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

An area encompassing all the National Forest System lands administered by an administrative unit. The area encompasses private lands, other governmental agency lands, and may contain National Forest System lands within the proclaimed boundaries of another administrative unit. All National Forest System lands fall within one and only one Administrative Forest Area.

This data is intended for read-only use. These data were prepared to describe Forest Service administrative area boundaries. The purpose of the data is to provide display, identification, and analysis tools for determining current boundary information for Forest Service managers, GIS Specialists, and others.

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

(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.

Accuracy assessment is one of the most important components of both applied and research-oriented remote sensing projects. For mapped classes that have sharp and easily identified boundaries, a broad array of accuracy assessment methods has been developed. However, accuracy assessment is in many cases complicated by classes that have fuzzy, indeterminate, or gradational boundaries, a condition which is common in real landscapes; for example, the boundaries of wetlands, many soil map units, and tree crowns. In such circumstances, the conventional approach of treating all reference pixels as equally important, whether located on the map close to the boundary of a class, or in the class center, can lead to misleading results. We therefore propose an accuracy assessment approach that relies on center-weighting map segment area to calculate a variety of common classification metrics including overall accuracy, class user’s and producer’s accuracy, precision, recall, specificity, and the F1 score. This method offers an augmentation of traditional assessment methods, can be used for both binary and multiclass assessment, allows for the calculation of count- and area-based measures, and permits the user to define the impact of distance from map segment edges based on a distance weighting exponent and a saturation threshold distance, after which the weighting ceases to grow. The method is demonstrated using synthetic and real examples, highlighting its use when the accuracy of maps with inherently uncertain class boundaries is evaluated.

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

The pathway representation consists of segments and intersection elements. A segment is a linear graphic element that represents a continuous physical travel path terminated by path end (dead end) or physical intersection with other travel paths. Segments have one street name, one address range and one set of segment characteristics. A segment may have none or multiple alias street names. Segment types included are Freeways, Highways, Streets, Alleys (named only), Railroads, Walkways, and Bike lanes. SNDSEG_PV is a linear feature class representing the SND Segment Feature, with attributes for Street name, Address Range, Alias Street name and segment Characteristics objects. Part of the Address Range and all of Street name objects are logically shared with the Discrete Address Point-Master Address File layer. Appropriate uses include: Cartography - Used to depict the City's transportation network location and connections, typically on smaller scaled maps or images where a single line representation is appropriate. Used to depict specific classifications of roadway use, also typically at smaller scales. Used to label transportation network feature names typically on larger scaled maps. Used to label address ranges with associated transportation network features typically on larger scaled maps. Geocode reference - Used as a source for derived reference data for address validation and theoretical address location Address Range data repository - This data store is the City's address range repository defining address ranges in association with transportation network features. Polygon boundary reference - Used to define various area boundaries is other feature classes where coincident with the transportation network. Does not contain polygon features. Address based extracts - Used to create flat-file extracts typically indexed by address with reference to business data typically associated with transportation network features. Thematic linear location reference - By providing unique, stable identifiers for each linear feature, thematic data is associated to specific transportation network features via these identifiers. Thematic intersection location reference - By providing unique, stable identifiers for each intersection feature, thematic data is associated to specific transportation network features via these identifiers. Network route tracing - Used as source for derived reference data used to determine point to point travel paths or determine optimal stop allocation along a travel path. Topological connections with segments - Used to provide a specific definition of location for each transportation network feature. Also provides a specific definition of connection between each transportation network feature. (defines where the streets are and the relationship between them ie. 4th Ave is west of 5th Ave and 4th Ave does intersect with Cherry St) Event location reference - Used as source for derived reference data used to locate event and linear referencing.Data source is TRANSPO.SNDSEG_PV. Updated weekly.

Overview

• Introduction
• Object Classes
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48

Introduction

The UFBA-425 dataset is designed to support object detection tasks with a variety of unique classes. The dataset contains 15 images and 32 distinct classes identified by numeric codes. Each class corresponds to specific objects that are visually identifiable. The goal is to annotate each object class based on its visual characteristics and ensure precision in object detection.

Object Classes

11

Description

Class 11 represents objects characterized by their upright, elongated shape, often found in specific environments such as industrial or outdoor landscapes.

Instructions

Annotate the entire elongated structure, ensuring to include any visible base or fixture connecting it to the ground. Do not annotate partial or obscured sections unless identifiable.

