Overview The Office of the Geographer and Global Issues at the U.S. Department of State produces the Large Scale International Boundaries (LSIB) dataset. The current edition is version 11.4 (published 24 February 2025). The 11.4 release contains updated boundary lines and data refinements designed to extend the functionality of the dataset. These data and generalized derivatives are the only international boundary lines approved for U.S. Government use. The contents of this dataset reflect U.S. Government policy on international boundary alignment, political recognition, and dispute status. They do not necessarily reflect de facto limits of control. National Geospatial Data Asset This dataset is a National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDAID 194) managed by the Department of State. It is a part of the International Boundaries Theme created by the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Dataset Source Details Sources for these data include treaties, relevant maps, and data from boundary commissions, as well as national mapping agencies. Where available and applicable, the dataset incorporates information from courts, tribunals, and international arbitrations. The research and recovery process includes analysis of satellite imagery and elevation data. Due to the limitations of source materials and processing techniques, most lines are within 100 meters of their true position on the ground. Cartographic Visualization The LSIB is a geospatial dataset that, when used for cartographic purposes, requires additional styling. The LSIB download package contains example style files for commonly used software applications. The attribute table also contains embedded information to guide the cartographic representation. Additional discussion of these considerations can be found in the Use of Core Attributes in Cartographic Visualization section below. Additional cartographic information pertaining to the depiction and description of international boundaries or areas of special sovereignty can be found in Guidance Bulletins published by the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues: https://data.geodata.state.gov/guidance/index.html Contact Direct inquiries to internationalboundaries@state.gov. Direct download: https://data.geodata.state.gov/LSIB.zip Attribute Structure The dataset uses the following attributes divided into two categories: ATTRIBUTE NAME | ATTRIBUTE STATUS CC1 | Core CC1_GENC3 | Extension CC1_WPID | Extension COUNTRY1 | Core CC2 | Core CC2_GENC3 | Extension CC2_WPID | Extension COUNTRY2 | Core RANK | Core LABEL | Core STATUS | Core NOTES | Core LSIB_ID | Extension ANTECIDS | Extension PREVIDS | Extension PARENTID | Extension PARENTSEG | Extension These attributes have external data sources that update separately from the LSIB: ATTRIBUTE NAME | ATTRIBUTE STATUS CC1 | GENC CC1_GENC3 | GENC CC1_WPID | World Polygons COUNTRY1 | DoS Lists CC2 | GENC CC2_GENC3 | GENC CC2_WPID | World Polygons COUNTRY2 | DoS Lists LSIB_ID | BASE ANTECIDS | BASE PREVIDS | BASE PARENTID | BASE PARENTSEG | BASE The core attributes listed above describe the boundary lines contained within the LSIB dataset. Removal of core attributes from the dataset will change the meaning of the lines. An attribute status of “Extension” represents a field containing data interoperability information. Other attributes not listed above include “FID”, “Shape_length” and “Shape.” These are components of the shapefile format and do not form an intrinsic part of the LSIB. Core Attributes The eight core attributes listed above contain unique information which, when combined with the line geometry, comprise the LSIB dataset. These Core Attributes are further divided into Country Code and Name Fields and Descriptive Fields. County Code and Country Name Fields “CC1” and “CC2” fields are machine readable fields that contain political entity codes. These are two-character codes derived from the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes Standard (GENC), Edition 3 Update 18. “CC1_GENC3” and “CC2_GENC3” fields contain the corresponding three-character GENC codes and are extension attributes discussed below. The codes “Q2” or “QX2” denote a line in the LSIB representing a boundary associated with areas not contained within the GENC standard. The “COUNTRY1” and “COUNTRY2” fields contain the names of corresponding political entities. These fields contain names approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) as incorporated in the ‘"Independent States in the World" and "Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty" lists maintained by the Department of State. To ensure maximum compatibility, names are presented without diacritics and certain names are rendered using common cartographic abbreviations. Names for lines associated with the code "Q2" are descriptive and not necessarily BGN-approved. Names rendered in all CAPITAL LETTERS denote independent states. Names rendered in normal text represent dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, or are otherwise presented for the convenience of the user. Descriptive Fields The following text fields are a part of the core attributes of the LSIB dataset and do not update from external sources. They provide additional information about each of the lines and are as follows: ATTRIBUTE NAME | CONTAINS NULLS RANK | No STATUS | No LABEL | Yes NOTES | Yes Neither the "RANK" nor "STATUS" fields contain null values; the "LABEL" and "NOTES" fields do. The "RANK" field is a numeric expression of the "STATUS" field. Combined with the line geometry, these fields encode the views of the United States Government on the political status of the boundary line. ATTRIBUTE NAME | | VALUE | RANK | 1 | 2 | 3 STATUS | International Boundary | Other Line of International Separation | Special Line A value of “1” in the “RANK” field corresponds to an "International Boundary" value in the “STATUS” field. Values of ”2” and “3” correspond to “Other Line of International Separation” and “Special Line,” respectively. The “LABEL” field contains required text to describe the line segment on all finished cartographic products, including but not limited to print and interactive maps. The “NOTES” field contains an explanation of special circumstances modifying the lines. This information can pertain to the origins of the boundary lines, limitations regarding the purpose of the lines, or the original source of the line. Use of Core Attributes in Cartographic Visualization Several of the Core Attributes provide information required for the proper cartographic representation of the LSIB dataset. The cartographic usage of the LSIB requires a visual differentiation between the three categories of boundary lines. Specifically, this differentiation must be between: International Boundaries (Rank 1); Other Lines of International Separation (Rank 2); and Special Lines (Rank 3). Rank 1 lines must be the most visually prominent. Rank 2 lines must be less visually prominent than Rank 1 lines. Rank 3 lines must be shown in a manner visually subordinate to Ranks 1 and 2. Where scale permits, Rank 2 and 3 lines must be labeled in accordance with the “Label” field. Data marked with a Rank 2 or 3 designation does not necessarily correspond to a disputed boundary. Please consult the style files in the download package for examples of this depiction. The requirement to incorporate the contents of the "LABEL" field on cartographic products is scale dependent. If a label is legible at the scale of a given static product, a proper use of this dataset would encourage the application of that label. Using the contents of the "COUNTRY1" and "COUNTRY2" fields in the generation of a line segment label is not required. The "STATUS" field contains the preferred description for the three LSIB line types when they are incorporated into a map legend but is otherwise not to be used for labeling. Use of the “CC1,” “CC1_GENC3,” “CC2,” “CC2_GENC3,” “RANK,” or “NOTES” fields for cartographic labeling purposes is prohibited. Extension Attributes Certain elements of the attributes within the LSIB dataset extend data functionality to make the data more interoperable or to provide clearer linkages to other datasets. The fields “CC1_GENC3” and “CC2_GENC” contain the corresponding three-character GENC code to the “CC1” and “CC2” attributes. The code “QX2” is the three-character counterpart of the code “Q2,” which denotes a line in the LSIB representing a boundary associated with a geographic area not contained within the GENC standard. To allow for linkage between individual lines in the LSIB and World Polygons dataset, the “CC1_WPID” and “CC2_WPID” fields contain a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), version 4, which provides a stable description of each geographic entity in a boundary pair relationship. Each UUID corresponds to a geographic entity listed in the World Polygons dataset. These fields allow for linkage between individual lines in the LSIB and the overall World Polygons dataset. Five additional fields in the LSIB expand on the UUID concept and either describe features that have changed across space and time or indicate relationships between previous versions of the feature. The “LSIB_ID” attribute is a UUID value that defines a specific instance of a feature. Any change to the feature in a lineset requires a new “LSIB_ID.” The “ANTECIDS,” or antecedent ID, is a UUID that references line geometries from which a given line is descended in time. It is used when there is a feature that is entirely new, not when there is a new version of a previous feature. This is generally used to reference countries that have dissolved. The “PREVIDS,” or Previous ID, is a UUID field that contains old versions of a line. This is an additive field, that houses all Previous IDs. A new version of a feature is defined by any change to the

Aim

To understand the representativeness and accuracy of expert range maps, and explore alternate methods for accurately mapping species distributions.

Location

Global

Time period

Contemporary

Major taxa studied

Terrestrial vertebrates, and Odonata

Methods

We analyzed the biases in 50,768 animal IUCN, GARD and BirdLife species maps, assessed the links between these maps and existing political and various non-ecological boundaries to assess their accuracy for certain types of analysis. We cross-referenced each species map with data from GBIF to assess if maps captured the whole range of a species, and what percentage of occurrence points fall within the species’ assessed ranges. In addition, we use a number of alternate methods to map diversity patterns and compare these to high resolution models of distribution patterns.

