Statistical analyses and maps representing mean, high, and low water-level conditions in the surface water and groundwater of Miami-Dade County were made by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, to help inform decisions necessary for urban planning and development. Sixteen maps were created that show contours of (1) the mean of daily water levels at each site during October and May for the 2000-2009 water years; (2) the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the daily water levels at each site during October and May and for all months during 2000-2009; and (3) the differences between mean October and May water levels, as well as the differences in the percentiles of water levels for all months, between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009. The 80th, 90th, and 96th percentiles of the annual maximums of daily groundwater levels during 1974-2009 (a 35-year period) were computed to provide an indication of unusually high groundwater-level conditions. These maps and statistics provide a generalized understanding of the variations of water levels in the aquifer, rather than a survey of concurrent water levels. Water-level measurements from 473 sites in Miami-Dade County and surrounding counties were analyzed to generate statistical analyses. The monitored water levels included surface-water levels in canals and wetland areas and groundwater levels in the Biscayne aquifer. Maps were created by importing site coordinates, summary water-level statistics, and completeness of record statistics into a geographic information system, and by interpolating between water levels at monitoring sites in the canals and water levels along the coastline. Raster surfaces were created from these data by using the triangular irregular network interpolation method. The raster surfaces were contoured by using geographic information system software. These contours were imprecise in some areas because the software could not fully evaluate the hydrology given available information; therefore, contours were manually modified where necessary. The ability to evaluate differences in water levels between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 is limited in some areas because most of the monitoring sites did not have 80 percent complete records for one or both of these periods. The quality of the analyses was limited by (1) deficiencies in spatial coverage; (2) the combination of pre- and post-construction water levels in areas where canals, levees, retention basins, detention basins, or water-control structures were installed or removed; (3) an inability to address the potential effects of the vertical hydraulic head gradient on water levels in wells of different depths; and (4) an inability to correct for the differences between daily water-level statistics. Contours are dashed in areas where the locations of contours have been approximated because of the uncertainty caused by these limitations. Although the ability of the maps to depict differences in water levels between 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 was limited by missing data, results indicate that near the coast water levels were generally higher in May during 2000-2009 than during 1990-1999; and that inland water levels were generally lower during 2000-2009 than during 1990-1999. Generally, the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of water levels from all months were also higher near the coast and lower inland during 2000–2009 than during 1990-1999. Mean October water levels during 2000-2009 were generally higher than during 1990-1999 in much of western Miami-Dade County, but were lower in a large part of eastern Miami-Dade County.

Tags Social system, socio-economic resources, justice, BES, Environmental Justice, Environmental disamentities, Zoning Board of Appeals Summary For use in the environmental injustices study of Baltimore relating to patterns of environmental disamenties in relation to low income/minority communities. Description This feature class layer is a point dataset of appeals to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) from 1938 to 1999 concerning identified environmental disamentities. The data was gathered from records from the Zoning Board of Appeals decisions since 1931 relating to environmental disamentities and to be used to examine environmental injustices involving low income/minority communities in Baltimore. To see if environmental injustices exist in Baltimore, this point layer will be overlayed with race/income data to determine if patterns of inequity exist. Points were placed manually using the associated addresses from the ZBA_master dataset. The ID number associated with each point is related to its appeal number from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Multiple points on the data layer have the same ZBA_ID number, making it a one-to-many relationship. This layer can be joined with the ZBA_master table using the "ZBA_point_relationship" and the field "ZBA_ID". Credits UVM Spatial Analysis Lab Use limitations None. There are no restrictions on the use of this dataset. The authors of this dataset make no representations of any kind, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular use, nor are any such warranties to be implied with respect to the data. Extent West -76.708848 East -76.527906 North 39.371642 South 39.199548 This is part of a collection of 221 Baltimore Ecosystem Study metadata records that point to a geodatabase. The geodatabase is available online and is considerably large. Upon request, and under certain arrangements, it can be shipped on media, such as a usb hard drive. The geodatabase is roughly 51.4 Gb in size, consisting of 4,914 files in 160 folders. Although this metadata record and the others like it are not rich with attributes, it is nonetheless made available because the data that it represents could be indeed useful.

social system, socio-economic resources, justice, BES, Environmental disamentities, Environmental Justice, Zoning Board of Appeals

   Summary


   For use in the environmental injustices study of Baltimore relating to patterns of environmental disamenties in relation to low income/minority communities.


   Description


   This feature class layer is a point dataset of authorizing ordinances from the Baltimore City Council and Mayor from 1930 until 1999 concerning identified environmental disamentities. The data was gathered from records from the City Council since 1930 relating to decisions concerning land-uses considered to be environmental disamentities and is to be used to examine environmental injustices involving low income/minority communities in Baltimore. To examine if environmental injustices exist in Baltimore, this point layer will be overlayed with race/income data to determine if patterns of inequity exist. Points were placed manually using the associated addresses from the Ordinance_master dataset and using ISTAR 2004 data in conjunction with Baltimore parcel data. The Ordinance_ID number associated with each point relates to its appeal number from the City Council. Multiple points on the data layer have the same Ordinance_ID. This point layer can be joined with the Ordinance_master data layer based on the field "Ordinance_ID" and using the relationship "Ordinance_point_relationship".


   Credits


   UVM Spatial Analysis Lab


   Use limitations


   None. There are no restrictions on the use of this dataset. The authors of this dataset make no representations of any kind, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular use, nor are any such warranties to be implied with respect to the data.


   Extent



   West -76.707701  East -76.526991 

   North 39.371885  South 39.200794 



   This is part of a collection of 221 Baltimore Ecosystem Study metadata records that point to a geodatabase.


   The geodatabase is available online and is considerably large. Upon request, and under certain arrangements, it can be shipped on media, such as a usb hard drive.


   The geodatabase is roughly 51.4 Gb in size, consisting of 4,914 files in 160 folders.


   Although this metadata record and the others like it are not rich with attributes, it is nonetheless made available because the data that it represents could be indeed useful.


   This is part of a collection of 221 Baltimore Ecosystem Study metadata records that point to a geodatabase.


   The geodatabase is available online and is considerably large. Upon request, and under certain arrangements, it can be shipped on media, such as a usb hard drive.


   The geodatabase is roughly 51.4 Gb in size, consisting of 4,914 files in 160 folders.


   Although this metadata record and the others like it are not rich with attributes, it is nonetheless made available because the data that it represents could be indeed useful.

Statewide Download (FGDB) (SHP)Users can also download smaller geographic areas of this feature service in ArcGIS Pro using the Copy Features geoprocessing tool. The address service contains statewide address points and related landmark name alias table and street name alias table.The New Jersey Office of Information Technology, Office of GIS (NJOGIS), in partnership with several local GIS and public safety agencies, has built a comprehensive statewide NG9-1-1 database meeting and exceeding the requirements of the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) 2018 NG9-1-1 GIS Data Standard (NENA-STA-006.1-2018). The existing New Jersey Statewide Address Point data last published in 2016 has been transformed in the NENA data model to create this new address point data.The initial address points were processed from statewide parcel records joined with the statewide Tax Assessor's (MOD-IV) database in 2015. Address points supplied by Monmouth County, Sussex County, Morris County and Montgomery Township in Somerset County were incorporated into the statewide address points using customized Extract, Transform and Load (ETL) procedures.The previous version of the address points was loaded into New Jersey's version of the NENA NG9-1-1 data model using Extract, Transform and Load (ETL) procedures created with Esri's Data Interoperability Extension. Subsequent manual and bulk processing corrections and additions have been made, and are ongoing.***NOTE*** For users who incorporate NJOGIS services into web maps and/or web applications, please sign up for the NJ Geospatial Forum discussion listserv for early notification of service changes. Visit https://nj.gov/njgf/about/listserv/ for more information.

A major objective of plant ecology research is to determine the underlying processes responsible for the observed spatial distribution patterns of plant species. Plants can be approximated as points in space for this purpose, and thus, spatial point pattern analysis has become increasingly popular in ecological research. The basic piece of data for point pattern analysis is a point location of an ecological object in some study region. Therefore, point pattern analysis can only be performed if data can be collected. However, due to the lack of a convenient sampling method, a few previous studies have used point pattern analysis to examine the spatial patterns of grassland species. This is unfortunate because being able to explore point patterns in grassland systems has widespread implications for population dynamics, community-level patterns and ecological processes. In this study, we develop a new method to measure individual coordinates of species in grassland communities. This method records plant growing positions via digital picture samples that have been sub-blocked within a geographical information system (GIS). Here, we tested out the new method by measuring the individual coordinates of Stipa grandis in grazed and ungrazed S. grandis communities in a temperate steppe ecosystem in China. Furthermore, we analyzed the pattern of S. grandis by using the pair correlation function g(r) with both a homogeneous Poisson process and a heterogeneous Poisson process. Our results showed that individuals of S. grandis were overdispersed according to the homogeneous Poisson process at 0-0.16 m in the ungrazed community, while they were clustered at 0.19 m according to the homogeneous and heterogeneous Poisson processes in the grazed community. These results suggest that competitive interactions dominated the ungrazed community, while facilitative interactions dominated the grazed community. In sum, we successfully executed a new sampling method, using digital photography and a Geographical Information System, to collect experimental data on the spatial point patterns for the populations in this grassland community.

