes made - locations and phone number were already correct. Edits by JKuenzi.04/04/2022 - Tabular changes only. Name change in Southern California from Monte Vista Interagency Center (USCAMVIC) to San Diego Interagency Center (USCASDIC) per James Tomaselli, Southern California Geographical Area Coordination Center Manager. Edits by JKuenzi. Following discussion between NRCC (Northern Rockies Geographic Area Coordination Center), USMTBZC in Bozeman, MT, and USMTBDC in Billings, MT, plans to merge Bozeman into Billings anticipated to start 4/18/2022, but will transition throughout 2022 year and be finalized on or near January 2023. USMTBZC (Bozeman Interagency Dispatch Center Office) was removed from the data earlier, but the effective start date of the implementation has been delayed from earlier expectations. Information provided by Kathy Pipkin, Northern Rockies Center Manager, and Kat Sorenson, R1 Asst Aircraft Coordinator. Edits by JKuenzi. 03/11/2022 - Geospatial and tabular changes. Information provided by Kathy Pipkin, Northern Rockies Center Manager, and Kat Sorenson, R1 Asst Aircraft Coordinator. Edits by JKuenzi.USMTBZC (Bozeman Interagency Dispatch) was absorbed into USMTBDC (Billings Interagency Dispatch). USMTBZC in Bozemen, MT, was removed . Change expected to go into effect on 3/31/2022. Rocky Boy's Dipsatch (Box Elder, MT), Blackfeet Dispatch (Browning, MT), Fort Belknap Dispatch (Harlem, MT), and Flathead Dispatch (Ronan, MT) all changed from DispatchTier 3 to DispatchTier 4.01/05/2022 - Geospatial and tabular changes. USMTFPAC (Fort Peck Dispatch) was closed/stopped as of 03/09/2020 per WFMI (Wildland Fire Management Information) application. USMTFPAC polygon was merged into USMTLEC per USMTLEC Center Manager. USMTFPAC (Fort Peck Dispatch) office location in Poplar, MT, was removed. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS.02/19/2021 - Geospatial and tabular changes. Fairbanks Area Forestry Dispatch, Delta Area Forestry Dispatch, and Tok Area Forestry Dispatch merged into Northern Forestry Dispatch Center (USAKNFDC) per per Jennifer L Jenkins - BLM GIS Specialist, and Ray Crowe - BLM Alaska Interagency Coordination Center (AICC) Center Manager, Dan Labarre - DNR, and Gabriella Branson - DNR. Locations for Delta and Tok were deleted. Tabular information for Fairbanks was updated with merged information. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS.12/21/2019 - 10/22/2020 - Geospatial and tabular changes. Table updated to match NWCG data standards. Original data only correct to nearest city location. Current layer updated to match building locations, except where noted. Locations derived from U.S. Census City locations, IRWIN Duty Stations data, Personal knowledge, geocoded locations produced by Texas A&M GeoServices, or calls with the actual dispatch offices, and confirmed using Google Earth Pro and Google Maps, where possible. Phone numbers added. FireNet emails added. Note that additional emails may be in use by the Dispatch Office, but have not been included. Edits by JKuenzi, USFS.

Analysis of ‘2019 CT Data Catalog (GIS)’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/168eaac6-5f52-4015-be99-93031db2fd0d on 26 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Catalog of high value data inventories produced by Connecticut executive branch agencies and compiled by the Office of Policy and Management, updated in 2019. This catalog contains information on high value GIS data only. A catalog of high value non-GIS data may be found at the following link: https://data.ct.gov/Government/2019-CT-Data-Catalog-Non-GIS-/f6rf-n3ke

As required by Public Act 18-175, executive branch agencies must annually conduct a high value data inventory to capture information about the high value data that they collect.