Results

On average 20-30% of species’ non-coastal range boundaries overlapped with administrative national boundaries. In total, 60% of areas with the highest spatial turnover in species (high densities of species range boundaries marking high levels of shift in the community of species present) occurred at political boundaries, especially commonly in Southeast Asia. Different biases existed for different taxa, with gridded analysis in reptiles, river-basins in Odonata (except the Americas) and county-boundaries for Amphibians in the US. On average, up to half (25-46%) species recorded range points fall outside their mapped distributions. Filtered Minimum-convex polygons performed better than expert range maps in reproducing modeled diversity patterns.

Main conclusions

Expert range maps showed high bias at administrative borders in all taxa, but this was highest at the transition from tropical to subtropical regions. Methods used were inconsistent across space, time and taxa, and ranges mapped did not match species distribution data. Alternate approaches can better reconstruct patterns of distribution than expert maps, and data driven approaches are needed to provide reliable alternatives to better understand species distributions.

Methods Materials and methods

We use a combination of approaches to explore the relationship between species range maps and geopolitical boundaries and a subset of geographic features. In some cases we used the density of species range boundaries to explore the relationship between these and various features (i.e. administrative boundaries, river basin boundaries etc.). Additionally, species richness and spatial turnover are used to explore changes in richness over short geographic distances. Analyses were conducted in R statistical software unless noted otherwise. All code scripts are available at https://github.com/qiaohj/iucn_fix. Workflows are shown in Figure S1a-c with associated scripts listed.

Species ranges and boundary density maps

ERMs (Expert range maps) were downloaded from the IUCN RedList website for mammals (5,709 species), odonates (2,239 species) and amphibians (6,684 species; https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/grid/spatial-data). Shapefile maps for birds were downloaded from BirdLife (10,423 species, http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/requestdis), and for reptiles from the Global Assessment of Reptile Distributions (GARD) (10,064 species; Roll et al., 2017). Each species’ polygon boundaries were converted to a polylines to show the boundary of each species range (Figure S1a-II; codes are lines 7 – 18 in line2raster_xxxx.r ; xxxx varies based on the taxa). The associated shapefile was then split to produce independent polyline files for each species within each taxon (see Figure S1a-I, codes are lines 29 to 83 in the same file above.).

To generate species boundary density maps, species range boundaries were rasterized at 1km spatial resolution with an equal area projection (Eckert-IV), and stacked to form a single raster for each taxon (at the level of amphibians, odonates, etc.). This represented the number of species in each group and their overlapping range boundaries (Figure S1b-II, codes are in line2raster_all.r). Each cell value indicated the number of species whose distribution boundaries overlapped with each cell, enabling us to overlay this rasterized information with other features (i.e. administrative boundaries) so that the overlaps between them can be calculated in R. These species boundary density maps underlie most subsequent analyses. R code and caveats are given in the supplements, links are provided in text and Figure S1.

Geographic boundaries

Spatial exploration of species range boundaries in ArcGIS suggested that numerous geographic datasets (i.e. political and in few cases geographic features such as river basins) were used to delineate the species ranges for different regions and taxa (this is sometimes part of the methodology in developing ERMs as detailed by Ficetola et al., 2014). Thus in addition to analyzing the administrative bias and the percentage of occurrence records within each species’ ERM for all taxa, additional analyses were conducted when other biases were evident in any given taxa or region (detailed later in methods on a case-by-case basis).

For all taxa, we assessed the percentage of overlap between species range boundaries and national and provincial boundaries by digitizing each to 1km (equivalent to buffering thie polyline by 500m), both with and without coastal boundaries. An international map was used because international (Western) assessors use them, and does not necessarily denote agreed country boundaries (https://gadm.org/). The different buffers (500m, 1000m, 2500m, 5000m) were added to these administrative boundaries in ArcMap to account for potential, insignificant deviations from political boundaries (Figure S1b). An R script for the same function is provided in “country_line_buffer.r”.

To establish where multiple species shared range boundaries we reclassified the species range boundary density rasters for each taxa into richness classes using the ArcMap quartile function (Figure S1). From these ten classes the percentage of the top-two, and top-three quartiles of range densities within different buffers (500m, 1000m, 2500m, 5000m) was calculated per country to determine what percentage of highest range boundary density approximately followed administrative borders. This was done because people drawing ERMs may use detailed administrative maps or generalize near political borders, or may use political shapefiles that deviate slightly. It is consequently useful to include varying distances from administrative features to assess how range boundary densities vary in relation to administrative boundaries. Analyses of relationships between individual species range boundaries and administrative boundaries (coastal, non-coastal) were made in R and scripts provided (quantile_country_buffer_overlap.r).

Spatial turnover and administrative boundaries

Heatmaps of species richness were generated by summing entire sets of compiled species ranges for each taxon in polygonal form (Figure 1; Figure S1b-I). To assess abrupt diversity changes, standard deviations for 10km blocks were calculated using the block statistics function in ArcMap. Abrupt changes in diversity were signified by high standard deviations based on the cell statistics function in ArcGIS, which represented rapid changes in the number of species present. Maps were then classified into ten categories using the quartile function. Given the high variation in maximum diversity and taxonomic representation, only the top two –three richness categories were retained per taxon. This was then extracted using 1km buffers of national administrative boundaries to assess percentages of administrative boundaries overlapping turnover hotspots by assessing what proportion of political boundaries were covered by these turnover hotspots.

Taxon-specific analyses

Data exploration and mapping exposed taxon and regional-specific biases requiring additional analysis. Where other biases and irregularities were clear from visual inspection of the range boundary density maps for each taxa, the possible causes of biases were assessed by comparing range boundary density maps to high-resolution imagery and administrative maps via the ArcGIS server (AGOL). Standardized overlay of the taxon boundary sets with administrative or geophysical features from the image-server revealed three types of bias which were either spatially or taxonomically limited between: 1) amphibians with county borders in the United States, 2) dragonflies and river basins globally and 3) gridding of distributions of reptiles. In these cases, species boundary density maps were used as a basis to identify potential biases which were then explored empirically using appropriate methods.

For amphibians, counties in the United States (US) were digitized using a county map from the US (https://gadm.org/), then buffered by with 2.5km either side. Amphibian species range boundary density maps were reclassified showing where species range boundaries existed (with other non-range boundary areas reclassified as “no data,”) and all species boundaries numerically indicated (i.e. values of 1 indicates one species range boundary, values of 10 indicates ten species range boundaries). Percentages of species boundary areas falling on county and in the buffers, in addition to species range boundaries which did not overlap with county boundaries were calculated to give measures of what percentage of the species boundaries fell within 2.5km of county boundaries.

For Odonata, many species were mapped to river basin borders. We used river basins of levels 6-8 (sub-basin to basin) in the river hierarchy (https://hydrosheds.org) to assess the relationship between Odonata boundaries and river boundaries. Two IUCN datasets exist for Odonata; the IUCN Odonata specialist group spatial dataset

This map includes change areas for city and county boundaries filed in accordance with Government Code 54900. The initial dataset was first published on October 20, 2021, and was based on the State Board of Equalization's tax rate area boundaries. As of April 1, 2024, the maintenance of this dataset is provided by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for the purpose of determining sales and use tax jurisdictions. The boundaries are continuously being revised when areas of conflict are discovered between the original boundary provided by the California State Board of Equalization and the boundary made publicly available by local, state, and federal government. Some differences may occur between actual recorded boundaries and the boundaries used for sales and use tax purposes. The boundaries in this map are representations of taxing jurisdictions and should not be used to determine precise city or county boundary line locations.The data is updated within 10 business days of the CDTFA receiving a copy of the Board of Equalization's acknowledgement letter.BOE_CityAnx Data Dictionary: COFILE = county number - assessment roll year - file number (see note*); CHANGE = affected city, unincorporated county, or boundary correction; EFFECTIVE = date the change was effective by resolution or ordinance (see note*); RECEIVED = date the change was received at the BOE; ACKNOWLEDGED = date the BOE accepted the filing for inclusion into the tax rate area system; NOTES = additional clarifying information about the action.*Note: A COFILE number ending in "000" is a boundary correction and the effective date used is the date the map was corrected.BOE_CityCounty Data Dictionary: COUNTY = county name; CITY = city name or unincorporated territory; COPRI = county number followed by the 3-digit city primary number used in the Board of Equalization's 6-digit tax rate area numbering system (for the purpose of this map, unincorporated areas are assigned 000 to indicate that the area is not within a city).