Methods 1. Data collection using digital photographs and GIS

A flat 5 m x 5 m sampling block was chosen in a study grassland community and divided with bamboo chopsticks into 100 sub-blocks of 50 cm x 50 cm (Fig. 1). A digital camera was then mounted to a telescoping stake and positioned in the center of each sub-block to photograph vegetation within a 0.25 m2 area. Pictures were taken 1.75 m above the ground at an approximate downward angle of 90° (Fig. 2). Automatic camera settings were used for focus, lighting and shutter speed. After photographing the plot as a whole, photographs were taken of each individual plant in each sub-block. In order to identify each individual plant from the digital images, each plant was uniquely marked before the pictures were taken (Fig. 2 B).

Digital images were imported into a computer as JPEG files, and the position of each plant in the pictures was determined using GIS. This involved four steps: 1) A reference frame (Fig. 3) was established using R2V software to designate control points, or the four vertexes of each sub-block (Appendix S1), so that all plants in each sub-block were within the same reference frame. The parallax and optical distortion in the raster images was then geometrically corrected based on these selected control points; 2) Maps, or layers in GIS terminology, were set up for each species as PROJECT files (Appendix S2), and all individuals in each sub-block were digitized using R2V software (Appendix S3). For accuracy, the digitization of plant individual locations was performed manually; 3) Each plant species layer was exported from a PROJECT file to a SHAPE file in R2V software (Appendix S4); 4) Finally each species layer was opened in Arc GIS software in the SHAPE file format, and attribute data from each species layer was exported into Arc GIS to obtain the precise coordinates for each species. This last phase involved four steps of its own, from adding the data (Appendix S5), to opening the attribute table (Appendix S6), to adding new x and y coordinate fields (Appendix S7) and to obtaining the x and y coordinates and filling in the new fields (Appendix S8).

1. Data reliability assessment

To determine the accuracy of our new method, we measured the individual locations of Leymus chinensis, a perennial rhizome grass, in representative community blocks 5 m x 5 m in size in typical steppe habitat in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China in July 2010 (Fig. 4 A). As our standard for comparison, we used a ruler to measure the individual coordinates of L. chinensis. We tested for significant differences between (1) the coordinates of L. chinensis, as measured with our new method and with the ruler, and (2) the pair correlation function g of L. chinensis, as measured with our new method and with the ruler (see section 3.2 Data Analysis). If (1) the coordinates of L. chinensis, as measured with our new method and with the ruler, and (2) the pair correlation function g of L. chinensis, as measured with our new method and with the ruler, did not differ significantly, then we could conclude that our new method of measuring the coordinates of L. chinensis was reliable.

We compared the results using a t-test (Table 1). We found no significant differences in either (1) the coordinates of L. chinensis or (2) the pair correlation function g of L. chinensis. Further, we compared the pattern characteristics of L. chinensis when measured by our new method against the ruler measurements using a null model. We found that the two pattern characteristics of L. chinensis did not differ significantly based on the homogenous Poisson process or complete spatial randomness (Fig. 4 B). Thus, we concluded that the data obtained using our new method was reliable enough to perform point pattern analysis with a null model in grassland communities.

The New Jersey Office of Information Technology, Office of GIS (NJOGIS), in partnership with several local GIS and public safety agencies, has built a comprehensive statewide NG9-1-1 database meeting and exceeding the requirements of the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) 2018 NG9-1-1 GIS Data Standard (NENA-STA-006.1-2018). The existing New Jersey Statewide Address Point data last published in 2016 has been transformed in the NENA data model to create this new address point data.The initial address points were processed from statewide parcel records joined with the statewide Tax Assessor's (MOD-IV) database in 2015. Address points supplied by Monmouth County, Sussex County, Morris County and Montgomery Township in Somerset County were incorporated into the statewide address points using customized Extract, Transform and Load (ETL) procedures.The previous version of the address points was loaded into New Jersey's version of the NENA NG9-1-1 data model using Extract, Transform and Load (ETL) procedures created with Esri's Data Interoperability Extension. Subsequent manual and bulk processing corrections and additions have been made, and are ongoing.

Dataset description: This repository contains data pertaining to the manuscript "Mawrth Vallis, Mars, classified using the NOAH-H deep-learning terrain classification system." submitted to Journal of Maps. NOAH-H Mosaics: Mawrth_Vallis_NOAHH_Mosaic_DC_IG_25cm4bit_20230121_reclass.zip This folder contain mosaics of terrain classifications for Mawrth Vallis, Mars, made by the Novelty or Anomaly Hunter - HiRISE (NOAH-H) deep learning convolutional neural network developed for the European Space Agency (ESA) by SCISYS Ltd. In coordination with the Open University Planetary Environments Group. These folders contain the NOAH-H mosaics, as well as ancillary files needed to display the NOAH-H products in geographic information software (GIS). Included are two large raster datasets, containing the NOAH-H classification for the entire study area. One uses the 14 descriptive classes of the terrain, and the other with the five interpretative groups (Barrett et al., 2022). · Mawrth_Vallis_NOAHH_Mosaic_DC_25cm4bit_20230121_reclass.tif Contains the full 14 class “Descriptive Classes” (DC) dataset, reclassified so that pixel values reflect the original NOAH-H ontology, and not the priority rankings described in Wright et al., (2022) and Barrett et al., (2022b). It is accompanied by all auxiliary files required to view the data in GIS. · Mawrth_Vallis_NOAHH_Mosaic_IG_25cm4bit_20230121_reclass.tif Contains the 5 class “Interpretive Groups” (IG) dataset, reclassified so that pixel values reflect the original NOAH-H ontology, and not the priority rankings described in Wright et al., (2022) and Barrett et al., (2022b). It is accompanied by all auxiliary files required to view the data in GIS. Symbology layer files: NOAH-H_Symbology.zip This folder contains GIS layer file and colour map files for both the Descriptive Classes (DC) and interpretive Groups (IG) versions of the classification. These can be applied to the data using the symbology options in GIS. Georeferencing Control points: Mawrth_Vallis_Final_Control_Points.zip This file contains the control points used to georeferenced the 26 individual HiRISE images which make up the mosaic. These allow publicly available HiRISE images to be aligned to the terrain in Mawrth Vallis, and thus the NOAH-H Mosaic. Twenty-six 25 cm/pixel HiRISE images of Mawrth Vallis were used as input for NOAH-H. These are:

PSP_002140_2025_RED

PSP_002074_2025_RED

ESP_057351_2020_RED

ESP_053909_2025_RED

ESP_053698_2025_RED

ESP_052274_2025_RED

ESP_051931_2025_RED

ESP_051351_2025_RED

ESP_051219_2030_RED

ESP_050217_2025_RED

ESP_046960_2025_RED

ESP_046670_2025_RED

ESP_046525_2025_RED

ESP_046459_2025_RED

ESP_046314_2025_RED

ESP_045536_2025_RED

ESP_045114_2025_RED

ESP_044903_2025_RED

ESP_043782_2025_RED

ESP_043637_2025_RED

ESP_038758_2025_RED

ESP_037795_2025_RED

ESP_037294_2025_RED

ESP_036872_2025_RED

ESP_036582_2025_RED

ESP_035804_2025_RED NOAH-H produced corresponding 25 cm/pixel rasters where each pixel is assigned a terrain class based on the corresponding pixels in the input HiRISE image. To mosaic the NOAH-H rasters together, first the input HiRISE images were georeferenced to the HRSC basemap (HMC_11E10_co5) tile, using CTX images as an intermediate step. High order (spline, in ArcGIS Pro 3.0) transformations were used to make the HiRISE images georeference closely onto the target layers. Once the HiRISE images were georeferenced, the same control points and transformations were applied to the corresponding NOAH-H rasters. To mosaic the georeferenced NOAH-H rasters the pixel values for the classes needed to be changed so that more confidently identified, and more dangerous, classes made it into the mosaic (see dataset manuscript for details. To produce a HiRISE layer which fits the NOAH-H classification, download one of the listed HiRISE images from https://www.uahirise.org/, Select the corresponding control point file from this archive and apply a spline transformation through the GIS georeferencing toolbar. Manually Mapped Aeolian Bedforms: Mawrth_Manual_TARs.zip The manually mapped data was produced by Fawdon, independently of the NOAH-H project, as an assessment of “Aeolian Hazard” at Mawrth Vallis. This was done to inform the ExoMars landing site selection process. This file contains two GIS shape files, containing the manually mapped bedforms for both the entire mapping area, and the HiRISE image ESP_046459_2025_RED where the two datasets were compared on a pixel scale. The full manual map is offset slightly from the NOAH-H, since it was digitised from bespoke HiRISE orthomosaics, rather than from the publicly available HiRISE Red band images. It is suitable for comparison to the NOAH-H data with 100m-1km aggregation as in figure 8 of the associated paper. It is not suitable for pixel scale comparison. The map of ESP_046459_2025_RED was manually georeferenced to the NOAH-H mosaic, allowing for direct pixel to pixel comparisons, as presented in figure 6 of the associated paper. Two GIS shape files are included: · Mawrth_Manual_TARs_ESP_046459_2025.shp · Mawrth_Manual_TARs_all.shp Containing the high fidelity data for ESP_046459_2025, and the medium fidelity data for the entire area respectively. The are accompanied by ancillary files needed to view them in GIS. Gridded Density Statistics This dataset contains gridded density maps of Transverse Aeolian Ridges and Boulders, as classified by the Novelty or Anomaly Hunter – HiRISE (NOAH-H). The area covered is the runner up candidate ExoMars landing site in Mawrth Vallis, Mars. These are the data shown in figures; 7, 8, and S1. Files are presented for every classified ripple and boulder class, as well as for thematic groups. These are presented as .shp GIS shapefiles, along with all auxiliary files required to view them in GIS. Gridded Density stats are available in two zip folders, one for NOAH-H predicted density, and one for manually mapped density. NOAH-H Predicted Density: Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_TAR_Boulder_Density.zip Individual classes are found in the files: · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_8TARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_9TARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_11TARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_12TARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_13TARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_Boulders.shp Where the text following Grid denotes the NOAH-H classes represented, and the landform classified. E.g. 8TARs = NOAH-H TAR class 8. The following thematic groups are also included: · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_8_11continuousTARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_12_13discontinuousTARs · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_8_10largeTARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_11_13smallTARs.shp · Mawrth_NOAHH_1km_Grid_8_13AllTARs.shp When the numbers denote the range of NOAH-H classes which were aggregated to produce the map, followed by a description of the thematic group: “continuous”, “discontinuous”, “large”, “small”, “all”. Manually Mapped Density Plots: Mawrth_Manual_1km_Grid.zip These GIS shapefiles have the same format as the NOAH-H classified ones. Three datasets are presented for all TARs (“_allTARs”), Continuous TARs (“_con”) and Discontinuous TARs (“_dis”) · Mawrth_Manual_1km_Grid_AllTARs.shp · Mawrth_Manual_1km_Grid_Con.shp · Mawrth_Manual_1km_Grid_Dis.shp Related public datasets: The HiRISE images discussed in this work are publicly available from https://www.uahirise.org/. and are credited to NASA/JPL/University of Arizona. HRSC images are credited to the European Space Agency; Mars Express mission team, German Aerospace Center (DLR), and the Freie Universität Berlin (FUB). They are available at the ESA Planetary Science Archive (PSA) https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/psa/mars-express and are used under the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO licence. SPATIAL DATA COORDINATE SYSTEM INFORMATION All NOAH-H files and derivative density plots have the same projected coordinate system: “Equirectangular Mars” - Projection: Plate Carree - Sphere radius: 3393833.2607584 m SOFTWARE INFORMATION All GIS workflows (georeferencing, mosaicking) were conducted in ArcGIS Pro 3.0. NOAH-H is a deep learning semantic segmentation software developed by SciSys Ltd for the European Space Agency to aid preparation for the ExoMars rover mission.

This database was prepared using a combination of materials that include aerial photographs, topographic maps (1:24,000 and 1:250,000), field notes, and a sample catalog. Our goal was to translate sample collection site locations at Yellowstone National Park and surrounding areas into a GIS database. This was achieved by transferring site locations from aerial photographs and topographic maps into layers in ArcMap. Each field site is located based on field notes describing where a sample was collected. Locations were marked on the photograph or topographic map by a pinhole or dot, respectively, with the corresponding station or site numbers. Station and site numbers were then referenced in the notes to determine the appropriate prefix for the station. Each point on the aerial photograph or topographic map was relocated on the screen in ArcMap, on a digital topographic map, or an aerial photograph. Several samples are present in the field notes and in the catalog but do not correspond to an aerial photograph or could not be found on the topographic maps. These samples are marked with “No” under the LocationFound field and do not have a corresponding point in the SampleSites feature class. Each point represents a field station or collection site with information that was entered into an attributes table (explained in detail in the entity and attribute metadata sections). Tabular information on hand samples, thin sections, and mineral separates were entered by hand. The Samples table includes everything transferred from the paper records and relates to the other tables using the SampleID and to the SampleSites feature class using the SampleSite field.

Abstract

This dataset and its metadata statement were supplied to the Bioregional Assessment Programme by a third party and are presented here as originally supplied.

This shapefile was constructed by combining crown TSR spatial data, information gathered from Rural Lands Protection Board (RLPB) rangers, and surveyed Conservation and Biodiversity data to compile a layer within 30 RLPB districts in NSW. The layer attempts to spatially reflect current TSRs as accurately as possible with conservation attributes for each one.

Dataset History

The initial process in production involved using the most up to date extract of TSR from the crown spatial layer as a base map, as this layer should reasonably accurately spatially reflect the location, size, and attributes of TSR in NSW. This crown spatial layer from which the TSR were extracted is maintained by the NSW Department of Lands. The TSR extract is comprised of approximately 25,000 polygons in the study area. These polygons were then attributed with names, IDs and other attributes from the Long Paddock (LP) points layer produced by the RLPB State Council, which contains approximately 4000 named reserves throughout the study area. This layer reflects the names and ID number by which the reserves were or are currently managed by the RLPB's. This layer was spatially joined with the TSR polygon layer by proximity to produce a polygon layer attributed with RLPB reserve names and ID numbers. This process was repeated for other small datasets in order to link data with the polygon layer and LP reserve names. The next and by far the most time consuming and laborious process in the project was transferring the data gathered from surveys undertaken with RLPB rangers about each reserve (location, spatial extent, name, currency conservation value and biodiversity). This spatial information was annotated on hard copy maps and referenced against the spatial join making manual edits where necessary. Edits were conducted manually as the reference information was only on hard copy paper maps. Any corrections were made to the merged layer to produce an accurate spatial reflection of the RLPB reserves by name and ID. This manual editing process composed the bulk of the time for layer production as all reserves in each RLPB district in the study area had to be checked manually. Any necessary changes had to then be made to correct the spatial location of the reserve and ensure the correct ID was assigned for attributing the conservation data. In approximately 80% of cases the spatial join was correct, although this figure would be less where long chains of TSR polygons exist. The majority of time was devoted to making the numerous additions that needed to be incorporated. A spreadsheet based on the LP point layer was attributed with the LP point \[OBJECTID\] in order to produce a unique reference for each reserve so that conservation and biodiversity value data could be attributed against each reserve in the spatial layer being produced. Any new reserves were allocated \[OBJECTID\] number both in the GIS and the spreadsheet in order to create this link. All relevant data was entered into the spreadsheet and then edited to a suitable level to be attached as an attribute table. Field names were chosen and appropriate an interpretable data formats each field. The completed spreadsheet was then linked to the shapefile to produce a polygon TSR spatial layer containing all available conservation and biodiversity information. Any additional attribute were either entered manually or obtained by merging with other layers. Attributes for the final layer were selected for usability by those wishing to query valuable Conservation Value (CV) data for each reserve, along with a number of administrative attributes for locating and querying certain aspects of each parcel. Constant error checking was conducted throughout the process to ensure minimal error being transferred to the production. This was done manually, and also by running numerous spatial and attribute based queries to identify potential errors in the spatial layer being produced. Follow up phone calls were made to the rangers to identify exact localities of reserves where polygons could not be allocated due to missing or ambiguous information. If precise location data was provided, polygons could be added in, either from other crown spatial layers or from cadastre. These polygons were also attributed with the lowest confindex rating, as their status as crown land is unknown or doubtful. In some cases existing GIS layers had been created for certain areas. Murray RLPB has data where 400+ polygons do not exist in the current crown TSR extract. According to the rangers interviewed it was determined the majority of these TSR exist. This data was incorporated in the TSR polygon by merging the two layers and then assigning attributes in the normal way, ie by being given a LP Name and ID and then updated from the marked up hard copy maps. In the confidence index these are given a rating of 1 (see confindex matrix) due to the unknown source of the data and no match with any other crown spatial data. A confidence index matrix (confindex) was produced in order to give the end user of the GIS product an idea as to how the data for each reserve was obtained, its purpose, and an indication to whether it is likely to be a current TSR. The higher the confindex, the more secure the user can be in the data. (See Confidence Index Matrix) This was necessary due to conflicting information from a number of datasets, usually the RLPB ranger (mark up on hard copy map) conflicting with the crown spatial data. If these conflicting reserves were to be deleted, this would lead to a large amount of information loss during the project. If additions were made without sufficient data to determine its crown status, currency, location, etc (which was not available in all cases) the end user may rely on data that has a low level of accuracy. The confindex was produced by determining the value of information and scoring it accordingly, compounding its value if data sources showed a correlation. Where an RLPB LP Name and ID point was not assigned to a polygon due to other points being in closer proximity these names and ID are effectively deleted from the polygon layer. In a number of cases this was correct due to land being revoked, relinquished and/or now freehold. In a number of cases where the TSR is thought to exist and a polygon could not be assigned due to no info available (Lot/DP, close proximity to a crown reserve, further ranger interview provided no info, etc etc). For these cases to ensure no information loss a points layer was compiled from the LP points layer with further info from the marked up hard copy maps to place the point in the most accurate approximate location to where the reserve is though to exist and then all CV data attached to the point. In many of these cases some further investigation could provide an exact location and inclusion in the TSR poly layer. The accuracy of the point is mentioned in the metadata, so that the location is not taken as an absolute location and is only to be used as a guide for the approximate location of the reserve. Topology checks were conducted to eliminate slivers in the layer and to remove duplicate polygons. Where two crown reserves existed on the same land parcel, the duplicate polygon was deleted and unique attributes (Crown Reserve Number, Type, and Purpose) were transferred. Once the polygon layer was satisfactorily completed, a list of the LP points not allocated to polygons was compiled. Any points (reserves) that were said to have been revoked or relinquished were then removed from this list to provide a list of those that are said to be current. An extract of the LP points layer was then produced with only the aforementioned points. These points were then attributed with the same conservation and biodiversity data as the polygon layer, in an attempt to minimise the amount of information loss.