12

Description

Class 12 objects are distinguished by their flat, rectangular surfaces and sharp, distinct edges. Often used in man-made structures.

Instructions

Outline the boundaries of the flat surfaces, paying attention to capture all four corners precisely. Avoid annotating if these objects are stacked, unless clear separation is visible.

13

Description

Objects in class 13 include spheres or rounded shapes that maintain symmetry from multiple perspectives.

Instructions

Focus on capturing the outer contour of the spherical shape. Ensure to capture the entirety of the outline even if it extends partially behind another object.

14

Description

Class 14 consists of objects with complex, irregular outlines, often with a textured surface.

Instructions

Detail the contour of these complex objects accurately, including any protrusions. Avoid over-simplifying the shape and ensure internal segments remain unannotated unless distinct.

15

Description

Class 15 covers objects with multiple geometric components arranged in a symmetrical pattern.

Instructions

Annotate each geometric component, ensuring alignment is consistent with the overall pattern. Do not separate annotations unless components differ from the pattern.

16

Description

Class 16 objects feature prominently in vertical settings with a consistent width throughout.

Instructions

Capture the full height of the object, including its base connection. Avoid annotating if the object is severely obstructed or if identification is uncertain.

17

Description

This class includes objects that are commonly found in pairs or groups, exhibiting symmetry.

Instructions

Annotate each individual component in the pair or group, ensuring each is distinctly identified. Do not join annotations unless the components are physically connected.

18

Description

Objects with class 18 are identified by their bright surfaces and reflective properties.

Instructions

Highlight the reflective surfaces, ensuring boundaries are clearly defined. Exclude reflections not originating from the object itself.

21

Description

Class 21 is dedicated to static objects that have a fixed presence in their environment.

Instructions

Identify the static object's position, from ground level to visible extent. Do not include dynamic objects in close proximity unless physically connected.

22

Description

These objects are characterized by dynamic shapes, often fluctuating in form while maintaining a recognizable profile.

Instructions

Document the entirety of the object in its current shape, focusing on its most defined features. Avoid annotating incomplete forms or shapes without definitive boundaries.

23

Description

Class 23 involves horizontally extended objects with a shallow vertical profile.

Instructions

Delineate the horizontal length meticulously, ensuring the full span is captured. Ignore vertical deviations that do not contribute to the primary horizontal feature.

24

Description

Objects defined by a central core with surrounding features that taper or extend outward.

Instructions

The annotation should include the core and tapering features while ensuring the central portion maintains prominence. Avoid isolating peripheral elements unless completely detached.

25

Description

Objects in class 25 consist of layered elements, oriented either vertically or horizontally.

Instructions

Each layer should be defined distinctly, with annotat

(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.

MnDOT created area transportation partnerships (ATPs) to emphasize greater public involvement in the preparation of transportation plans and programs. There are eight ATPs in Minnesota (one for each MnDOT District area). The ATP Districts are also used to describe the locations and responsible district for construction projects identified in various MnDOT Annual Reports (ex. CHIP/STIP, Major Highway Projects Report.

The metropolitan planning area for each Metro Planning Area (MPO).

MnDOT divides the state into eight administrative zonal areas referred to as construction districts. The boundaries of these districts are used to determine which district is responsible for construction activities on trunk highways, and for reporting purposes.
Construction Districts is a polygon feature class that represents an area that defines the portions of trunk highways and their junctions served by each of the eight districts.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) divides the state into eight administrative zonal areas called Construction Districts. Some of these Construction Districts have been further sub-divided into Maintenance SubDistricts, which may identify a region for operational or administrative purposes. Maintenance SubDistricts is a polygon feature class that represents this area, and defines the portions of trunk highways and their junctions served by each SubDistrict. They are derived from the SubDistrict attribute field from the Maintenance Subareas feature class.

MnDOT divides the state into eight administrative zonal areas call construction districts. Within each construction district, there are a varying number of maintenance subareas. These subareas represent which facility is responsible for maintenance activities on trunk highways, specifically winter maintenance. Note that summer maintenance activates may deviate substantially from these boundaries. Maintenance Subareas is a polygon feature class that represents the area, and defines the portions of trunk highways and their junctions served by each districts subarea.