WARNING: This is a pre-release dataset and its fields names and data structures are subject to change. It should be considered pre-release until the end of 2024. Expected changes:Metadata is missing or incomplete for some layers at this time and will be continuously improved.We expect to update this layer roughly in line with CDTFA at some point, but will increase the update cadence over time as we are able to automate the final pieces of the process.This dataset is continuously updated as the source data from CDTFA is updated, as often as many times a month. If you require unchanging point-in-time data, export a copy for your own use rather than using the service directly in your applications.PurposeCounty and incorporated place (city) boundaries along with third party identifiers used to join in external data. Boundaries are from the authoritative source the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), altered to show the counties as one polygon. This layer displays the city polygons on top of the County polygons so the area isn"t interrupted. The GEOID attribute information is added from the US Census. GEOID is based on merged State and County FIPS codes for the Counties. Abbreviations for Counties and Cities were added from Caltrans Division of Local Assistance (DLA) data. Place Type was populated with information extracted from the Census. Names and IDs from the US Board on Geographic Names (BGN), the authoritative source of place names as published in the Geographic Name Information System (GNIS), are attached as well. Finally, the coastline is used to separate coastal buffers from the land-based portions of jurisdictions. This feature layer is for public use.Related LayersThis dataset is part of a grouping of many datasets:Cities: Only the city boundaries and attributes, without any unincorporated areasWith Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal BuffersCounties: Full county boundaries and attributes, including all cities within as a single polygonWith Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal BuffersCities and Full Counties: A merge of the other two layers, so polygons overlap within city boundaries. Some customers require this behavior, so we provide it as a separate service.With Coastal Buffers (this dataset)Without Coastal BuffersPlace AbbreviationsUnincorporated Areas (Coming Soon)Census Designated Places (Coming Soon)Cartographic CoastlinePolygonLine source (Coming Soon)Working with Coastal BuffersThe dataset you are currently viewing includes the coastal buffers for cities and counties that have them in the authoritative source data from CDTFA. In the versions where they are included, they remain as a second polygon on cities or counties that have them, with all the same identifiers, and a value in the COASTAL field indicating if it"s an ocean or a bay buffer. If you wish to have a single polygon per jurisdiction that includes the coastal buffers, you can run a Dissolve on the version that has the coastal buffers on all the fields except COASTAL, Area_SqMi, Shape_Area, and Shape_Length to get a version with the correct identifiers.Point of ContactCalifornia Department of Technology, Office of Digital Services, odsdataservices@state.ca.govField and Abbreviation DefinitionsCOPRI: county number followed by the 3-digit city primary number used in the Board of Equalization"s 6-digit tax rate area numbering systemPlace Name: CDTFA incorporated (city) or county nameCounty: CDTFA county name. For counties, this will be the name of the polygon itself. For cities, it is the name of the county the city polygon is within.Legal Place Name: Board on Geographic Names authorized nomenclature for area names published in the Geographic Name Information SystemGNIS_ID: The numeric identifier from the Board on Geographic Names that can be used to join these boundaries to other datasets utilizing this identifier.GEOID: numeric geographic identifiers from the US Census Bureau Place Type: Board on Geographic Names authorized nomenclature for boundary type published in the Geographic Name Information SystemPlace Abbr: CalTrans Division of Local Assistance abbreviations of incorporated area namesCNTY Abbr: CalTrans Division of Local Assistance abbreviations of county namesArea_SqMi: The area of the administrative unit (city or county) in square miles, calculated in EPSG 3310 California Teale Albers.COASTAL: Indicates if the polygon is a coastal buffer. Null for land polygons. Additional values include "ocean" and "bay".GlobalID: While all of the layers we provide in this dataset include a GlobalID field with unique values, we do not recommend you make any use of it. The GlobalID field exists to support offline sync, but is not persistent, so data keyed to it will be orphaned at our next update. Use one of the other persistent identifiers, such as GNIS_ID or GEOID instead.AccuracyCDTFA"s source data notes the following about accuracy:City boundary changes and county boundary line adjustments filed with the Board of Equalization per Government Code 54900. This GIS layer contains the boundaries of the unincorporated county and incorporated cities within the state of California. The initial dataset was created in March of 2015 and was based on the State Board of Equalization tax rate area boundaries. As of April 1, 2024, the maintenance of this dataset is provided by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for the purpose of determining sales and use tax rates. The boundaries are continuously being revised to align with aerial imagery when areas of conflict are discovered between the original boundary provided by the California State Board of Equalization and the boundary made publicly available by local, state, and federal government. Some differences may occur between actual recorded boundaries and the boundaries used for sales and use tax purposes. The boundaries in this map are representations of taxing jurisdictions for the purpose of determining sales and use tax rates and should not be used to determine precise city or county boundary line locations. COUNTY = county name; CITY = city name or unincorporated territory; COPRI = county number followed by the 3-digit city primary number used in the California State Board of Equalization"s 6-digit tax rate area numbering system (for the purpose of this map, unincorporated areas are assigned 000 to indicate that the area is not within a city).Boundary ProcessingThese data make a structural change from the source data. While the full boundaries provided by CDTFA include coastal buffers of varying sizes, many users need boundaries to end at the shoreline of the ocean or a bay. As a result, after examining existing city and county boundary layers, these datasets provide a coastline cut generally along the ocean facing coastline. For county boundaries in northern California, the cut runs near the Golden Gate Bridge, while for cities, we cut along the bay shoreline and into the edge of the Delta at the boundaries of Solano, Contra Costa, and Sacramento counties.In the services linked above, the versions that include the coastal buffers contain them as a second (or third) polygon for the city or county, with the value in the COASTAL field set to whether it"s a bay or ocean polygon. These can be processed back into a single polygon by dissolving on all the fields you wish to keep, since the attributes, other than the COASTAL field and geometry attributes (like areas) remain the same between the polygons for this purpose.SliversIn cases where a city or county"s boundary ends near a coastline, our coastline data may cross back and forth many times while roughly paralleling the jurisdiction"s boundary, resulting in many polygon slivers. We post-process the data to remove these slivers using a city/county boundary priority algorithm. That is, when the data run parallel to each other, we discard the coastline cut and keep the CDTFA-provided boundary, even if it extends into the ocean a small amount. This processing supports consistent boundaries for Fort Bragg, Point Arena, San Francisco, Pacifica, Half Moon Bay, and Capitola, in addition to others. More information on this algorithm will be provided soon.Coastline CaveatsSome cities have buffers extending into water bodies that we do not cut at the shoreline. These include South Lake Tahoe and Folsom, which extend into neighboring lakes, and San Diego and surrounding cities that extend into San Diego Bay, which our shoreline encloses. If you have feedback on the exclusion of these items, or others, from the shoreline cuts, please reach out using the contact information above.Offline UseThis service is fully enabled for sync and export using Esri Field Maps or other similar tools. Importantly, the GlobalID field exists only to support that use case and should not be used for any other purpose (see note in field descriptions).Updates and Date of ProcessingConcurrent with CDTFA updates, approximately every two weeks, Last Processed: 12/17/2024 by Nick Santos using code path at https://github.com/CDT-ODS-DevSecOps/cdt-ods-gis-city-county/ at commit 0bf269d24464c14c9cf4f7dea876aa562984db63. It incorporates updates from CDTFA as of 12/12/2024. Future updates will include improvements to metadata and update frequency.