High value data is defined as any data that the department head determines (A) is critical to the operation of an executive branch agency; (B) can increase executive branch agency accountability and responsiveness; (C) can improve public knowledge of the executive branch agency and its operations; (D) can further the core mission of the executive branch agency; (E) can create economic opportunity; (F) is frequently requested by the public; (G) responds to a need and demand as identified by the agency through public consultation; or (H) is used to satisfy any legislative or other reporting requirements.

This dataset was last updated 2/3/2020 and will continue to be updated as high value data inventories are submitted to OPM.

The 2018 high value data inventories for Non-GIS and GIS data can be found at the following links: CT Data Catalog (Non GIS): https://data.ct.gov/Government/CT-Data-Catalog-Non-GIS-/ghmx-93jn/ CT Data Catalog (GIS): https://data.ct.gov/Government/CT-Data-Catalog-GIS-/p7we-na27 Less

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

This dataset is a modified version of the FWS developed data depicting “Highly Important Landscapes”, as outlined in Memorandum FWS/AES/058711 and provided to the Wildlife Habitat Spatial analysis Lab on October 29th 2014. Other names and acronyms used to refer to this dataset have included: Areas of Significance (AoSs - name of GIS data set provided by FWS), Strongholds (FWS), and Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs - BLM). The BLM will refer to these data as Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs). Data were provided as a series of ArcGIS map packages which, when extracted, contained several datasets each. Based on the recommendation of the FWS Geographer/Ecologist (email communication, see data originator for contact information) the dataset called “Outiline_AreasofSignificance” was utilized as the source for subsequent analysis and refinement. Metadata was not provided by the FWS for this dataset. For detailed information regarding the dataset’s creation refer to Memorandum FWS/AES/058711 or contact the FWS directly. Several operations and modifications were made to this source data, as outlined in the “Description” and “Process Step” sections of this metadata file. Generally: The source data was named by the Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab to identify polygons as described (but not identified in the GIS) in the FWS memorandum. The Nevada/California EIS modified portions within their decision space in concert with local FWS personnel and provided the modified data back to the Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab. Gaps around Nevada State borders, introduced by the NVCA edits, were then closed as was a large gap between the southern Idaho & southeast Oregon present in the original dataset. Features with an area below 40 acres were then identified and, based on FWS guidance, either removed or retained. Guidance from BLM WO resulted in the removal of additional areas including: non-habitat with BLM surface or subsurface management authority, all areas within the Lander EIS boundary, and areas outside of PHMA once EISs had updated PHMA designation.Several Modifications from the original FWS dataset have been made. Below is a summary of each modification.1. The data as received from FWS.2. Edited to name SFAs by Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab:Upon receipt of the “Outiline_AreasofSignificance” dataset from the FWS, a copy was made and the one existing & unnamed record was exploded in an edit session within ArcMap. A text field, “AoS_Name”, was added. Using the maps provided with Memorandum FWS/AES/058711, polygons were manually selected and the “AoS_Name” field was calculated to match the names as illustrated. Once all polygons in the exploded dataset were appropriately named, the dataset was dissolved, resulting in one record representing each of the seven SFAs identified in the memorandum.3. The NVCA EIS made modifications in concert with local FWS staff. Metadata and detailed change descriptions were not returned with the modified data. Contact Leisa Wesch, GIS Specialist, BLM Nevada State Office, 775-861-6421, lwesch@blm.gov, for details.4. Once the data was returned to the Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab from the NVCA EIS, gaps surrounding the State of NV were closed. These gaps were introduced by the NVCA edits, exacerbated by them, or existed in the data as provided by the FWS. The gap closing was performed in an edit session by either extending each polygon towards each other or by creating a new polygon, which covered the gap, and merging it with the existing features. In addition to the gaps around state boundaries, a large area between the S. Idaho and S.E. Oregon SFAs was filled in. To accomplish this, ADPP habitat (current as of January 2015) and BLM GSSP SMA data were used to create a new polygon representing PHMA and BLM management that connected the two existing SFAs.5. In an effort to simplify the FWS dataset, features whose areas were less than 40 acres were identified and FWS was consulted for guidance on possible removal. To do so, features from #4 above were exploded once again in an ArcMap edit session. Features whose areas were less than forty acres were selected and exported (770 total features). This dataset was provided to the FWS and then returned with specific guidance on inclusion/exclusion via email by Lara Juliusson (lara_juliusson@fws.gov). The specific guidance was:a. Remove all features whose area is less than 10 acresb. Remove features identified as slivers (the thinness ratio was calculated and slivers identified by Lara Juliusson according to https://tereshenkov.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/fighting-sliver-polygons-in-arcgis-thinness-ratio/) and whose area was less than 20 acres.c. Remove features with areas less than 20 acres NOT identified as slivers and NOT adjacent to other features.d. Keep the remainder of features identified as less than 40 acres.To accomplish “a” and “b”, above, a simple selection was applied to the dataset representing features less than 40 acres. The select by location tool was used, set to select identical, to select these features from the dataset created in step 4 above. The records count was confirmed as matching between the two data sets and then these features were deleted. To accomplish “c” above, a field (“AdjacentSH”, added by FWS but not calculated) was calculated to identify features touching or intersecting other features. A series of selections was used: first to select records < 20 acres that were not slivers, second to identify features intersecting other features, and finally another to identify features touching the boundary of other features. Once the select by locations were applied, the field “AdjacentSH” was calculated to identify the features as touching, intersecting or not touching other features. Features identified as not touching or intersecting were selected, then the select by location tool was used , set to select identical, to select these features from the dataset created in step 4 above. The records count was confirmed as matching between the two data sets and then these features were deleted. 530 of the 770 features were removed in total.6. Based on direction from the BLM Washington Office, the portion of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument (UMRBNM) that was included in the FWS SFA dataset was removed. The BLM NOC GSSP NLCS dataset was used to erase these areas from #5 above. Resulting sliver polygons were also removed and geometry was repaired.7. In addition to removing UMRBNM, the BLM Washington Office also directed the removal of Non-ADPP habitat within the SFAs, on BLM managed lands, falling outside of Designated Wilderness’ & Wilderness Study Areas. An exception was the retention of the Donkey Hills ACEC and adjacent BLM lands. The BLM NOC GSSP NLCS datasets were used in conjunction with a dataset containing all ADPP habitat, BLM SMA and BLM sub-surface management unioned into one file to identify and delete these areas.8. The resulting dataset, after steps 2 – 8 above were completed, was dissolved to the SFA name field yielding this feature class with one record per SFA area.9. The "Acres" field was added and calculated.10. All areas within the Lander EIS were erased from the dataset (ArcGIS 'Erase' function) and resulting sliver geometries removed.11. Data were clipped to Proposed Plan PHMA.12. The "Acres" field was re-calculated