This dataset is a copy of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety State Patrol district boundaries. There are 11 state patrol districts, comprised of 59 station number sub-districts. With the exception of Hubbard, St Louis, and Todd County, the district boundaries follow county lines. District 2000 and District 4600 are specific to building perimeter and not spatially represented in this dataset.

The area for each Regional Development Org (RDO).

Check other metadata records in this package for more information on State Agency Administrative Boundaries.

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

This dataset is a feature class identifying all dams currently under the jurisdiction of the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). The dataset is extracted from DSOD internal records and contains basic information about the dam including the type of construction, basic dimensions such as height, length, and maximum storage capacity; abbreviated owner information to identify the entity legally responsible for the dam; an assessment of the downstream hazard associated with the dam; an assessment of the current condition of the dam; and indication as to whether the dam is operating at a restricted storage level. Several dams span rivers that define county boundaries, so DSOD references the right abutment of the dam to identify the location of the structure and to associate it with a singular administrative subdivision of California.

Jurisdictional Unit, 2022-05-21. For use with WFDSS, IFTDSS, IRWIN, and InFORM.This is a feature service which provides Identify and Copy Feature capabilities. If fast-drawing at coarse zoom levels is a requirement, consider using the tile (map) service layer located at https://nifc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3b2c5daad00742cd9f9b676c09d03d13.OverviewThe Jurisdictional Agencies dataset is developed as a national land management geospatial layer, focused on representing wildland fire jurisdictional responsibility, for interagency wildland fire applications, including WFDSS (Wildland Fire Decision Support System), IFTDSS (Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System), IRWIN (Interagency Reporting of Wildland Fire Information), and InFORM (Interagency Fire Occurrence Reporting Modules). It is intended to provide federal wildland fire jurisdictional boundaries on a national scale. The agency and unit names are an indication of the primary manager name and unit name, respectively, recognizing that:There may be multiple owner names.Jurisdiction may be held jointly by agencies at different levels of government (ie State and Local), especially on private lands, Some owner names may be blocked for security reasons.Some jurisdictions may not allow the distribution of owner names. Private ownerships are shown in this layer with JurisdictionalUnitIdentifier=null,JurisdictionalUnitAgency=null, JurisdictionalUnitKind=null, and LandownerKind="Private", LandownerCategory="Private". All land inside the US country boundary is covered by a polygon.Jurisdiction for privately owned land varies widely depending on state, county, or local laws and ordinances, fire workload, and other factors, and is not available in a national dataset in most cases.For publicly held lands the agency name is the surface managing agency, such as Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, etc. The unit name refers to the descriptive name of the polygon (i.e. Northern California District, Boise National Forest, etc.).These data are used to automatically populate fields on the WFDSS Incident Information page.This data layer implements the NWCG Jurisdictional Unit Polygon Geospatial Data Layer Standard.Relevant NWCG Definitions and StandardsUnit2. A generic term that represents an organizational entity that only has meaning when it is contextualized by a descriptor, e.g. jurisdictional.Definition Extension: When referring to an organizational entity, a unit refers to the smallest area or lowest level. Higher levels of an organization (region, agency, department, etc) can be derived from a unit based on organization hierarchy.Unit, JurisdictionalThe governmental entity having overall land and resource management responsibility for a specific geographical area as provided by law.Definition Extension: 1) Ultimately responsible for the fire report to account for statistical fire occurrence; 2) Responsible for setting fire management objectives; 3) Jurisdiction cannot be re-assigned by agreement; 4) The nature and extent of the incident determines jurisdiction (for example, Wildfire vs. All Hazard); 5) Responsible for signing a Delegation of Authority to the Incident Commander.See also: Unit, Protecting; LandownerUnit IdentifierThis data standard specifies the standard format and rules for Unit Identifier, a code used within the wildland fire community to uniquely identify a particular government organizational unit.Landowner Kind & CategoryThis data standard provides a two-tier classification (kind and category) of landownership. Attribute Fields JurisdictionalAgencyKind Describes the type of unit Jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Kind data standard. There are two valid values: Federal, and Other. A value may not be populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalAgencyCategoryDescribes the type of unit Jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Category data standard. Valid values include: ANCSA, BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), State. A value may not be populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalUnitNameThe name of the Jurisdictional