Note: The schema changed in February 2025 - please see below. We will post a roadmap of upcoming changes, but service URLs and schema are now stable. For deployment status of new services beginning in February 2025, see https://gis.data.ca.gov/pages/city-and-county-boundary-data-status. Additional roadmap and status links at the bottom of this metadata.This dataset is regularly updated as the source data from CDTFA is updated, as often as many times a month. If you require unchanging point-in-time data, export a copy for your own use rather than using the service directly in your applications. PurposeCounty boundaries along with third party identifiers used to join in external data. Boundaries are from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). These boundaries are the best available statewide data source in that CDTFA receives changes in incorporation and boundary lines from the Board of Equalization, who receives them from local jurisdictions for tax purposes. Boundary accuracy is not guaranteed, and though CDTFA works to align boundaries based on historical records and local changes, errors will exist. If you require a legal assessment of boundary location, contact a licensed surveyor.This dataset joins in multiple attributes and identifiers from the US Census Bureau and Board on Geographic Names to facilitate adding additional third party data sources. In addition, we attach attributes of our own to ease and reduce common processing needs and questions. Finally, coastal buffers are separated into separate polygons, leaving the land-based portions of jurisdictions and coastal buffers in adjacent polygons. This feature layer is for public use. Related LayersThis dataset is part of a grouping of many datasets:Cities: Only the city boundaries and attributes, without any unincorporated areasWith Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal BuffersCounties: Full county boundaries and attributes, including all cities within as a single polygonWith Coastal Buffers (this dataset)Without Coastal BuffersCities and Full Counties: A merge of the other two layers, so polygons overlap within city boundaries. Some customers require this behavior, so we provide it as a separate service.With Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal BuffersCity and County AbbreviationsUnincorporated Areas (Coming Soon)Census Designated PlacesCartographic CoastlinePolygonLine source (Coming Soon)State BoundaryWith Bay CutsWithout Bay Cuts Working with Coastal Buffers The dataset you are currently viewing includes the coastal buffers for cities and counties that have them in the source data from CDTFA. In the versions where they are included, they remain as a second polygon on cities or counties that have them, with all the same identifiers, and a value in the COASTAL field indicating if it"s an ocean or a bay buffer. If you wish to have a single polygon per jurisdiction that includes the coastal buffers, you can run a Dissolve on the version that has the coastal buffers on all the fields except OFFSHORE and AREA_SQMI to get a version with the correct identifiers. Point of ContactCalifornia Department of Technology, Office of Digital Services, gis@state.ca.gov Field and Abbreviation DefinitionsCDTFA_COUNTY: CDTFA county name. For counties, this will be the name of the polygon itself. For cities, it is the name of the county the city polygon is within.CDTFA_COPRI: county number followed by the 3-digit city primary number used in the Board of Equalization"s 6-digit tax rate area numbering system. The boundary data originate with CDTFA's teams managing tax rate information, so this field is preserved and flows into this dataset.CENSUS_GEOID: numeric geographic identifiers from the US Census BureauCENSUS_PLACE_TYPE: City, County, or Town, stripped off the census name for identification purpose.GNIS_PLACE_NAME: Board on Geographic Names authorized nomenclature for area names published in the Geographic Name Information SystemGNIS_ID: The numeric identifier from the Board on Geographic Names that can be used to join these boundaries to other datasets utilizing this identifier.CDT_COUNTY_ABBR: Abbreviations of county names - originally derived from CalTrans Division of Local Assistance and now managed by CDT. Abbreviations are 3 characters.CDT_NAME_SHORT: The name of the jurisdiction (city or county) with the word "City" or "County" stripped off the end. Some changes may come to how we process this value to make it more consistent.AREA_SQMI: The area of the administrative unit (city or county) in square miles, calculated in EPSG 3310 California Teale Albers.OFFSHORE: Indicates if the polygon is a coastal buffer. Null for land polygons. Additional values include "ocean" and "bay".PRIMARY_DOMAIN: Currently empty/null for all records. Placeholder field for official URL of the city or countyCENSUS_POPULATION: Currently null for all records. In the future, it will include the most recent US Census population estimate for the jurisdiction.GlobalID: While all of the layers we provide in this dataset include a GlobalID field with unique values, we do not recommend you make any use of it. The GlobalID field exists to support offline sync, but is not persistent, so data keyed to it will be orphaned at our next update. Use one of the other persistent identifiers, such as GNIS_ID or GEOID instead. Boundary AccuracyCounty boundaries were originally derived from a 1:24,000 accuracy dataset, with improvements made in some places to boundary alignments based on research into historical records and boundary changes as CDTFA learns of them. City boundary data are derived from pre-GIS tax maps, digitized at BOE and CDTFA, with adjustments made directly in GIS for new annexations, detachments, and corrections.Boundary accuracy within the dataset varies. While CDTFA strives to correctly include or exclude parcels from jurisdictions for accurate tax assessment, this dataset does not guarantee that a parcel is placed in the correct jurisdiction. When a parcel is in the correct jurisdiction, this dataset cannot guarantee accurate placement of boundary lines within or between parcels or rights of way. This dataset also provides no information on parcel boundaries. For exact jurisdictional or parcel boundary locations, please consult the county assessor's office and a licensed surveyor. CDTFA's data is used as the best available source because BOE and CDTFA receive information about changes in jurisdictions which otherwise need to be collected independently by an agency or company to compile into usable map boundaries. CDTFA maintains the best available statewide boundary information. CDTFA's source data notes the following about accuracy: City boundary changes and county boundary line adjustments filed with the Board of Equalization per Government Code 54900. This GIS layer contains the boundaries of the unincorporated county and incorporated cities within the state of California. The initial dataset was created in March of 2015 and was based on the State Board of Equalization tax rate area boundaries. As of April 1, 2024, the maintenance of this dataset is provided by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for the purpose of determining sales and use tax rates. The boundaries are continuously being revised to align with aerial imagery when areas of conflict are discovered between the original boundary provided by the California State Board of Equalization and the boundary made publicly available by local, state, and federal government. Some differences may occur between actual recorded boundaries and the boundaries used for sales and use tax purposes. The boundaries in this map are representations of taxing jurisdictions for the purpose of determining sales and use tax rates and should not be used to determine precise city or county boundary line locations. Boundary ProcessingThese data make a structural change from the source data. While the full boundaries provided by CDTFA include coastal buffers of varying sizes, many users need boundaries to end at the shoreline of the ocean or a bay. As a result, after examining existing city and county boundary layers, these datasets provide a coastline cut generally along the ocean facing coastline. For county boundaries in northern California, the cut runs near the Golden Gate Bridge, while for cities, we cut along the bay shoreline and into the edge of the Delta at the boundaries of Solano, Contra Costa, and Sacramento counties. In the services linked above, the versions that include the coastal buffers contain them as a second (or third) polygon for the city or county, with the value in the COASTAL field set to whether it"s a bay or ocean polygon. These can be processed back into a single polygon by dissolving on all the fields you wish to keep, since the attributes, other than the COASTAL field and geometry attributes (like areas) remain the same between the polygons for this purpose. SliversIn cases where a city or county"s boundary ends near a coastline, our coastline data may cross back and forth many times while roughly paralleling the jurisdiction"s boundary, resulting in many polygon slivers. We post-process the data to remove these slivers using a city/county boundary priority algorithm. That is, when the data run parallel to each other, we discard the coastline cut and keep the CDTFA-provided boundary, even if it extends into the ocean a small amount. This processing supports consistent boundaries for Fort Bragg, Point Arena, San Francisco, Pacifica, Half Moon Bay, and Capitola, in addition to others. More information on this algorithm will be provided soon. Coastline CaveatsSome cities have buffers extending into water bodies that we do not cut at the shoreline. These include South Lake Tahoe and Folsom, which extend into neighboring lakes, and San Diego and surrounding cities that extend into San Diego Bay, which our shoreline encloses. If you have feedback on the exclusion of these

This dataset is a series of digital map-posters accompanying the AdaptNRM Guide: Helping Biodiversity Adapt: supporting climate adaptation planning using a community-level modelling approach.

These represent supporting materials and information about the community-level biodiversity models applied to climate change. Map posters are organised by four biological groups (vascular plants, mammals, reptiles and amphibians), two climate change scenario (1990-2050 MIROC5 and CanESM2 for RCP8.5), and five measures of change in biodiversity.

The map-posters present the nationally consistent data at locally relevant resolutions in eight parts – representing broad groupings of NRM regions based on the cluster boundaries used for climate adaptation planning (http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/adaptation) and also Nationally.

Map-posters are provided in PNG image format at moderate resolution (300dpi) to suit A0 printing. The posters were designed to meet A0 print size and digital viewing resolution of map detail. An additional set in PDF image format has been created for ease of download for initial exploration and printing on A3 paper. Some text elements and map features may be fuzzy at this resolution.

Each map-poster contains four dataset images coloured using standard legends encompassing the potential range of the measure, even if that range is not represented in the dataset itself or across the map extent.

Most map series are provided in two parts: part 1 shows the two climate scenarios for vascular plants and mammals and part 2 shows reptiles and amphibians. Eight cluster maps for each series have a different colour theme and map extent. A national series is also provided. Annotation briefly outlines the topics presented in the Guide so that each poster stands alone for quick reference.

An additional 77 National maps presenting the probability distributions of each of 77 vegetation types – NVIS 4.1 major vegetation subgroups (NVIS subgroups) - are currently in preparation.

Example citations:

Williams KJ, Raisbeck-Brown N, Prober S, Harwood T (2015) Generalised projected distribution of vegetation types – NVIS 4.1 major vegetation subgroups (1990 and 2050), A0 map-poster 8.1 - East Coast NRM regions. CSIRO Land and Water Flagship, Canberra. Available online at www.AdaptNRM.org and https://data.csiro.au/dap/.

Williams KJ, Raisbeck-Brown N, Harwood T, Prober S (2015) Revegetation benefit (cleared natural areas) for vascular plants and mammals (1990-2050), A0 map-poster 9.1 - East Coast NRM regions. CSIRO Land and Water Flagship, Canberra. Available online at www.AdaptNRM.org and https://data.csiro.au/dap/.