Dataset Citation

"NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water" (2010) Travelling Stock Route Conservation Values. Bioregional Assessment Source Dataset. Viewed 13 March 2019, http://data.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/dataset/198900d5-0d06-4bd0-832b-e30a7c4e8873.

This fee feature class represents current wastewater information in the City of Los Angeles. This fee indicates that a property owner has paid the fee for a Special House Connection Sewer or Bonded Sewer House Connection Sewer permit, and the property has not been assessed for a public sewer. Fee information is inputted into the Wastewater Database by the District Office Staff. The Mapping and Land Records Division of the Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works provides the most rigorous geographic information of the sanitary sewer system using a geometric network model, to ensure that its sewers reflect current ground conditions. The sanitary sewer system, pump plants, wyes, maintenance holes, and other structures represent the sewer infrastructure in the City of Los Angeles. Wye and sewer information is available on NavigateLA, a website hosted by the Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works.For a complete list of attribute values, please refer to (TBA Wastewater data dictionary).Wastewater Fee points layer was created in geographical information systems (GIS) software to display points representing bonded or special fee parcels. The fee points layer is a feature class in the LACityWastewaterData.gdb Geodatabase dataset. The layer consists of spatial data as a points feature class and attribute data for the features. The points are entered manually based on wastewater sewer maps and BOE standard plans, and information about the points is entered into attributes. The fee points data layer indicate that property owner have paid the fee for a Special House Connection Sewer or Bonded Sewer House Connection Sewer permit, and the property has not been assessed for a public sewer. The wastewater fee points are inherited from a sewer spatial database originally created by the City's Wastewater program. The database was known as SIMMS, Sewer Inventory and Maintenance Management System. Fee information should only be added to the Wastewater Fee layer if documentation exists, such as a wastewater map approved by the City Engineer. Sewers plans and specifications proposed under private development are reviewed and approved by Bureau of Engineering. The Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering's, Brown Book (current as of 2010) outlines standard specifications for public works construction. For more information on sewer materials and structures, look at the Bureau of Engineering Manual, Part F, Sewer Design section, and a copy can be viewed at http://eng.lacity.org/techdocs/sewer-ma/f400.pdf. For more information on maintenance holes, a copy can be viewed at http://boemaps.eng.ci.la.ca.us/reports/pdf/s140-0_std_pl.pdf.List of Fields:BOE_PROCESS_DATEFEE_NO: This value is the number of the document filed to establish the fees owed.AMOUNT: This value is the dollar amount of the fee owed.STATUS: This value shows the fees that were transferred to other SFC sites in the City of Los Angeles. The value indicates whether that record was a Transfer donor or a transfer recipient. Values: • TD - Transfer donor. • TR - Transfer recipient.VERIFIED: This value of is Y or null.LAT: The value is the latitude coordinate of the point.SHAPE: Feature geometry.LAST_MODF_DT: Last modification date of the point feature.LON: The value is the longitude coordinate of the point.SEWER_MAPREF_NO: This value is the reference number.PIN: The value is a combination of MAPSHEET and ID fields in Landbase Parcels data, creating a unique value for each parcel. There are spaces between the MAPSHEET and ID field values. This is a key attribute of the LANDBASE data layer. This field is related to the APN and HSE_NBR tables. This attribute is automatically generated by the Wastewater Application during background processes, running the identity process.ENG_DIST: LA City Engineering District. The boundaries are displayed in the Engineering Districts index map. Values: • V - Valley Engineering District. • H - Harbor Engineering District. • W - West LA Engineering District. • C - Central Engineering District.OBJECTID: Internal feature number.CRTN_DTJOB_ADDRESS: This value is the the address for the parcel.USER_ID: The name of the user carrying out the edits of the fee points.TYPE: This value is the text as indicated on the map containing Wastewater Wye data. Values: • H - Unknown. • UNK - Unknown. • SSC - Sewer service charge. • LP - Letters of Participation. • SFC - Sewer facilities charge. • SF - Special fees. • OF - Outlet facilities charge. • C - Unknown. • F - Fee. • D - Unknown. • BL - Bonded lateral. • AF - No fees. • A - Unknown. • B - Bonded fee due. • S - Unknown.REMARKS: This attribute contains additional comments regarding fee points.

Defra Network WMS server provided by the Environment Agency. See full dataset here.The Most Probable Overland Flow Pathway dataset is a polyline GIS vector dataset that describes the likely flow routes of water along with potential accumulations of diffuse pollution and soil erosion features over the land.It is a complete network for the entire country (England) produced from a hydro-enforced LIDAR 1-metre resolution digital terrain model (bare earth DTM) produced from the 2022 LIDAR Composite 1m Digital Terrain Model. Extensive processing on the data using auxiliary datasets (Selected OS Water Network, OS MasterMap features as well as some manual intervention) has resulted in a hydro-enforced DTM that significantly reduces the amount of non-real-world obstructions in the DTM. Although it does not consider infiltration potential of different land surfaces and soil types, it is instructive in broadly identifying potential problem areas in the landscape.The flow network is based upon theoretical one-hectare flow accumulations, meaning that any point along a network feature is likely to have a minimum of one-hectare of land potentially contributing to it. Each segment is attributed with an estimate of the mean slope along it.The product is comprised of 3 vector datasets; Probable Overland Flow Pathways, Detailed Watershed and Ponding and Errors. Where Flow Direction Grids have been derived, the D8 option was applied. All processing was carried out using ARCGIS Pro’s Spatial Analyst Hydrology tools. Outlined below is a description of each of the feature class.Probable Overland Flow Pathways The Probable Overland Flow Pathways layer is a polyline vector dataset that describes the probable locations accumulation of water over the Earth’s surface where it is assumed that there is no absorption of water through the soil. Every point along each of the features predicts an uphill contribution of a minimum of 1 hectare of land. The hydro-enforced LIDAR Digital Terrain Model 1-Metre Composite (2022) has been used to derive this data layer. Every effort has been used to digitally unblock real-world drainage features; however, some blockages remain (e.g. culverts and bridges. In these places the flow pathways should be disregarded. The Ponding field can be used to identify these erroneous pathways. They are flagged in the Ponding field with a “1”. Flow pathways are also attributed with a mean slope value which is calculated from the Length and the difference of the start and end point elevations. The maximum uphill flow accumulation area is also indicated for each flow pathway feature.Detailed Watersheds The Detailed Watersheds layer is a polygon vector dataset that describes theoretical catchment boundaries that have been derived from pour points extracted from every junction or node of a 1km2 Flow Accumulation dataset. The hydro-enforced LIDAR Digital Terrain Model 1-Metre Composite (2022) has been used to derive this data layer.Ponding Errors The Ponding and Errors layer is a polygon vector dataset that describes the presence of depressions in the landscape after the hydro-enforcing routine has been applied to the Digital Terrain Model. The Type field indicates whether the feature is Off-Line or On-Line. Off-Line is indicative of a feature that intersects with a watercourse and is likely to be an error in the Overland Flow pathways. On-line features do not intersect with watercourses and are more likely to be depressions in the landscape where standing water may accumulate. Only features of greater than 100m2 with a depth of greater than 20cm have been included. The layer was derived by filling the hydro-enforced DTM then subtracting the hydro-enforced DTM from the filled hydro-enforced DTM.Please use with caution in very flat areas and areas with highly modified drainage systems (e.g. fenlands of East Anglia and Somerset Levels). There will occasionally be errors associated with bridges, viaducts and culverts that were unable to be resolved with the hydro-enforcement process.