The CaBA Coastal Data Explorer is a free Web App which allows you to access and explore the CaBA Coastal & Estuarine Data Package without the need for any specialist GIS software or prior GIS experience. You can use the app to view datasets, create your own simple maps and export data for your area of interest.The app also allows you to add any of the online layers available within the main CaBA Data Package enabling you to integrate coastal and catchment datasets.

Idaho:Greater Sage-Grouse Management Areas (habitat) in the Proposed Plan of the Great Basin Region, Idaho-SW Montana Sub-region, Greater Sage-grouse Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as Priority, Important, and General. Management Areas were delineated by BLM, U.S. Forest Service, State of Idaho and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on considerations of sage-grouse occupancy, landscape, habitat and land use/adaptive management opportunities.This data was developed as the Administrative Draft Proposed Plan (ADPP) for the Great Basin Region, Idaho-SW Montana Sub-region, Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This layer was edited 5/7/2015 at the WO direction to add three areas of non-habitat in the Sagebrush Focal Areas as PHMA. See procesing steps. UPDATEAs of 09/17/2015, the areas of PHMA that were originally non-habitat in Sagebrush Focal Areas were removed from this dataset if they fell on NFS lands.Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) have the highest conservation value based on various sage-grouse population and habitat considerations and reflect the most restrictive management designed to promote sage-grouse conservation. Important Habitat Management Areas (IHMA) are closely aligned with PHMA, but management is somewhat less restrictive, providing additional management flexibility. The General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA) designation is the least restrictive due to generally lower occupancy of sage-grouse and more marginal habitat conditions.A decision was made in September 2014 by the Washington Office that all sub-regions would use a consistent naming convention for identifying Habitat Management Areas (HMA). These are Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA) and General Habitat Management Area (GHMA). The Idaho and Southwestern Montana sub-region has an additional HMA identified as Important Habitat Management Area (IHMA). Attributes in this layer were updated 9/26/2014. Core updated to PHMA, Important updated to IHMA, and General updated to GHMA.The layer was renamed from ManagementZones_Alt_G_05272014_Final to ManagementAreas_Alt_G_05272014_final. The field identifying the Management Areas was renamed from Management_Zone to Habitat_Management_Area.ManagementAreas_Alt_G_05272014_final renamed to Habitat_ADPP on 01212015This habitat data provided for Alt G for the IDMT EIS has been clipped to the official IDMT FS GRSG EIS boundaries.Nevada / California:Full description of base data available at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/more_programs/geographic_sciences/gis/geospatial_data.htmlThis data has been isolated to NFS lands within the official NV/CA FS GRSG EIS boundaries.NW Colorado:This dataset is a combination of the General and Priority habitat component files that were provided to the FS. The following is the metdata associated with that data. This dataset does not include linkages, and has been isolated to NFS lands within the official NWCO FS GRSG EIS boundaries.Greater sage-grouse GIS data set identifying Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) within Colorado. This data is a combination of mapped grouse occupied range, production areas, and modeled habitat (summer, winter, and breeding).PPH is defined as areas of high probability of use (summer or winter, or breeding models) within a 4 mile buffer around leks that have been active within the last 10 years. Isolated areas with low activity were designated as general habitat.PGH is defined as Greater sage-grouse Occupied Range outside of PPH.Datasets used to create PPH and PGH:Summer, winter, and breeding habitat models. Rice, M. B., T. D. Apa, B. L. Walker, M. L. Phillips, J. H. Gammonly, B. Petch, and K. Eichhoff. 