This dataset has been delivered incrementally. Please check that you are accessing the latest version of the dataset. Lineage: The map posters show case the scientific data. The data layers have been developed at approximately 250m resolution (9 second) across the Australian continent to incorporate the interaction between climate and topography, and are best viewed using a geographic information system (GIS). Each data layers is 1Gb, and inaccessible to non-GIS users. The map posters provide easy access to the scientific data, enabling the outputs to be viewed at high resolution with geographical context information provided.

Maps were generated using layout and drawing tools in ArcGIS 10.2.2

A check list of map posters and datasets is provided with the collection.

Map Series: 7.(1-77) National probability distribution of vegetation type – NVIS 4.1 major vegetation subgroup pre-1750 #0x

8.1 Generalised projected distribution of vegetation types (NVIS subgroups) (1990 and 2050)

9.1 Revegetation benefit (cleared natural areas) for plants and mammals (1990-2050)

9.2 Revegetation benefit (cleared natural areas) for reptiles and amphibians (1990-2050)

10.1 Need for assisted dispersal for vascular plants and mammals (1990-2050)

10.2 Need for assisted dispersal for reptiles and amphibians (1990-2050)

11.1 Refugial potential for vascular plants and mammals (1990-2050)

11.1 Refugial potential for reptiles and amphibians (1990-2050)

12.1 Climate-driven future revegetation benefit for vascular plants and mammals (1990-2050)

12.2 Climate-driven future revegetation benefit for vascular reptiles and amphibians (1990-2050)

This line-based spatial data represents the Boundary Lines that exist in the Digital Tax Map Collection. • Updates: Data is extracted from DOF’s internal system on the last Friday of each month and refreshed on ArcGIS Online on the 1st. The online map always shows the most recent version. • Accessing the Data: • Digital Tax Map on NYC Open Data: See the complete collection. • Individual layers: Downloadable from the Digital Tax Map Feature Server. • Complete source: Available through the Digital Tax Map service, which always points to the latest monthly release. Note: To ensure reliability, the Tax Map alternates between Set A and Set B each month. If one set has issues, the previous month’s copy remains online. Both sets are kept about a month apart and are available for download: • Set A link • Set B link • Digital Alteration Book (DAB): The DAB is the official log of map changes—such as new lots, merges, or boundary shifts—providing a clear record of how the Tax Map evolves. It is available through the Property Information Portal. Disclaimer: This dataset reflects formal applications submitted to DOF but may not reflect the latest changes in other City systems (e.g., exemptions or buildings data). It is provided for informational purposes only and is not guaranteed to be accurate as of today’s date.

From Parliamentary constituencies to council wards, Boundary-Line™ maps every administrative boundary in detail for you. And what's more, it's completely free to download and use. Bring statistics to life For academics or policy-makers, Boundary-Line brings the statistics in your reports to life. It lets you show differences between regions or councils using easy-to-read shaded maps. A robust framework Monitoring outcomes by area is key for public bodies. Boundary-Line gives you a robust analytical framework to ensure the right communities get the right resources. Individual properties When you're consulting on updating boundaries to take account of population change, Boundary-Line lets you show on a map where the line's being drawn, right down to the level of individual properties.

The National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDplus) maps the lakes, ponds, streams, rivers and other surface waters of the United States. Created by the US EPA Office of Water and the US Geological Survey, the NHDPlus provides mean annual and monthly flow estimates for rivers and streams. Additional attributes provide connections between features facilitating complicated analyses. For more information on the NHDPlus dataset see the NHDPlus v2 User Guide.Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: Surface waters and related features of the United States and associated territories not including Alaska.Geographic Extent: The United States not including Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Marshall Islands, Northern Marianas Islands, Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and American SamoaProjection: Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Visible Scale: Visible at all scales but layer draws best at scales larger than 1:1,000,000Source: EPA and USGSUpdate Frequency: There is new new data since this 2019 version, so no updates planned in the futurePublication Date: March 13, 2019Prior to publication, the NHDPlus network and non-network flowline feature classes were combined into a single flowline layer. Similarly, the NHDPlus Area and Waterbody feature classes were merged under a single schema.Attribute fields were added to the flowline and waterbody layers to simplify symbology and enhance the layer's pop-ups. Fields added include Pop-up Title, Pop-up Subtitle, On or Off Network (flowlines only), Esri Symbology (waterbodies only), and Feature Code Description. All other attributes are from the original NHDPlus dataset. No data values -9999 and -9998 were converted to Null values for many of the flowline fields.What can you do with this layer?Feature layers work throughout the ArcGIS system. Generally your work flow with feature layers will begin in ArcGIS Online or ArcGIS Pro. Below are just a few of the things you can do with a feature service in Online and Pro.ArcGIS OnlineAdd this layer to a map in the map viewer. The layer is limited to scales of approximately 1:1,000,000 or larger but a vector tile layer created from the same data can be used at smaller scales to produce a webmap that displays across the full range of scales. The layer or a map containing it can be used in an application. Change the layer’s transparency and set its visibility rangeOpen the layer’s attribute table and make selections. Selections made in the map or table are reflected in the other. Center on selection allows you to zoom to features selected in the map or table and show selected records allows you to view the selected records in the table.Apply filters. For example you can set a filter to show larger streams and rivers using the mean annual flow attribute or the stream order attribute. Change the layer’s style and symbologyAdd labels and set their propertiesCustomize the pop-upUse as an input to the ArcGIS Online analysis tools. This layer works well as a reference layer with the trace downstream and watershed tools. The buffer tool can be used to draw protective boundaries around streams and the extract data tool can be used to create copies of portions of the data.ArcGIS ProAdd this layer to a 2d or 3d map. Use as an input to geoprocessing. For example, copy features allows you to select then export portions of the data to a new feature class. Change the symbology and the attribute field used to symbolize the dataOpen table and make interactive selections with the mapModify the pop-upsApply Definition Queries to create sub-sets of the layerThis layer is part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World that provides an easy way to explore the landscape layers and many other beautiful and authoritative maps on hundreds of topics.Questions?Please leave a comment below if you have a question about this layer, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