Place-names represent a fundamental geographical identifier, which also have considerable cultural, historical and linguistic importance. Scotland had a great tradition of publishing descriptive (long-form) gazetteers in the 19th century. This dataset is the GIS point format output from a project funded by the Scottish Government in the early 2010s, to create a Definitive Place-Name Gazetteer for Scotland, which helped meet the INSPIRE requirements for a place-name layer. The data also forms the underlying content for the Gazetteer for Scotland web pages: https://www.scottish-places.info/ In 2009 a workshop was run in conjunction with the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) to examine the range of gazetteers in use in Scotland, together with a broad set of requirements. This identified a number of organisations which hold or maintain at least 15 different gazetteers that include geographical names for Scotland. The two most significant gazetteers were the Gazetteer for Scotland and the Ordnance Survey 1:50000 (OS 1:50K) product - which together form the basis for this dataset. The Gazetteer for Scotland is a descriptive gazetteer, with a modest number (22,000) of rich entries, including a textual description and rich feature-typing. At the time of creation, the OS 1:50K gazetteer had long been Ordnance Survey's only place-name gazetteer, used as part of numerous applications. It was decided that, for this new 'definitive' place name gazetteer, any named feature could/ should potentially be included, but it was accepted that the list will always be incomplete. This dataset could be used (and potentially linked with) other datasets like the Ordnance Survey Open Names, the One Scotland Gazetteer and the Historical Names gazetteer. The methodology for this data was a combination of automated and manual editing. Automated methods were used in feature classification and duplicate detection. Manual editing was required both to confirm or provide a feature classification, but also to improve the spatial referencing. Standards had to be adopted; for example water bodies were spatially located by a point which approximated its centre, while rivers were spatially located at their termination and other liner features by a random point along their length. The former gives a useful spatial reference, the latter in many cases does not. Quality checking suggests that 95% of points were located to 100m or better, and 5% located to 20m or better. More than 90% of features are classified correctly, on the basis of the evidence available. Copyrights and acknowledgments. The dataset is (c) Bruce M. Gittings (University of Edinburgh) and the Scottish Government. This dataset contains Ordnance Survey data (c) Crown copyright and database right 2010, released by The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, April 2010.

Abstract

This dataset and its metadata statement were supplied to the Bioregional Assessment Programme by a third party and are presented here as originally supplied.

The Geofabric Surface Cartography product provides a set of related feature classes to be used as the basis for the production of consistent hydrological cartographic maps. This product contains a geometric representation of the (major) surface water features of Australia (excluding external territories). Primarily, these are natural surface hydrology features but the product also contains some man-made features (notably reservoirs, canals and other hydrographic features).

The product is fully topologically correct which means that all the stream segments flow in the correct direction.

This product contains fifteen feature types including: Waterbody, Mapped Stream, Mapped Node, Mapped Connectivity (Upstream), Mapped Connectivity (Downstream), Sea, Estuary, Dam, Structure, Canal Line, Water Pipeline, Terrain Break Line, Hydro Point, Hydro Line and Hydro Area.

Purpose

This product contains a geometric representation of the (major) surface water features of 'geographic Australia' excluding external territories. It is intended to be used as the basis for the production of consistent hydrological cartographic map products, as well as the visualisation of surface hydrology within a GIS to support the selection of features for inclusion in cartographic map production.

This product can also be used for stream tracing operations both upstream and downstream however, as this is a mapped representation, streams may be represented as interrupted or intermittent features. In contrast, the Geofabric Surface Network product represents the same stream as a continuous connected feature, that is, the path that stream would take (according to the terrain model) if sufficient water were available for flow. Therefore, for stream tracing operations where full stream connectivity is required, the Geofabric Surface Network product should be used.

Dataset History

This dataset and its metadata statement were supplied to the Bioregional Assessment Programme by a third party and are presented here as originally supplied.

Geofabric Surface Cartography is part of a suite of Geofabric products produced by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The source data input for the Geofabric Surface Cartography product is the AusHydro v1.7.2 (AusHydro) surface hydrology data set. The AusHydro database provides a seamless surface hydrology layer for Australia at a nominal scale of 1:250,000. It consists of lines, points and polygons representing natural and man-made features such as watercourses, lakes, dams and other water bodies. The natural watercourse layer consists of a linear network with a consistent topology of links and nodes that provide directional flow paths through the network for hydrological analysis.

This network was used to produce the GEODATA 9 Second Digital Elevation Model (DEM-9S) Version 3 of Australia (https://www.ga.gov.au/products/servlet/controller?event=GEOCAT_DETAILS&catno=66006).

Geofabric Surface Cartography is an amalgamation of two primary datasets. The first is the hydrographic component of the GEODATA TOPO 250K Series 3 (GEODATA 3) product released by Geoscience Australia (GA) in 2006. The GEODATA 3 dataset contains the following hydrographic features: canal lines, locks, rapid lines, spillways, waterfall points, bores, canal areas, flats, lakes, pondage areas, rapid areas, reservoirs, springs, watercourse areas, waterholes, water points, marine hazard areas, marine hazard points and foreshore flats.

It also provides information on naming, hierarchy and perenniality. The dataset also contains cultural and transport features that may intersect with hydrographic features. These include: railway tunnels, rail crossings, railway bridges, road tunnels, road bridges, road crossings, water pipelines.

Refer to the GEODATA 3 User Guide http://www.ga.gov.au/meta/ANZCW0703008969.html for additional information.

The second primary dataset is based on the GEODATA TOPO-250K Series 1 (GEODATA 1) watercourse lines completed by GA in 1994, which was supplemented by additional line work captured by the Australian National University (ANU) during the production of the DEM-9S to improve the representation of surface water flow. This natural watercourse dataset consists of directional flow paths and provides a direct link to the flow paths derived from the DEM. There are approximately 700,000 more line segments in this version of the data.

AusHydro uses the natural watercourse geometry from the ANU enhanced GEODATA 1 data, and the attributes (names, perenniality and hierarchy) associated with GEODATA 3 to produce a fully attributed data set with topologically correct flow paths. The attributes from GEODATA 3 were attached using spatial queries to identify common features between the two datasets. Additional semi-automated and manual editing was undertaken to ensure consistent attribution along the entire network.

AusHydro dataset includes a unique identifier for each line, point and polygon. AusHydro-ID will be used to maintain the dataset and to incorporate higher resolution datasets in the future. The AusHydro-ID will be linked to the ANUDEM streams through a common segment identifier and ultimately to a set of National Catchments Boundaries (NCBs).

Changes at v2.1

! New Water Storages in the WaterBody FC.

Changes at v2.1.1

! 16 New BoM Water Storages attributed in the AHGFWaterBody feature class

and 1 completely new water storage feature added.



- Correction to spelling of Numeralla river in AHGFMappedStream (formerly

Numaralla).



- Flow direction of Geometric Network set.

Processing steps:

1. AusHydro Surface Hydrology dataset is received and loaded into the Geofabric development GIS environment

2. feature classes from AusHydro are recomposed into composited Geofabric hydrography dataset feature classes in the Geofabric Maintenance Geodatabase.

3. re-composited feature classes in the Geofabric Maintenance Geodatabase Hydrography Dataset are assigned unique Hydro-IDs using ESRI ArcHydro for Surface Water (ArcHydro: 1.4.0.180 and ApFramework: 3.1.0.84)

4. feature classes from the Geofabric Maintenance Geodatabase hydrography dataset are extracted and reassigned to the Geofabric Surface Cartography Feature Dataset within the Geofabric Surface Cartography Geodatabase.

A complete set of data mappings, from input source data to Geofabric Products, is included in the Geofabric Product Guide, Appendices.

Dataset Citation

Bureau of Meteorology (2014) Geofabric Surface Cartography - V2.1.1. Bioregional Assessment Source Dataset. Viewed 12 December 2018, http://data.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/dataset/ce5b77bf-5a02-4cf8-9cf2-be4a2cee2677.