2012. Analysis of regional species distribution models based on combined radio-telemetry datasets from multiple small-scale studies. Journal of Applied Ecology in review.Production Areas are defined as 4 mile buffers around leks which have been active within the last 10 years (leks active between 2002-2011).Occupied range was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife –CPW) biologists and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in early 2012. Occupied Habitat is defined as areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are mapped as occupied habitat unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use. Mapped from any combination of telemetry locations, sightings of sage grouse or sage grouse sign, local biological expertise, GIS analysis, or other data sources. This information was derived from field personnel. A variety of data capture techniques were used including the SmartBoard Interactive Whiteboard using stand-up, real-time digitizing atvarious scales (Cowardin, M., M. Flenner. March 2003. Maximizing Mapping Resources. GeoWorld 16(3):32-35).Update August 2012: This dataset was modified by the Bureau of Land Management as requested by CPW GIS Specialist, Karin Eichhoff. Eichhoff requested that this dataset, along with the GrSG managment zones (population range zones) dataset, be snapped to county boundaries along the UT-CO border and WY-CO border. The county boundaries dataset was provided by Karin Eichhoff. In addition, a few minor topology errors were corrected where PPH and PGH were overlapping.Update October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat, as requested by Jim Cagney, BLM CO Northwest District Manager. 6 water bodies in total were removed (Hog Lake, South Delaney, Williams Fork Reservoir, North Delaney, Wolford Mountain Reservoir (2 polygons)). There were two “SwampMarsh” polygons that resulted when selecting polygons greater than 100 acres; these polygons were not included. Only polygons with the attribute “LakePond” were removed from GrSG habitat. Utah:This data set was created to facilitate the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy in the Utah Sub-Region. This data was developed and addressed, and used during preparation of an environmental impact statement to consider amendments to 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah, as well as 6 Forest Service land use plans. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Final Environmental Impact Statement, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on May 29, 2015. The purpose of the planning process is to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process will prepare a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with the US Forest Service, which is a cooperating agency on this planning effort. The planning effort will address the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, and will address the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS.The data include the identification of priority and general habitat management areas, as well as a portion occupied habtiat within the planning area identified as neither priority or general. Definitions of priority and general, as well as the management associated with each, is located in the Final EIS.This dataset has been isolated to NFS lands within the official UT FS GRSG EIS boundaries.Wyoming:This dataset shows the proposed Greater Sage-grouse Prioirity Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) (including Priority-Core and Priority-Connectivity) and General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA) for Alternative E within the Wyoming 9-Plan FS GRSG EIS boundaries. It was built, using the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset ("No Action" data) as a base. Alterations were made to reflect proposed changes under Alternative E in the WY 9-Plan GRSG EIS, which included adding areas of proposed 'Priority-Core' and 'Priority-Connectivity' (both delineations considered as PHMA), predominately within areas previously categorized as 'General' habitat.Please refer to the bottom of this section for more details on the data and workflow used in altering the 'No Action' data for Alternative E. This layer was initially completed on 08/27/2014, and later finalized for publication and distribution on 10/01/2015.The metadata associated with the Wyoming portion of the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset is listed below:Wyoming –PPHand PGH: FINAL DRAFT; Developed by the Wyoming Governor’s Sage-Grouse Implementation Team and Wyoming Game and Fish Department in cooperation with Wyoming BLM (PGH modified from Distribution of Sage-Grouse in North America. Schroeder et al., 2004).Alterations were only made to areas on the Bridger-Teton NF and the Thunder Basin NG. The following data was supplied:From the BTNF: (1) BT_added_occupied.shp; (2) BTProposedCoreSG_April2014.shpFrom TBNG: (1) ProposedSageGrouseCore.shpThe following general steps were taken to complete this dataset:1. The 'BT_added_occupied' dataset was merged with the existing PGH data from the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset. In places where the 'BT_added_occupied' data intersected exiting PPH or the proposed core or connectivity data, the PPH/core/connectivity delineation was maintained. 2. The 'BTProposedCoreSG_April2014' and 'ProposedSageGrouseCore' datasets were added to the existing PPH data from the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset. Any overlap in the proposed core or connectivity data with existing