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

WARNING: This is a pre-release dataset and its fields names and data structures are subject to change. It should be considered pre-release until the end of March 2025. The schema changed in February 2025 - please see below. We will post a roadmap of upcoming changes, but service URLs and schema are now stable. For deployment status of new services in February 2025, see https://gis.data.ca.gov/pages/city-and-county-boundary-data-status. Additional roadmap and status links at the bottom of this metadata.This dataset is continuously updated as the source data from CDTFA is updated, as often as many times a month. If you require unchanging point-in-time data, export a copy for your own use rather than using the service directly in your applications.PurposeCounty boundaries along with third party identifiers used to join in external data. Boundaries are from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). These boundaries are the best available statewide data source in that CDTFA receives changes in incorporation and boundary lines from the Board of Equalization, who receives them from local jurisdictions for tax purposes. Boundary accuracy is not guaranteed, and though CDTFA works to align boundaries based on historical records and local changes, errors will exist. If you require a legal assessment of boundary location, contact a licensed surveyor.This dataset joins in multiple attributes and identifiers from the US Census Bureau and Board on Geographic Names to facilitate adding additional third party data sources. In addition, we attach attributes of our own to ease and reduce common processing needs and questions. Finally, coastal buffers are separated into separate polygons, leaving the land-based portions of jurisdictions and coastal buffers in adjacent polygons. This layer removes the coastal buffer polygons. This feature layer is for public use.Related LayersThis dataset is part of a grouping of many datasets:Cities: Only the city boundaries and attributes, without any unincorporated areasWith Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal BuffersCounties: Full county boundaries and attributes, including all cities within as a single polygonWith Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal Buffers (this dataset)Cities and Full Counties: A merge of the other two layers, so polygons overlap within city boundaries. Some customers require this behavior, so we provide it as a separate service.With Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal BuffersCity and County AbbreviationsUnincorporated Areas (Coming Soon)Census Designated PlacesCartographic CoastlinePolygonLine source (Coming Soon)Working with Coastal BuffersThe dataset you are currently viewing excludes the coastal buffers for cities and counties that have them in the source data from CDTFA. In the versions where they are included, they remain as a second polygon on cities or counties that have them, with all the same identifiers, and a value in the COASTAL field indicating if it"s an ocean or a bay buffer. If you wish to have a single polygon per jurisdiction that includes the coastal buffers, you can run a Dissolve on the version that has the coastal buffers on all the fields except OFFSHORE and AREA_SQMI to get a version with the correct identifiers.Point of ContactCalifornia Department of Technology, Office of Digital Services, odsdataservices@state.ca.govField and Abbreviation DefinitionsCDTFA_COUNTY: CDTFA county name. For counties, this will be the name of the polygon itself. For cities, it is the name of the county the city polygon is within.CDTFA_COPRI: county number followed by the 3-digit city primary number used in the Board of Equalization"s 6-digit tax rate area numbering system. The boundary data originate with CDTFA's teams managing tax rate information, so this field is preserved and flows into this dataset.CENSUS_GEOID: numeric geographic identifiers from the US Census BureauCENSUS_PLACE_TYPE: City, County, or Town, stripped off the census name for identification purpose.GNIS_PLACE_NAME: Board on Geographic Names authorized nomenclature for area names published in the Geographic Name Information SystemGNIS_ID: The numeric identifier from the Board on Geographic Names that can be used to join these boundaries to other datasets utilizing this identifier.CDT_COUNTY_ABBR: Abbreviations of county names - originally derived from CalTrans Division of Local Assistance and now managed by CDT. Abbreviations are 3 characters.CDT_NAME_SHORT: The name of the jurisdiction (city or county) with the word "City" or "County" stripped off the end. Some changes may come to how we process this value to make it more consistent.AREA_SQMI: The area of the administrative unit (city or county) in square miles, calculated in EPSG 3310 California Teale Albers.OFFSHORE: Indicates if the polygon is a coastal buffer. Null for land polygons. Additional values include "ocean" and "bay".PRIMARY_DOMAIN: Currently empty/null for all records. Placeholder field for official URL of the city or countyCENSUS_POPULATION: Currently null for all records. In the future, it will include the most recent US Census population estimate for the jurisdiction.GlobalID: While all of the layers we provide in this dataset include a GlobalID field with unique values, we do not recommend you make any use of it. The GlobalID field exists to support offline sync, but is not persistent, so data keyed to it will be orphaned at our next update. Use one of the other persistent identifiers, such as GNIS_ID or GEOID instead.Boundary AccuracyCounty boundaries were originally derived from a 1:24,000 accuracy dataset, with improvements made in some places to boundary alignments based on research into historical records and boundary changes as CDTFA learns of them. City boundary data are derived from pre-GIS tax maps, digitized at BOE and CDTFA, with adjustments made directly in GIS for new annexations, detachments, and corrections. Boundary accuracy within the dataset varies. While CDTFA strives to correctly include or exclude parcels from jurisdictions for accurate tax assessment, this dataset does not guarantee that a parcel is placed in the correct jurisdiction. When a parcel is in the correct jurisdiction, this dataset cannot guarantee accurate placement of boundary lines within or between parcels or rights of way. This dataset also provides no information on parcel boundaries. For exact jurisdictional or parcel boundary locations, please consult the county assessor's office and a licensed surveyor.CDTFA's data is used as the best available source because BOE and CDTFA receive information about changes in jurisdictions which otherwise need to be collected independently by an agency or company to compile into usable map boundaries. CDTFA maintains the best available statewide boundary information.CDTFA's source data notes the following about accuracy:City boundary changes and county boundary line adjustments filed with the Board of Equalization per Government Code 54900. This GIS layer contains the boundaries of the unincorporated county and incorporated cities within the state of California. The initial dataset was created in March of 2015 and was based on the State Board of Equalization tax rate area boundaries. As of April 1, 2024, the maintenance of this dataset is provided by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for the purpose of determining sales and use tax rates. The boundaries are continuously being revised to align with aerial imagery when areas of conflict are discovered between the original boundary provided by the California State Board of Equalization and the boundary made publicly available by local, state, and federal government. Some differences may occur between actual recorded boundaries and the boundaries used for sales and use tax purposes. The boundaries in this map are representations of taxing jurisdictions for the purpose of determining sales and use tax rates and should not be used to determine precise city or county boundary line locations. Boundary ProcessingThese data make a structural change from the source data. While the full boundaries provided by CDTFA include coastal buffers of varying sizes, many users need boundaries to end at the shoreline of the ocean or a bay. As a result, after examining existing city and county boundary layers, these datasets provide a coastline cut generally along the ocean facing coastline. For county boundaries in northern California, the cut runs near the Golden Gate Bridge, while for cities, we cut along the bay shoreline and into the edge of the Delta at the boundaries of Solano, Contra Costa, and Sacramento counties.In the services linked above, the versions that include the coastal buffers contain them as a second (or third) polygon for the city or county, with the value in the COASTAL field set to whether it"s a bay or ocean polygon. These can be processed back into a single polygon by dissolving on all the fields you wish to keep, since the attributes, other than the COASTAL field and geometry attributes (like areas) remain the same between the polygons for this purpose.SliversIn cases where a city or county"s boundary ends near a coastline, our coastline data may cross back and forth many times while roughly paralleling the jurisdiction"s boundary, resulting in many polygon slivers. We post-process the data to remove these slivers using a city/county boundary priority algorithm. That is, when the data run parallel to each other, we discard the coastline cut and keep the CDTFA-provided boundary, even if it extends into the ocean a small amount. This processing supports consistent boundaries for Fort Bragg, Point Arena, San Francisco, Pacifica, Half Moon Bay, and Capitola, in addition to others. More information on this algorithm will be provided soon.Coastline CaveatsSome cities have buffers extending into water bodies that we do not cut at the shoreline. These include South Lake Tahoe and Folsom, which extend into neighboring lakes, and

This shapefile contains boundaries for Designated Wilderness in Chiricahua National Monument, Arizona as of 2021. This dataset is based on the map identified in the law enacting wilderness for the park and the 850 acre wilderness land addition in 1984. The date of the original enactment map is 10/20/1976. The Congressionally Designated Wilderness is based on careful study of roadless areas, public hearings, and written responses. This dataset has been revised from the map to adjust buffers along roads and utilities, account for changes to the boundary and land status, and reflect more accurate measurement available through new GIS technology. Land added to the boundary after the 1976 enactment, except as noted, has not been studied for wilderness. In May of 1984, Congress added adjacent U.S. Forest Service land that was made wilderness at the same time. This dataset identifies 10,629 acres within Chiricahua National Monument as Designated Wilderness. This dataset identifies 0 acres within Chiricahua National Monument as Potential Wilderness (2 acres in 1977). The dataset did not contain the 2 acres because the map identified in the law enacting wilderness for the park did not show its _location, however, the 2 acres still exist. This map was updated February 2021 using NAD 83 zone 12N and 40 feet contours created from a 10m DEM in conjunction with the 1976 map.

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

This table represents the Air Lots that exist in the Digital Tax Map Collection. • Updates: Data is extracted from DOF’s internal system on the last Friday of each month and refreshed on ArcGIS Online on the 1st. The online map always shows the most recent version. • Accessing the Data: • Digital Tax Map on NYC Open Data: See the complete collection. • Individual layers: Downloadable from the Digital Tax Map Feature Server. • Complete source: Available through the Digital Tax Map service, which always points to the latest monthly release. Note: To ensure reliability, the Tax Map alternates between Set A and Set B each month. If one set has issues, the previous month’s copy remains online. Both sets are kept about a month apart and are available for download: • Set A link • Set B link • Digital Alteration Book (DAB): The DAB is the official log of map changes—such as new lots, merges, or boundary shifts—providing a clear record of how the Tax Map evolves. It is available through the Property Information Portal. Disclaimer: This dataset reflects formal applications submitted to DOF but may not reflect the latest changes in other City systems (e.g., exemptions or buildings data). It is provided for informational purposes only and is not guaranteed to be accurate as of today’s date.

GeoJunxion‘s ZIP+4 is a complete dataset based on US postal data consisting of plus 35 millions of polygons​. The dataset is NOT JUST a table of spot data, which can be downloaded as csv or other text file as it happens with other suppliers​. The data can be delivered as shapefile through a single RAW data delivery or through an API​.

The January 2021 USPS data source has significantly changed since the previous delivery. Some States have sizably lower ZIP+4 totals across all counties when compared with previous deliveries due to USPS parcelpoint cleanup, while other States have a significant increase in ZIP+4 totals across all counties due to cleanup and other rezoning. California and North Carolina in particular have several new ZIP5s, contributing to the increase in distinct ZIPs and ZIP+4s​.

GeoJunxion‘s ZIP+4 data can be used as an additional layer on an existing map to run customer or other analysis, e.g. who is my customer who not, what is the density of my customer base in a certain ZIP+4 etc.

Information can be put into visual context, due to the polygons, which is good for complex overviews or management decisions. ​CRM data can be enriched with the ZIP+4 to have more detailed customer information​.