This pipe feature class represents current wastewater information of the mainline sewer in the City of Los Angeles. The Mapping and Land Records Division of the Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works provides the most rigorous geographic information of the storm drain system using a geometric network model, to ensure that its storm drains reflect current ground conditions. The conduits and inlets represent the storm drain infrastructure in the City of Los Angeles. Storm drain information is available on NavigateLA, a website hosted by the Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works.Associated information about the wastewater Pipe is entered into attributes. Principal attributes include:PIPE_SUBTYPE: pipe subtype is the principal field that describes various types of lines as either Airline, Force Main, Gravity, Siphon, or Special Lateral.For a complete list of attribute values, please refer to (TBA Wastewater data dictionary). Wastewater pipe lines layer was created in geographical information systems (GIS) software to display the location of sewer pipes. The pipe lines layer is a feature class in the LACityWastewaterData.gdb Geodatabase dataset. The layer consists of spatial data as a line feature class and attribute data for the features. The lines are entered manually based on wastewater sewer maps and BOE standard plans, and information about the lines is entered into attributes. The pipe lines are the main sewers constructed within the public right-of-way in the City of Los Angeles. The ends of line segments, of the pipe lines data, are coincident with the wastewater connectivity nodes, cleanout nodes, non-structures, and physical structures points data. Refer to those layers for more information. The wastewater pipe lines are inherited from a sewer spatial database originally created by the City's Wastewater program. The database was known as SIMMS, Sewer Inventory and Maintenance Management System. For the historical information of the wastewater pipe lines layer, refer to the metadata nested under the sections Data Quality Information, Lineage, Process Step section. Pipe information should only be added to the Wastewater Pipes layer if documentation exists, such as a wastewater map approved by the City Engineer. Sewers plans and specifications proposed under private development are reviewed and approved by Bureau of Engineering. The Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering's, Brown Book (current as of 2010) outlines standard specifications for public works construction. For more information on sewer materials and structures, look at the Bureau of Engineering Manual, Part F, Sewer Design, F 400 Sewer Materials and Structures section, and a copy can be viewed at http://eng.lacity.org/techdocs/sewer-ma/f400.pdf.List of Fields:STREET: This is the street name and street suffix on which the pipe is located.PIPE_LABEL: This attribute identifies the arc segment between two nodes, which represents the pipe segment. There could be any number of pipes between the same two maintenance holes and at least one. If there is more than one pipe between the same two maintenance holes, then a value other than 'A' is assigned to each pipe, such as the value 'B', 'C', and so on consecutively. Also, when a new pipe is constructed, some old pipes are not removed from the ground and the new pipe is added around the existing pipe. In this case, if the original pipe was assigned an 'A', the new pipe is assigned a 'B'.C_UP_INV: This is the calculated pipe upstream invert elevation value.PIPE_MAT: The value signifies the various materials that define LA City's sewer system. Values: • TCP - Terra Cotta pipe. • CMP - Corrugated metal pipe. • RCP - Reinforced concrete pipe. Used for sewers larger than 42inch, with exceptions. • PCT - Polymer concrete pipe. • CON - Concrete or cement. • DIP - Ductile iron pipe. • ABS - Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. • STL - Steel. • UNK - Unknown. • ACP - Asbestos cement pipe. • RCL - Reinforced concrete pipe lined. • OTH - Other or unknown. • VCP - Vitrified clay pipe. • TRS - Truss pipe. • CIP - Cast iron pipe. • PVC - Polyvinyl chloride. • BRK - Brick. • RCPL - Lined Reinforced concrete pipe. Used for sewers larger than 42inch, with exceptions. • B/C - Concrete brick pipe. • FRP - Centrifugally cast fiberglass reinforced plastic mortar pipe.DN_INV: This is the downstream invert elevation value.PIPE_WIDTH: This value is the pipe dimension for shapes other than round.C_SLOPE: This is the calculated slope.ENABLED: Internal feature number.DN_STRUCT: This attribute identifies a number at one of two end points of the line segment that represents a sewer pipe. A sewer pipe line has a value for the UP_STRUCT and DN_STRUCT fields. This point is the downstream structure that may be a maintenance hole, pump station, junction, etc. Each of these structures is assigned an identifying number that corresponds to a Sewer Wye data record. The 8 digit value is based on an S-Map index map using a standardized numbering scheme. The S-Map is divided into 16 grids, each numbered sequentially from west to east and north to south. The first three digits represent the S-Map number, the following two digits represent the grid number, and the last three digits represent the structure number within the grid. This field also relates to the (name of table or layer) node attribute table.PIPE_SIZE: This value is the inside pipe diameter in inches.MON_INST: This is the month of the pipe installation.PIPE_ID: The value is a combination of the values in the UP_STRUCT, DN_STRUCT, and PIPE_LABEL fields. This is the 17 digit identifier of each pipe segment and is a key attribute of the pipe line data layer. This field named PIPE_ID relates to the field in the Annotation Pipe feature class and to the field in the Wye line feature class data layers.REMARKS: This attribute contains additional comments regarding the pipe line segment.DN_STA_PLS: This is the tens value of the downstream stationing.EASEMENT: This value denotes whether or not the pipe is within an easement.DN_STA_100: This is the hundreds value of the downstream stationing.PIPE_SHAPE: The value signifies the shape of the pipe cross section. Values: • SE - Semi-Elliptical. • O1 - Semi-Elliptical. • UNK - Unknown. • BM - Burns and McDonald. • S2 - Semi-Elliptical. • EL - Elliptical. • O2 - Semi-Elliptical. • CIR - Circular. • Box - Box (Rectangular).PIPE_STATUS: This attribute contains the pipe status. Values: • U - Unknown. • P - Proposed. • T - Abandoned. • F - As Built. • S - Siphon. • L - Lateral. • A - As Bid. • N - Non-City. • R - Airline.ENG_DIST: LA City Engineering District. The boundaries are displayed in the Engineering Districts index map. Values: • O - Out LA. • V - Valley Engineering District. • W - West LA Engineering District. • H - Harbor Engineering District. • C - Central Engineering District.C_PIPE_LEN: This is the calculated pipe length.OWNER: This value is the agency or municipality that constructed the pipe. Values: • PVT - Private. • CTY - City of LA. • FED - Federal Facilities. • COSA - LA County Sanitation. • OUTLA - Adjoining cities.CRTN_DT: Creation date of the line feature.TRTMNT_LOC: This value is the treatment plant used to treat the pipe wastewater.PCT_ENTRY2: This is the flag determining if the second slope value, in SLOPE2 field, was entered in percent as opposed to a decimal. Values: • Y - The value is expressed as a percent. • N - The value is not expressed as a percent.UP_STA_100: This is the hundreds value of the upstream stationing.DN_MH: The value is the ID of the structure. This point is the structure that may be a maintenance hole, pump station, junction, etc. The field name DN_MH signifies the structure is the point at the downstream end of the pipe line segment. The field DN_MH is a key attribute to relate the pipe lines feature class to the STRUCTURE_ID field in the physical structures feature class.SAN_PIPE_IDUSER_ID: The name of the user carrying out the edits of the pipe data.WYE_MAT: This is the pipe material as shown on the wye card.WYE_DIAM: This is the pipe diameter as shown on the wye card.SLOPE2: This is the second slope value used for pipe segments with a vertical curve.EST_YR_LEV: This value is the year installed level.EST_MATL: This is the flag determining if the pipe material was estimated.LINER_DATE: This value is the year that the pipe was re-lined.LAST_UPDATE: Date of last update of the line feature.SHAPE: Feature geometry.EST_YEAR: This is the flag indicating if the year if installation was estimated.EST_UPINV: This is the flag determining if the pipe upstream elevation value was estimated.WYE_UPDATE: This value indicates whether the wye card was updated.PCT_ENTRY: This is the flag determining if the slope was entered in percent as opposed to a decimal. Values: • N - The value is not expressed as a percent. • Y - The value is expressed as a percent.PROF: This is the profile drawing number.PLAN1: This is the improvement plan drawing number.PLAN2: This is the supplementary improvement plan drawing number.EST_DNINV: This is the flag determining if the pipe downstream elevation value was estimated.UP_STRUCT: This attribute identifies a number at one of two end points of the line segment that represents a sewer pipe. A sewer pipe line has a value for the UP_STRUCT and DN_STRUCT fields. This point is the upstream structure that may be a maintenance hole, pump station, junction, etc. Each of these structures is assigned an identifying number that corresponds to a Sewer Wye data record. The 8 digit value is based on an S-Map index map

This layer uses point features to depict the various project locations under the Bureau of Mobile Source’s eMobility grant program. Each point simply shows the location or city that a project is operating in, either using a street address or the city’s central location. Most of the grantees were able to provide an address for their project, listing the lot or garage where their vehicles would be stored. These addresses were brought in and listed on a table, which was then geocoded into location data for each point. Unfortunately, other projects didn’t have a set lot or garage location, and therefore were listed as the city they were located in. These points were manually moved to the center of each city, on the label of the city. Each point location also features data on the project, including project type (carshare, rideshare, charging hub, etc), project address (if provided), zipcode, project status (confirmed, possible) and special notes.

Purpose: To acquire detailed surface elevation data for use in conservation planning, design, research, floodplain mapping, dam safety assessments and elevation modeling, etc. Classified LAS files are used to show the manually reviewed bare earth surface. This allows the user to create intensity images, breaklines and raster DEMs. The purpose of these LiDAR data was to produce high accuracy 3D hydro-flattened digital elevation models (DEMs) with a 1-meter cell size. These raw LiDAR point cloud data were used to create classified LiDAR LAS files, intensity images, 3D breaklines, and hydro-flattened DEMs as necessary.Product: These are Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data for Northern Maine as part of the required deliverables for the Crown of Maine 2018 QL2 LiDAR project. Class 2 (ground) lidar points in conjunction with the hydro breaklines were used to create a 1-meter hydro-flattened raster DEM.This lidar data set includes unclassified swath LAS 1.4 files, classified LAS 1.4 files, hydro and bridge breaklines, hydro-flattened digital elevation models (DEMs), and intensity imagery. Geographic Extent: 4 partial counties in Northern Maine, covering approximately 6,732 total square miles. Dataset Description: The Crown of Maine 2018 QL2 LiDAR project called for the planning, acquisition, processing, and derivative products of lidar data to be collected at a nominal pulse spacing (NPS) of 0.71 meters. Project specifications are based on the U.S. Geological Survey National Geospatial Program Base LiDAR Specification, Version 1.2. The data were developed based on a horizontal projection/datum of NAD 1983 (2011), UTM Zone 19, meters and vertical datum of NAVD 1988 (GEOID 12B), meters. LiDAR data were delivered as processed Classified LAS 1.4 files formatted to 8,056 individual 1,500-meter x 1,500-meter tiles, as tiled intensity imagery, and as tiled bare earth DEMs; all tiled to the same 1,500-meter x 1,500-meter schema. Continuous breaklines were produced in Esri file geodatabase format. Ground Conditions: LiDAR was collected in spring of 2018 and 2019, while no snow was on the ground and rivers were at or below normal levels. In order to post process the LiDAR data to meet task order specifications and meet ASPRS vertical accuracy guidelines, Quantum Spatial, Inc. utilized a total of 150 ground control points that were used to calibrate the LiDAR to known ground locations established throughout the project area. An additional 256 independent accuracy checkpoints, 149 in Bare Earth and Urban landcovers (149 NVA points), 107 in Tall Weeds categories (107 VVA points), were used to assess the vertical accuracy of the data. These checkpoints were not used to calibrate or post process the data.