Bathymetry is the measurement of water depth in lakes. From the 1940s to the 1990s, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry produced bathymetry maps for over 11,000 lakes across Ontario. The data can be used by the general public and GIS specialists for: * climate change modelling * fish monitoring and other ecological applications * hydrologic cycle modelling * recreational fishing maps * watershed-based water budgeting The maps were created using simple methods to determine lake depths. They were meant for resource management purposes only. Little effort was made to identify shoals and other hazards when creating these bathymetric maps. Since this data was collected, many constructed and naturally occurring events could mean that the depth information is now inaccurate, so these maps should not be used for navigational purposes. In many cases, these maps still represent the only authoritative source of bathymetry data for lakes in Ontario. Technical information These maps are being converted to digital GIS line data which can be found in the Bathymetry Line data class. The Bathymetry Index data class identifies if GIS vector lines have been created and the location of mapped lakes. The historic paper maps have been scanned into digital files. We will add new digital files to this dataset if they become available. The digital files have been grouped and packaged by regions into 13 compressed (zipped) files for download. Note: package 99 contains scanned maps where the location shown on the map could not be determined.

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.

ecologists used field data (plot data, observation points, photographs, and field notes) and digital aerial imagery (NAIP 2005) to map draft vegetation polygons for BEOL within an ESRI personal geodatabase. In most cases, the map units are equivalent to vegetation associations, although one is represented at the alliance level. 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.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) annually maintains and distributes an historical wildland fire perimeter dataset from across public and private lands in California. The GIS data is developed with the cooperation of the United States Forest Service Region 5, the Bureau of Land Management, California State Parks, National Park Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and is released in the spring with added data from the previous calendar year. Although the dataset represents the most complete digital record of fire perimeters in California, it is still incomplete, and users should be cautious when drawing conclusions based on the data.

This data should be used carefully for statistical analysis and reporting due to missing perimeters (see Use Limitation in metadata). Some fires are missing because historical records were lost or damaged, were too small for the minimum cutoffs, had inadequate documentation or have not yet been incorporated into the database. Other errors with the fire perimeter database include duplicate fires and over-generalization. Additionally, over-generalization, particularly with large old fires, may show unburned "islands" within the final perimeter as burned. Users of the fire perimeter database must exercise caution in application of the data. Careful use of the fire perimeter database will prevent users from drawing inaccurate or erroneous conclusions from the data. This data is updated annually in the spring with fire perimeters from the previous fire season. This dataset may differ in California compared to that available from the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) due to different requirements between the two datasets. The data covers fires back to 1878. As of May 2025, it represents fire24_1.

Please help improve this dataset by filling out this survey with feedback:

Historic Fire Perimeter Dataset Feedback (arcgis.com)

Current criteria for data collection are as follows:

CAL FIRE (including contract counties) submit perimeters ≥10 acres in timber, ≥50 acres in brush, or ≥300 acres in grass, and/or ≥3 impacted residential or commercial structures, and/or caused ≥1 fatality.

All cooperating agencies submit perimeters ≥10 acres.

Version update:

Firep24_1 was released in April 2025. Five hundred forty-eight fires from the 2024 fire season were added to the database (2 from BIA, 56 from BLM, 197 from CAL FIRE, 193 from Contract Counties, 27 from LRA, 8 from NPS, 55 from USFS and 8 from USFW). Six perimeters were added from the 2025 fire season (as a special case due to an unusual January fire siege). Five duplicate fires were removed, and the 2023 Sage was replaced with a more accurate perimeter. There were 900 perimeters that received updated attribution (705 removed “FIRE” from the end of Fire Name field and 148 replaced Complex IRWIN ID with Complex local incident number for COMPLEX_ID field). The following fires were identified as meeting our collection criteria but are not included in this version and will hopefully be added in a future update: Addie (2024-CACND-002119), Alpaugh (2024-CACND-001715), South (2024-CATIA-001375). One perimeter is missing containment date that will be updated in the next release.

Cross checking CALFIRS reporting for new CAL FIRE submissions to ensure accuracy with cause class was added to the compilation process. The cause class domain description for “Powerline” was updated to “Electrical Power” to be more inclusive of cause reports.

Includes separate layers filtered by criteria as follows:

California Fire Perimeters (All): Unfiltered. The entire collection of wildfire perimeters in the database. It is scale dependent and starts displaying at the country level scale.

Recent Large Fire Perimeters (≥5000 acres): Filtered for wildfires greater or equal to 5,000 acres for the last 5 years of fires (2020-January 2025), symbolized with color by year and is scale dependent and starts displaying at the country level scale. Year-only labels for recent large fires.

California Fire Perimeters (1950+): Filtered for wildfires that started in 1950-January 2025. Symbolized by decade, and display starting at country level scale.

Detailed metadata is included in the following documents:

Wildland Fire Perimeters (Firep24_1) Metadata

For any questions, please contact the data steward:

Kim Wallin, GIS Specialist

CAL FIRE, Fire & Resource Assessment Program (FRAP)

kimberly.wallin@fire.ca.gov