Unit. Where an NWCG Unit ID exists for a polygon, this is the name used in the Name field from the NWCG Unit ID database. Where no NWCG Unit ID exists, this is the “Unit Name” or other specific, descriptive unit name field from the source dataset. A value is populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalUnitIDWhere it could be determined, this is the NWCG Standard Unit Identifier (Unit ID). Where it is unknown, the value is ‘Null’. Null Unit IDs can occur because a unit may not have a Unit ID, or because one could not be reliably determined from the source data. Not every land ownership has an NWCG Unit ID. Unit ID assignment rules are available from the Unit ID standard, linked above.LandownerKindThe landowner category value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. A value is populated for all polygons. There are three valid values: Federal, Private, or Other.LandownerCategoryThe landowner kind value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. A value is populated for all polygons. Valid values include: ANCSA, BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), State, Private.DataSourceThe database from which the polygon originated. Be as specific as possible, identify the geodatabase name and feature class in which the polygon originated.SecondaryDataSourceIf the Data Source is an aggregation from other sources, use this field to specify the source that supplied data to the aggregation. For example, if Data Source is "PAD-US 2.1", then for a USDA Forest Service polygon, the Secondary Data Source would be "USDA FS Automated Lands Program (ALP)". For a BLM polygon in the same dataset, Secondary Source would be "Surface Management Agency (SMA)."SourceUniqueIDIdentifier (GUID or ObjectID) in the data source. Used to trace the polygon back to its authoritative source.MapMethod:Controlled vocabulary to define how the geospatial feature was derived. Map method may help define data quality. MapMethod will be Mixed Method by default for this layer as the data are from mixed sources. Valid Values include: GPS-Driven; GPS-Flight; GPS-Walked; GPS-Walked/Driven; GPS-Unknown Travel Method; Hand Sketch; Digitized-Image; DigitizedTopo; Digitized-Other; Image Interpretation; Infrared Image; Modeled; Mixed Methods; Remote Sensing Derived; Survey/GCDB/Cadastral; Vector; Phone/Tablet; OtherDateCurrentThe last edit, update, of this GIS record. Date should follow the assigned NWCG Date Time data standard, using 24 hour clock, YYYY-MM-DDhh.mm.ssZ, ISO8601 Standard.CommentsAdditional information describing the feature. GeometryIDPrimary key for linking geospatial objects with other database systems. Required for every feature. This field may be renamed for each standard to fit the feature.JurisdictionalUnitID_sansUSNWCG Unit ID with the "US" characters removed from the beginning. Provided for backwards compatibility.JoinMethodAdditional information on how the polygon was matched information in the NWCG Unit ID database.LocalNameLocalName for the polygon provided from PADUS or other source.LegendJurisdictionalAgencyJurisdictional Agency but smaller landholding agencies, or agencies of indeterminate status are grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.LegendLandownerAgencyLandowner Agency but smaller landholding agencies, or agencies of indeterminate status are grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.DataSourceYearYear that the source data for the polygon were acquired.Data InputThis dataset is based on an aggregation of 4 spatial data sources: Protected Areas Database US (PAD-US 2.1), data from Bureau of Indian Affairs regional offices, the BLM Alaska Fire Service/State of Alaska, and Census Block-Group Geometry. NWCG Unit ID and Agency Kind/Category data are tabular and sourced from UnitIDActive.txt, in the WFMI Unit ID application (https://wfmi.nifc.gov/unit_id/Publish.html). Areas of with unknown Landowner Kind/Category and Jurisdictional Agency Kind/Category are assigned LandownerKind and LandownerCategory values of "Private" by use of the non-water polygons from the Census Block-Group geometry.PAD-US 2.1:This dataset is based in large part on the USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States - PAD-US 2.`. PAD-US is a compilation of authoritative protected areas data between agencies and organizations that ultimately results in a comprehensive and accurate inventory of protected areas for the United States to meet a variety of needs (e.g. conservation, recreation, public health, transportation, energy siting, ecological, or watershed assessments and planning). Extensive documentation on PAD-US processes and data sources is available.How these data were aggregated:Boundaries, and their descriptors, available in spatial databases (i.e. shapefiles or geodatabase feature classes) from land management agencies are the desired and primary data sources in PAD-US. If these authoritative sources are unavailable, or the agency recommends another source, data may be incorporated by other aggregators such as non-governmental organizations. Data sources are tracked for each record in the PAD-US geodatabase (see below).BIA and Tribal Data:BIA and Tribal land management data are not available in PAD-US. As such, data were aggregated from BIA regional offices. These data date from 2012 and were substantially updated in 2022. Indian Trust Land affiliated with Tribes, Reservations, or BIA Agencies: These data are not considered the system of record and are not intended to be used as such. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Branch of Wildland Fire Management (BWFM) is not the originator of these data. The