Methods: This lidar derivative provides information about tree (and tall shrub) cover. The 3-foot resolution raster was produced from the 2020 Quality Level 1 classified lidar point cloud, which was provided by Sanborn Map Company, Inc. Tukman Geospatial developed the canopy cover raster from the classified point cloud using the following processing steps in LasTools:Create Tiles (lastile)Height Normalize the Point Cloud (lasheight)Set points classified as buildings to 0 heightThin the remaining points, taking the highest point in a 1.5 x 1.5 foot area (lasthin)Convert the thinned point cloud to a DEM (las2dem) Assign all pixels with values >= 15 feet to 1 (tree canopy), and all others to 0 (no tree canopy)The data was developed based on a horizontal projection/datum of NAD83 (2011).Lidar was collected in early 2020, while no snow was on the ground and rivers were at or below normal levels. To postprocess the lidar data to meet task order specifications and meet ASPRS vertical accuracy guidelines, Sanborn Map Company, Inc., utilized a total of 25 ground control points that were used to calibrate the lidar to known ground locations established throughout the project area.An additional 125 independent accuracy checkpoints, 70 in Bare Earth and Urban landcovers (70 NVA points), 55 in Tall Grass and Brushland/Low Trees categories (55 VVA points), were used to assess the vertical accuracy of the data. These check points were not used to calibrate or post process the data.Uses and Limitations:The canopy cover raster provides a raster of tree and shrub canopy greater than or equal to 15 feet in height. All pixels with any vegetation exceeding this height threshold have a pixel value of 1; all others have a 0. The layer is useful for myriad vegetation and forest-related analysis and is an important input to the automated processes used to develop the Santa Clara fine scale vegetation map. However, this data product was produced based on a rapid, fully automated point cloud classification and was not manually edited. As such, it may include some ‘false positives’ – pixels with a canopy height in the raster that aren’t vegetation. These false positives include noise from water aboveground non-vegetation returns from bridge decks, powerlines, and edges of buildings.Related Datasets:This dataset is part of a suite of lidar of derivatives for Santa Clara County. See table 1 for a list of all the derivatives. Table 1. lidar derivatives for Santa Clara CountyDatasetDescriptionLink to DataLink to DatasheetCanopy Height ModelPixel values represent the aboveground height of vegetation and trees.https://vegmap.press/clara_chmhttps://vegmap.press/clara_chm_datasheetCanopy Height Model – Veg Returns OnlySame as canopy height model, but does not include lidar returns labelled as ‘unclassified’ (uses only returns classified as vegetation)https://vegmap.press/clara_chm_veg_returnshttps://vegmap.press/clara_chm_veg_returns_datasheetCanopy CoverPixel values represent the presence or absence of tree canopy or vegetation greater than or equal to 15 feet tall.https://vegmap.press/clara_coverhttps://vegmap.press/clara_cover_datasheetCanopy Cover – Veg Returns OnlySame as canopy height model, but does not include lidar returns labelled as ‘unclassified’ (uses only returns classified as vegetation)https://vegmap.press/clara_cover_veg_returnshttps://vegmap.press/clara_cover_veg_returns_datasheet HillshadeThis depicts shaded relief based on the Hillshade. Hillshades are useful for visual reference when mapping features such as roads and drainages and for visualizing physical geography. https://vegmap.press/clara_hillshadehttps://vegmap.press/clara_hillshade_datasheetDigital Terrain ModelPixel values represent the elevation above sea level of the bare earth, with all above-ground features, such as trees and buildings, removed. The vertical datum is NAVD88 (GEOID18).https://vegmap.press/clara_dtmhttps://vegmap.press/clara_dtm_datasheetDigital Surface ModelPixel values represent the elevation above sea level of the highest surface, whether that surface for a given pixel is the bare earth, the top of vegetation, or the top of a building.https://vegmap.press/clara_dsmhttps://vegmap.press/clara_dsm_datasheet

OPEN Data View service. The Wildland Fire Risk Assessment project was developed by the National Park Service's Fire and Aviation Management program as a response to the devastating 2011 wildfire season. This project developed a consistent assessment method that has been applied to NPS units nationwide regardless of variations in climate, fuels, and topography.The assessment, based on Firewise® assessment forms, evaluates access, surrounding environment, construction design and materials, and resources available to protect facilities from wildland fire. The data collected during the assessment process can be used for:Identifying, planning, prioritizing and tracking fuels treatments at unit, regional and national levels, and Developing incident response plans for facilities and communities within NPS units.The original spatial data for the assessments comes from a variety of sources including the NPS Buildings Enterprise Dataset, WFDSS, NPMap Edits, manually digitized points using Esri basemaps as a reference at various scales, and GPS collection using a multitude of consumer and professional grade GPS devices. The facilities that have been assessed and assigned a facility risk rating have been ground-truthed and field verified. (In some rare occasions, facilities have been verified during remote assessments. Those that have been remotely assessed are marked as such). The resulting data is stored in a centralized geodatabase, and this publicly available feature layer allows the user to view that data.The NPS Facilities feature layer includes the following layers and related tables:Facility - A facility is defined by the NPS as an asset that the NPS desires to track and manage as a distinct identifiable entity. In the case of wildland fire risk assessments, a facility is most often a structure but in special instances, a park unit may wish to identify and assess other at-risk features such as a historic wooden bridge or an interpretive display. The facilities are assessed based on access, the surrounding environment, construction design, and protection resources and limitations, resulting in a numerical score and risk adjective rating for each facility. These ratings designate the likelihood of ignition during a wildland fire. The facilities are symbolized by their respective risk rating.Community - A community is a group of five or more facilities, a majority of which are within 600 feet of each other, that share common access and protection attributes. The community concept was developed to facilitate data collection and entry in areas with multiple facilities and where it made sense to apply treatments and tactics at a scale larger than individual facilities. Most of the community polygons are created using models in ArcMap, but some may have been created or edited in the field using a Trimble GPS unit. *The NPS Facilities layer is updated continually as new wildfire risk assessments are conducted and the Wildland Fire Risk Assessment project progresses. The assessment data contained here is the most current data available.*More information about the NPS Wildland Fire Risk Assessment Project, and the NPS Facilities data itself, can be found at the New Wildland Fire Risk Assessments website. This site provides information on the data collection process, additional ways to access the data, and how to conduct assessments yourself (for both NPS and non-NPS facilities).FACILITY ATTRIBUTES
Unit_ID NWCG Unit ID, Two letter state code and three letter unit abbreviation, for example UTZIP for Zion National Park in Utah.

Fire_Bldg_ID User maintained unique ID for Facility layer.

Building ID Unique Id from the NPS Enterprise Buildings dataset.

FMSS ID Unique ID for the facility in the NPS FMSS database.

Community ID Unique ID linking facility to a community

Assess Scale Indicates if the facility is part of a community/ will be included in a community assessment. Communities are pre-defined by regional GIS staff and visible in this map as a blue perimeter.
Answer "Yes" if you are adding a facility point within a predefined community.

Common Name Name of the structure. In most cases, the name comes from the NPS FMSS database.

Map Label Numerical label used for mapping purposes.

Owner Indicates who owns the structure being assessed.

Facilty Type Indicates the facility type OR if the facility has been REMOVED, DESTROYED, has NO WILDLAND RISK, is PRIVATE - NO SURVEY REQUIRED or DOES NOT REQUIRE A SURVEY (because it is planned for removal).

Facility Use What is the primary use of the facility?

Building Occupied Is the building occupied?

Community Name Name of the community the facility is located within, if any.

Field Crew Field crew completing the assessment.

Last Site Visit Date Date which the facility was visited and assessment data reviewed/updated.

Location General location within the unit – may use FMUs, watersheds, or other identifier. One location may contain multiple communities and individual facilities. Locations are used to filter data for reports and map products.

PrimaryAccess Primary method of accessing the facility.

IngressEgress Number of routes into and away from the facility.

AccessWidth Width of the road or driveway used to access the facility.

AccessCond Grade and surface material of the road or driveway used to access the facility.