Key specifications:

Topologized ZIP polygons​

GeoJunxion ZIP+4 polygons follow USPS postal codes ​

ZIP+4 code polygons: ​

ZIP5 attributes ​

State codes. ​

Overlapping ZIP+4 ​

boundaries for multiple ZIP+4 addresses on one area​

Updated USPS source (January 2021) ​

Distinct ZIP5 codes: 34 731​

Distinct ZIP+4 codes: 35 146 957 ​

The ZIP + 4 polygons are delivered in Esri shapefile format. This format allows the storage of geometry and attribute information for each of the features. ​

The four components for the shapefile data are: ​

.shp – This file stores the geometry of the feature​

.shx –This file stores an index that stores the feature geometry​

.dbf –This file stores attribute information relating to individual features​

.prj –This file stores projection information associated with features​

​Current release version 2021. Earlier versions from previous years available on request.

​

This point-based spatial data represents the location and content of miscellaneous text labels in the Digital Tax Map Collection. • Updates: Data is extracted from DOF’s internal system on the last Friday of each month and refreshed on ArcGIS Online on the 1st. The online map always shows the most recent version. • Accessing the Data: • Digital Tax Map on NYC Open Data: See the complete collection. • Individual layers: Downloadable from the Digital Tax Map Feature Server. • Complete source: Available through the Digital Tax Map service, which always points to the latest monthly release. Note: To ensure reliability, the Tax Map alternates between Set A and Set B each month. If one set has issues, the previous month’s copy remains online. Both sets are kept about a month apart and are available for download: • Set A link • Set B link • Digital Alteration Book (DAB): The DAB is the official log of map changes—such as new lots, merges, or boundary shifts—providing a clear record of how the Tax Map evolves. It is available through the Property Information Portal. Disclaimer: This dataset reflects formal applications submitted to DOF but may not reflect the latest changes in other City systems (e.g., exemptions or buildings data). It is provided for informational purposes only and is not guaranteed to be accurate as of today’s date.

A series of London-wide climate risk maps has been produced to analyse climate exposure and vulnerability across Greater London. These maps were produced by Bloomberg Associates in collaboration with the Greater London Authority to help the GLA and other London-based organisations deliver equitable responses to the impacts of climate change and target resources to support communities at highest risk. Climate vulnerability relates to people’s exposure to climate impacts like flooding or heatwaves, but also to personal and social factors that affect their ability to cope with and respond to extreme events. High climate risk coincides with areas of income and health inequalities. A series of citywide maps overlays key metrics to identify areas within London that are most exposed to climate impacts with high concentrations of vulnerable populations. In 2022, Bloomberg Associates updated London’s climate risk maps to include additional data layers at a finer geographic scale (LSOA boundaries). These maps were built upon earlier maps using the Transport for London (Tfl) hexagonal grid (often referred to in this report as the “Hex Grid”). In addition, the map interface was updated to allow users to compare individual data layers to the Overall, Heat and Flooding Climate Risk maps. Users can now also see the specific metrics for each individual LSOA to understand which factors are driving risk throughout the city. In 2024, Bloomberg Associates further modernized the climate risk maps by updating the social factor layers to employ more recent (2021) census data. In addition, air temperature at the surface was used in place of just surface temperature, as a more accurate assessment of felt heat. The Mayor is addressing these climate risks and inequalities through the work of the London Recovery Board, which includes projects and programmes to address climate risks and ensure a green recovery from the pandemic. Ambitious policies in the London Environment Strategy and recently published new London Plan are also addressing London’s climate risks. The data layers at the LSOA level are available here to use in GIS software: Climate risk scores (overall, heat, and flood): https://cityhall.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=22484ef240624e149735ca1aaa4c9ade# Social and physical risk variables: https://cityhall.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=bc06d80731f146b393f8631a0f98c213#

The Historical Generalized Land Use dataset encompasses the seven county Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul) Metropolitan Area in Minnesota. The dataset was developed by the Metropolitan Council, a regional governmental organization that deals, in part, with regional issues and long range planning for the Twin Cities area. The data were interpreted from 1984, 1990, 1997, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2016 air photos and other source data, with additional assistance from county parcel data and assessor's information.

The Metropolitan Council has routinely developed generalized land use for the Twin Cities region since 1984 to support its statutory responsibilities and assist in long range planning for the Twin Cities area. The Council uses land use information to monitor growth and to evaluate changing trends in land consumption for various urban purposes. The Council uses the land use trend data in combination with its forecasts of households and jobs to plan for the future needs and financing of Metropolitan services (i.e. Transit, Wastewater Services, etc.). Also, in concert with individual local units of government, the land use and forecast data are used to evaluate expansions of the metropolitan urban service area (MUSA).

The Council does not specifically survey the rights-of-way of minor highways, local streets, parking lots, railroads, or other utility easements. The area occupied by these uses is included with the adjacent land uses, whose boundaries are extended to the centerline of the adjacent rights-of way or easements. The accuracy of Council land use survey data is suitable for regional planning purposes, but should not be used for detailed area planning, nor for engineering work.

Until 1997, the Metropolitan Council had manually interpreted aerial photos on mylar tracing paper into a 13-category land-use classification system to aggregate and depict changing land use data. In 1997, with technological advances in GIS and improved data, the Metropolitan Council was able to delineate land uses from digital aerial photography with counties' parcel and assessor data and captured information with straight 'heads-up' digitizing with GIS software. Also, understanding that land use data collected and maintained at the county and city level are collected at different resolutions using different classification schemes, the Metropolitan Council worked with local communities and organizations to develop a cooperative solution to integrate the Council's land use interpretation with a generally agreed upon regional classification system. By 2000, the Metropolitan Council had not only expanded their Generalized Land Use Classification system to include 22 categories, but had refined how they categorized land (removing all ownership categories) to reflect actual use. See the Entities and Atributes section of the metadata for a detailed description of each of the land use categories and available subcategories.

With the completion of the 2016 Generalized Land Use dataset, regional and local planners have the ability to map changes in urban growth and development in a geographic information system (GIS) database. By tracking land use changes, the Metropolitan Council and local planners can better visualize development trends and anticipate future growth needs.


NOTE ABOUT COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:

It is important to understand the changes between land use inventory years and how to compare recent land use data to historical data.

In general, over the land use years, more detailed land use information has been captured. Understanding these changes can help interpret land use changes and trends in land consumption. For detailed category definitions, specific land use comparisons and how best to compare the land uses between 1984 and 2016, please refer to the Attribute Accuracy or the Data Quality section of the metadata.

It is also important to note that changes in data collection methodology also effects the ability to compare land use years:

- In 2000, the land use categories were modified to more accurately reflect the use of the land rather than ownership. Although this has minimal effect on associating categories between 1997 and 2000, is may have had an affect on some particular land use. For example, land owned by a community or county but had no apparent active use could have been classified as 'Public/ Semi-Public' prior to 2000. In 2000, land with no apparent use, regardless of who owns it, is classified as 'Undeveloped.'

- With better resolution of air photos beginning in 2000, the incorporation of property information from county assessors and the use of more accurate political boundaries (particularly on the exterior boundaries of the region), positive impacts were made on the accuracy of new land use delineations between pre-2000 land use data and data collected in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2016. With the improved data, beginning in 2000, a greater effort to align land use designations, both new and old, to correspond with property boundaries (county parcels) where appropriate. In addition, individual properties were reviewed to assess the extent of development. In most cases, if properties under 5 acres were assessed to be at least 75% developed, then the entire property was classified as a developed land use (not 'Undeveloped'). As a result of these realignments and development assessments, changes in land use between early land use years (1984-1997) and more recent years (2000-2016) will exist in the data that do NOT necessarily represent actual land use change. These occurrences can be found throughout the region.

There are also numerous known deficiencies in the datasets. Some known deficiencies are specific to a particular year while others may span the entire time series. For more details, please refer to Attribute Accuracy of the Data Quality section of the metadata.