This data release contains the analytical results and evaluated source data files of geospatial analyses for identifying areas in Alaska that may be prospective for different types of lode gold deposits, including orogenic, reduced-intrusion-related, epithermal, and gold-bearing porphyry. The spatial analysis is based on queries of statewide source datasets of aeromagnetic surveys, Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB3), Alaska Resource Data File (ARDF), and Alaska Geologic Map (SIM3340) within areas defined by 12-digit HUCs (subwatersheds) from the National Watershed Boundary dataset. The packages of files available for download are: 1. LodeGold_Results_gdb.zip - The analytical results in geodatabase polygon feature classes which contain the scores for each source dataset layer query, the accumulative score, and a designation for high, medium, or low potential and high, medium, or low certainty for a deposit type within the HUC. The data is described by FGDC metadata. An mxd file, and cartographic feature classes are provided for display of the results in ArcMap. An included README file describes the complete contents of the zip file. 2. LodeGold_Results_shape.zip - Copies of the results from the geodatabase are also provided in shapefile and CSV formats. The included README file describes the complete contents of the zip file. 3. LodeGold_SourceData_gdb.zip - The source datasets in geodatabase and geotiff format. Data layers include aeromagnetic surveys, AGDB3, ARDF, lithology from SIM3340, and HUC subwatersheds. The data is described by FGDC metadata. An mxd file and cartographic feature classes are provided for display of the source data in ArcMap. Also included are the python scripts used to perform the analyses. Users may modify the scripts to design their own analyses. The included README files describe the complete contents of the zip file and explain the usage of the scripts. 4. LodeGold_SourceData_shape.zip - Copies of the geodatabase source dataset derivatives from ARDF and lithology from SIM3340 created for this analysis are also provided in shapefile and CSV formats. The included README file describes the complete contents of the zip file.

This feature class represents the Basins (6-digit Hydrologic Units) that overlap the Chihuahuan Desert REA Analysis Extent (CHD_Boundary_Poly).

The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) is a comprehensive aggregated collection of hydrologic unit data consistent with the national criteria for delineation and resolution. It defines the areal extent of surface water drainage to a point except in coastal or lake front areas where there could be multiple outlets as stated by the Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) #8220;Standard#8221; (http:pubs.usgs.govtm11a3). Watershed boundaries are determined solely upon science-based hydrologic principles, not favoring any administrative boundaries or special projects, nor particular program or agency. This dataset represents the hydrologic unit boundaries to the 12-digit (6th level) for the entire United States. Some areas may also include additional subdivisions representing the 14- and 16-digit hydrologic unit (HU). At a minimum, the HUs are delineated at 1:24,000-scale in the conterminous United States, 1:25,000-scale in Hawaii, Pacific basin and the Caribbean, and 1:63,360-scale in Alaska, meeting the National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS). Higher resolution boundaries are being developed where partners and data exist and will be incorporated back into the WBD. WBD data are delivered as a dataset of polygons and corresponding lines that define the boundary of the polygon. WBD polygon attributes include hydrologic unit codes (HUC), size (in the form of acres and square kilometers), name, downstream hydrologic unit code, type of watershed, non-contributing areas, and flow modifications. The HUC describes where the unit is in the country and the level of the unit. WBD line attributes contain the highest level of hydrologic unit for each boundary, line source information and flow modifications.

Parcels affected by the adoption of the 2015 International Wildland Urban-Interface Code (WUIC), which was adopted by Austin City Council April9, 2020, and implementation beginning January 1st, 2021. Parcels that are within 1.5 miles of a wildland area greater than 750 acres and parcels within 150 feet of a wildland area greater than 40 acres are wildland_urban_interface_code parcels. Parcels designated as "preserves" have been removed and are not subject to the WUI code.Dataset was created in 2020 by Austin Fire Department Wildfire Division. It was derived from the most recent Travis County Appraisal District (TCAD) Parcels, and queried based upon their planar distance to wildland areas. Wildlands are defined as undeveloped continuous areas,. The wildlands feature class is maintained by the Austin Fire Department and is derived from the City of Austin Planimetric dataset, also known as impervious cover data, and are updated every two years. ArcGIS Pro version 2 software was used to create this dataset. The data is meant to be ingested by a GIS system. Changes to the City of Austin & LTD jurisdiction warrant an update to this dataset. The data is scheduled to be updated every two years.Included in the attributes are parcel condition variables that determine the parcel's "fire hazard severity' class. These include the composite score of three variables: slope score, fuel score, and WUI class (proximity). Slope score was determined by the average degree slope of the area within each parcel and classified as less than 10%, 10% to 25%, or greater then 25%. Fuel score was determined by the average fuel class area within each parcels as defined by the Austin Travis County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and classified as light, medium, or heavy fuels. Proximity class was defined by the proximity of each parcel to wildlands, either as within 1.5 miles of wildlands greater than 750 acres, or within 150 feet of wildlands greater than 40 acres.Description of data fieldsGLOBALID_1 = Used for Global IdentificationOBJECTID = Object IdentificationSLOPE_DEGREE = The average slope of each parcel in degreesFIRE_HAZARD_SEVERITY = The "fire hazard severity" class of each parcelPROXIMITY_CLASS = The proximity class of each parcelSLOPE_CLASS = The slope classification of each parcelFUEL_CLASS = The fuel class of each parcelCREATED_BY = Creators nameCREATED_DATE = Date createdMODIFIED_BY = Modifiers nameMODIFIED_DATE = Date modifiedUNIQUE_ID = Unique Identification number (mirror object id)Shape_Area = Shape areaShape_Length = Shape lengthIteration ID: Parcels_AustinLTD4 2020Contact: Steven Casebeer at Steven.casebeer@austintexas.gov | Austin Fire Department Wildfire Division

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.

Spatial analysis and statistical summaries of the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) provide land managers and decision makers with a general assessment of management intent for biodiversity protection, natural resource management, and outdoor recreation access across the nation. This data release presents results from statistical summaries of the PAD-US 3.0 protection status (by GAP Status Code) and public access status for various land unit boundaries (Protected Areas Database of the United States 3.0 Vector Analysis and Summary Statistics). Summary statistics are also available to explore and download (Comma-separated Table [CSV], Microsoft Excel Workbook (.xlsx), Portable Document Format [.pdf] Report) from the PAD-US Lands and Inland Water Statistics Dashboard ( https://www.usgs.gov/programs/gap-analysis-project/science/pad-us-statistics ). The vector GIS analysis file, source data used to summarize statistics for areas of interest to stakeholders (National, State, Department of the Interior Region, Congressional District, County, EcoRegions I-IV, Urban Areas, Landscape Conservation Cooperative), and complete Summary Statistics Tabular Data (CSV) are included in this data release. Raster GIS analysis files are also available for combination with other raster data (Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 3.0 Raster Analysis). The PAD-US 3.0 Combined Fee, Designation, Easement feature class in the full inventory, with Military Lands and Tribal Areas from the Proclamation and Other Planning Boundaries feature class (Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 3.0, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B), was modified to prioritize and remove overlapping management designations, limiting overestimation in protection status or public access statistics and to support user needs for vector and raster analysis data. Analysis files in this data release were clipped to the Census State boundary file to define the extent and fill in areas (largely private land) outside the PAD-US, providing a common denominator for statistical summaries.

Spatial analysis and statistical summaries of the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) provide land managers and decision makers with a general assessment of management intent for biodiversity protection, natural resource management, and recreation access across the nation. This data release presents results from statistical summaries of the PAD-US 2.1 protection status for various land unit boundaries (Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) Summary Statistics by GAP Status Code) as well as summaries of public access status (Public Access Statistics), provided in Microsoft Excel readable workbooks, the vector GIS analysis files and scripts used to complete the summaries, and raster GIS analysis files for combination with other raster data. The PAD-US 2.1 Combined Fee, Designation, Easement feature class in the full inventory (with Military Lands and Tribal Areas from the Proclamation and Other Planning Boundaries feature class) was modified to prioritize and remove overlapping management designations, limiting overestimation in protection status or public access statistics and to support user needs for vector and raster analysis data. Analysis files were clipped to the Census State boundary file to define the extent and fill in areas (largely private land) outside the PAD-US, providing a common denominator for statistical summaries.

Aggregate statistics for all registered storefront by identified geographic boundaries (Citywide, Borough, Council District, Census Tract)

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