This dataset was updated May, 2025.This ownership dataset was generated primarily from CPAD data, which already tracks the majority of ownership information in California. CPAD is utilized without any snapping or clipping to FRA/SRA/LRA. CPAD has some important data gaps, so additional data sources are used to supplement the CPAD data. Currently this includes the most currently available data from BIA, DOD, and FWS. Additional sources may be added in subsequent versions. Decision rules were developed to identify priority layers in areas of overlap.Starting in 2022, the ownership dataset was compiled using a new methodology. Previous versions attempted to match federal ownership boundaries to the FRA footprint, and used a manual process for checking and tracking Federal ownership changes within the FRA, with CPAD ownership information only being used for SRA and LRA lands. The manual portion of that process was proving difficult to maintain, and the new method (described below) was developed in order to decrease the manual workload, and increase accountability by using an automated process by which any final ownership designation could be traced back to a specific dataset.The current process for compiling the data sources includes:* Clipping input datasets to the California boundary* Filtering the FWS data on the Primary Interest field to exclude lands that are managed by but not owned by FWS (ex: Leases, Easements, etc)* Supplementing the BIA Pacific Region Surface Trust lands data with the Western Region portion of the LAR dataset which extends into California.* Filtering the BIA data on the Trust Status field to exclude areas that represent mineral rights only.* Filtering the CPAD data on the Ownership Level field to exclude areas that are Privately owned (ex: HOAs)* In the case of overlap, sources were prioritized as follows: FWS > BIA > CPAD > DOD* As an exception to the above, DOD lands on FRA which overlapped with CPAD lands that were incorrectly coded as non-Federal were treated as an override, such that the DOD designation could win out over CPAD.In addition to this ownership dataset, a supplemental _source dataset is available which designates the source that was used to determine the ownership in this dataset. Data Sources:* GreenInfo Network's California Protected Areas Database (CPAD2023a). https://www.calands.org/cpad/; https://www.calands.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CPAD-2023a-Database-Manual.pdf* US Fish and Wildlife Service FWSInterest dataset (updated December, 2023). https://gis-fws.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/9c49bd03b8dc4b9188a8c84062792cff_0/explore* Department of Defense Military Bases dataset (updated September 2023) https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/military-bases* Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Region, Surface Trust and Pacific Region Office (PRO) land boundaries data (2023) via John Mosley John.Mosley@bia.gov* Bureau of Indian Affairs, Land Area Representations (LAR) and BIA Regions datasets (updated Oct 2019) https://biamaps.doi.gov/bogs/datadownload.html Data Gaps & Changes:Known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. Additionally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the appropriate source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.25_1: The CPAD Input dataset was amended to merge large gaps in certain areas of the state known to be erroneous, such as Yosemite National Park, and to eliminate overlaps from the original input. The FWS input dataset was updated in February of 2025, and the DOD input dataset was updated in October of 2024. The BIA input dataset was the same as was used for the previous ownership version.24_1: Input datasets this year included numerous changes since the previous version, particularly the CPAD and DOD inputs. Of particular note was the re-addition of Camp Pendleton to the DOD input dataset, which is reflected in this version of the ownership dataset. We were unable to obtain an updated input for tribral data, so the previous inputs was used for this version.23_1: A few discrepancies were discovered between data changes that occurred in CPAD when compared with parcel data. These issues will be taken to CPAD for clarification for future updates, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data as it was coded in CPAD at the time. In addition, there was a change in the DOD input data between last year and this year, with the removal of Camp Pendleton. An inquiry was sent for clarification on this change, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data per the DOD input dataset.22_1 : represents an initial version of ownership with a new methodology which was developed under a short timeframe. A comparison with previous versions of ownership highlighted the some data gaps with the current version. Some of these known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. In addition, any topological errors (like overlaps or gaps) that exist in the input datasets may thus carry over to the ownership dataset. Ideally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the relevant source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.

The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public land and voluntarily provided private protected areas, identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastre Theme ( https://communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-cadastre/ ). The PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database including areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural (including extraction), recreational, or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The database was originally designed to support biodiversity assessments; however, its scope expanded in recent years to include all open space public and nonprofit lands and waters. Most are public lands owned in fee (the owner of the property has full and irrevocable ownership of the land); however, permanent and long-term easements, leases, agreements, Congressional (e.g. 'Wilderness Area'), Executive (e.g. 'National Monument'), and administrative designations (e.g. 'Area of Critical Environmental Concern') documented in agency management plans are also included. The PAD-US strives to be a complete inventory of U.S. public land and other protected areas, compiling “best available” data provided by managing agencies and organizations. The PAD-US geodatabase maps and describes areas using thirty-six attributes and five separate feature classes representing the U.S. protected areas network: Fee (ownership parcels), Designation, Easement, Marine, Proclamation and Other Planning Boundaries. An additional Combined feature class includes the full PAD-US inventory to support data management, queries, web mapping services, and analyses. The Feature Class (FeatClass) field in the Combined layer allows users to extract data types as needed. A Federal Data Reference file geodatabase lookup table (PADUS3_0Combined_Federal_Data_References) facilitates the extraction of authoritative federal data provided or recommended by managing agencies from the Combined PAD-US inventory. This PAD-US Version 3.0 dataset includes a variety of updates from the previous Version 2.1 dataset (USGS, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5066/P92QM3NT ), achieving goals to: 1) Annually update and improve spatial data representing the federal estate for PAD-US applications; 2) Update state and local lands data as state data-steward and PAD-US Team resources allow; and 3) Automate data translation efforts to increase PAD-US update efficiency. The following list summarizes the integration of "best available" spatial data to ensure public lands and other protected areas from all jurisdictions are represented in the PAD-US (other data were transferred from PAD-US 2.1). Federal updates - The USGS remains committed to updating federal fee owned lands data and major designation changes in annual PAD-US updates, where authoritative data provided directly by managing agencies are available or alternative data sources are recommended. The following is a list of updates or revisions associated with the federal estate: 1) Major update of the Federal estate (fee ownership parcels, easement interest, and management designations where available), including authoritative data from 8 agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau), Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The federal theme in PAD-US is developed in close collaboration with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Federal Lands Working Group (FLWG, https://communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-govunits/federal-lands-workgroup/ ). 2) Improved the representation (boundaries and attributes) of the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands, in collaboration with agency data-stewards, in response to feedback from the PAD-US Team and stakeholders. 3) Added a Federal Data Reference file geodatabase lookup table (PADUS3_0Combined_Federal_Data_References) to the PAD-US 3.0 geodatabase to facilitate the extraction (by Data Provider, Dataset Name, and/or Aggregator Source) of authoritative data provided directly (or recommended) by federal managing agencies from the full PAD-US inventory. A summary of the number of records (Frequency) and calculated GIS Acres (vs Documented Acres) associated with features provided by each Aggregator Source is included; however, the number of records may vary from source data as the "State Name" standard is applied to national files. The Feature Class (FeatClass) field in the table and geodatabase describe the data type to highlight overlapping features in the full inventory (e.g. Designation features often overlap Fee features) and to assist users in building queries for applications as needed. 4) Scripted the translation of the Department of Defense, Census Bureau, and Natural Resource Conservation Service source data into the PAD-US format to increase update efficiency. 5) Revised conservation measures (GAP Status Code, IUCN Category) to more accurately represent protected and conserved areas. For example, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Waterfowl Production Area Wetland Easements changed from GAP Status Code 2 to 4 as spatial data currently represents the complete parcel (about 10.54 million acres primarily in North Dakota and South Dakota). Only aliquot parts of these parcels are documented under wetland easement (1.64 million acres). These acreages are provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are referenced in the PAD-US geodatabase Easement feature class 'Comments' field. State updates - The USGS is committed to building capacity in the state data-steward network and the PAD-US Team to increase the frequency of state land updates, as resources allow. The USGS supported efforts to significantly increase state inventory completeness with the integration of local parks data in the PAD-US 2.1, and developed a state-to-PAD-US data translation script during PAD-US 3.0 development to pilot in future updates. Additional efforts are in progress to support the technical and organizational strategies needed to increase the frequency of state updates. The PAD-US 3.0 included major updates to the following three states: 1) California - added or updated state, regional, local, and nonprofit lands data from the California Protected Areas Database (CPAD), managed by GreenInfo Network, and integrated conservation and recreation measure changes following review coordinated by the data-steward with state managing agencies. Developed a data translation Python script (see Process Step 2 Source Data Documentation) in collaboration with the data-steward to increase the accuracy and efficiency of future PAD-US updates from CPAD. 2) Virginia - added or updated state, local, and nonprofit protected areas data (and removed legacy data) from the Virginia Conservation Lands Database, provided by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Natural Heritage Program, and integrated conservation and recreation measure changes following review by the data-steward. 3) West Virginia - added or updated state, local, and nonprofit protected areas data provided by the West Virginia University, GIS Technical Center. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, https://www.usgs.gov/gapanalysis/PAD-US/. For more information about data aggregation please review the PAD-US Data Manual available at https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/pad-us-data-manual . A version history of PAD-US updates is summarized below (See https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/pad-us-data-history for more information): 1) First posted - April 2009 (Version 1.0 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 2) Revised - May 2010 (Version 1.1 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 3) Revised - April 2011 (Version 1.2 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 4) Revised - November 2012 (Version 1.3) https://doi.org/10.5066/F79Z92XD 5) Revised - May 2016 (Version 1.4) https://doi.org/10.5066/F7G73BSZ 6) Revised - September 2018 (Version 2.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P955KPLE 7) Revised - September 2020 (Version 2.1) https://doi.org/10.5066/P92QM3NT 8) Revised - January 2022 (Version 3.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B Comparing protected area trends between PAD-US versions is not recommended without consultation with USGS as many changes reflect improvements to agency and organization GIS systems, or conservation and recreation measure classification, rather than actual changes in protected area acquisition on the ground.