BridgeCond Condition, based on load limits and construction.

Turnaround Describes how close can a fire apparatus drive to the facility and once there, whether it can turnaround.

BldgNum Is the facility clearly signed or numbered?

FuelLoad Fuel loading within 300 ft of the facility (see appendix D of the Wildfire Risk Assessment User Guide)

FuelType Predominant fuel type within 300 ft of the facility.

DefensibleSpace Amount of defensible space around the facility, see criteria for evaluating defensible space in the Wildfire Risk Assessment User Guide.

Topography Predominant slope within 300 ft of facility.

RoofMat Roofing material used on the facility.

SidingMat Siding material used on the facility.

Foundation Describes the facility’s foundation.

Fencing Indicates presence of any wooden attachments, fencing, decking, pergola, etc. and fuels clearance around those attachments.

Firewood Firewood distance from facility.

Propane Inidicates if a propane tank exists within 200 feet of a structure and if there is any fuels clearance around the propane tank(s).

Hazmat List of hazmat existing on the site.

WaterSupply Water supply available to the facility.

OverheadHaz Identifies the presence of overhead hazards that will limit aerial firefighting efforts.

SafetyZone Identifies the presence of any potential safety zones.

SZRadius Radius of any potential safety zones.

Obstacles Additional obstacles, not already included in assessment, that will limit firefighting efforts- to include items such as UXO, hazmat,etc. If there are additional obstacles, be sure to comment in Assessment Comments or Tactic descriptions where appropriate.

TriageCategory Refer to IRPG for descriptions of each category. This information will be displayed in the NIFS Structure Triage layer for incident response.

Score Sum of attribute values for all assessment elements including access, environment, structure and protection portions of the assessment.

Rating Wildland fire risk rating based on score. Ratings are No Wildland Risk, Low, Moderate and High. Rating indicates likelihood if facility igniting if a wildland fire occurs.

ProtectionLevel Inidcates structures which are priority for protection during a wildfire. For Alaska Region data, indicates identified protection level for structure. For lower 48, enter ‘Unknown’ unless specified by local unit.

ProtLevelApprovalName Name of person who designated Protection Level

ProtLevelApprovalDate Date Protection Level Designated

ResourcesOfConcern Indicates if it is necessary to contact park staff before engaging in suppression activities because special resources (natural, cultural, historic) of concern are present?

AssessComments Explain any aspects of the assessment that require extra detail.

RegionCode NPS Region Code - AKR, IMR, NER, NCR, MWR, PWR or SER

UnitCode

NPS Unit Code

ReasonIncluded Why is the point in the dataset – NPS owned, Treatment Planning, Protection Responsibility, Planning (other than treatments). Intent of the dataset is to document wildfire risk for NPS owned structures. Other structures or facilities may be included at the discretion of the unit's fire management staff.

Restriction How can the data be shared – Unrestricted, Restricted - No Third Party Release, Restricted – Originating Agency Concurrence, Restricted – Affected Cultural Group Concurrence, Restricted - No Release, Unknown. Only unrestricted data is included in this dataset.

Local_ID Field which can be used to store unique ids linking back to any local datasets.

RevisitInterval How many years will it take for the fuels to change significantly enough to change the score and rating for this facility?

IsVisited Use this field to keep track of what you have done during a field session. Filter on this field to see what has been assessed and what still needs visited during a field data collection session.

DeleteThis Users enter yes if this is this a duplicate or was no facility found.
If you know the facility was REMOVED or DESTROYED, go back to Facility Type and enter that information there.

Data_Source

FirewiseZone1 List of treatments needed to

Feature class that compares the elevations between sand dune crests (extracted from available LiDAR datasets from 2010 and 2013) with published FEMA Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) from preliminary FEMA DFIRMS (Panels issued in 2018 and 2019) in coastal York and Cumberland counties (up through Willard Beach in South Portland). Steps to create the dataset included:Shoreline structures from the most recent NOAA EVI LANDWARD_SHORETYPE feature class were extracted using the boundaries of York and Cumberland counties. This included 1B: Exposed, Solid Man-Made structures, 8B: Sheltered, Solid Man-Made Structures; 6B: Riprap, and 8C: Sheltered Riprap. This resulted in the creation of Cumberland_ESIL_Structures and York_ESIL_Structures. Note that ESIL uses the MHW line as the feature base.Shoreline structures from the work by Rice (2015) were extracted using the York and Cumberland county boundaries. This resulted in the creation of Cumberland_Rice_Structures and York_Rice_Structures.Additional feature classes for structures were created for York and Cumberland county structures that were missed. This was Slovinsky_York_Structures and Slovinsky_Cumberland_Structures. GoogleEarth imagery was inspected while additional structures were being added to the GIS. 2012 York and Cumberland County imagery was used as the basemap, and structures were classified as bulkheads, rip rap, or dunes (if known). Also, whether or not the structure was in contact with the 2015 HAT was noted.MEDEP was consulted to determine which permit data (both PBR and Individual Permit, IP, data) could be used to help determine where shoreline stabilization projects may have been conducted adjacent to or on coastal bluffs. A file was received for IP data and brought into GIS (DEP_Licensing_Points). This is a point file for shoreline stabilization permits under NRPA.Clip GISVIEW.MEDEP.Permit_By_Rule_Locations to the boundaries of the study area and output DEP_PBR_Points.Join GISVIEW.sde>GISVIEW.MEDEP.PBR_ACTIVITY to the DEP_PBR_Points using the PBR_ID Field. Then, export this file as DEP_PBR_Points2. Using the new ACTIVITY_DESC field, select only those activities that relate to shoreline stabilization projects:PBR_ACTIVITY ACTIVITY_DESC02 Act. Adjacent to a Protected Natural Resource04 Maint Repair & Replacement of Structure08 Shoreline StabilizationSelect by Attributes > PBR_ACTIVITY IN (‘02’, ‘04’, ‘08’) select only those activities likely to be related to shoreline stabilization, and export the selected data as a DEP_PBR_Points3. Then delete 1 and 2, and rename this final product as DEP_PBR_Points.Next, visually inspect the Licensing and PBR files using ArcMap 2012, 2013 imagery, along with Google Earth imagery to determine the extents of armoring along the shoreline.Using EVI and Rice data as indicators, manually inspect and digitize sections of the coastline that are armored. Classify the seaward shoreline type (beach, mudflat, channel, dune, etc.) and the armor type (wall or bulkhead). Bring in the HAT line and, using that and visual indicators, identify whether or not the armored sections are in contact with HAT. Use Google Earth at the same time as digitizing in order to help constrain areas. Merge digitized armoring into Cumberland_York_Merged.Bring the preliminary FEMA DFIRM data in and use “intersect” to assign the different flood zones and elevations to the digitized armored sections. This was done first for Cumberland, then for York Counties. Delete ancillary attributes, as needed. Resulting layer is Cumberland_Structure_FloodZones and York_Structure_FloodZones.Go to NOAA Digital Coast Data Layers and download newest LiDAR data for York and Cumberland county beach, dune, and just inland areas. This includes 2006 and newer topobathy data available from 2010 (entire coast), and selected areas from 2013 and 2014 (Wells, Scarborough, Kennebunk).Mosaic the 2006, 2010, 2013 and 2014 data (with 2013 and 2014 being the first dataset laying on top of the 2010 data) Mosaic this dataset into the sacobaydem_ftNAVD raster (this is from the MEGIS bare-earth model). This will cover almost all of the study area except for armor along several areas in York. Resulting in LidAR206_2010_2013_Mosaic.tif.Using the LiDAR data as a proxy, create a “seaward crest” line feature class which follows along the coast and extracts the approximate highest point (cliff, bank, dune) along the shoreline. This will be used to extract LiDAR data and compare with preliminary flood zone information. The line is called Dune_Crest.Using an added tool Points Along Line, create points at 5 m spacing along each of the armored shoreline feature lines and the dune crest lines. Call the outputs PointsonLines and PointsonDunes.Using Spatial Analyst, Extract LIDAR elevations to the points using the 2006_2010_2013 Mosaic first. Call this LidarPointsonLines1. Select those points which have NULL values, export as this LiDARPointsonLines2. Then rerun Extract Values to Points using just the selected data and the state MEGIS DEM. Convert RASTERVALU to feet by multiplying by 3.2808 (and rename as Elev_ft). Select by Attributes, find all NULL values, and in an edit session, delete them from LiDARPointsonLines. Then, merge the 2 datasets and call it LidarPointsonLines. Do the same above with dune lines and create LidarPointsonDunes.Next, use the Cumberland and York flood zone layers to intersect the points with the appropriate flood zone data. Create ….CumbFIRM and …YorkFIRM files for the dunes and lines.Select those points from the Dunes feature class that are within the X zone – these will NOT have an associated BFE for comparison with the Lidar data. Export the Dune Points as Cumberland_York_Dunes_XZone. Run NEAR and use the merged flood zone feature class (with only V, AE, and AO zones selected). Then, join the flood zone data to the feature class using FID (from the feature class) and OBJECTID (from the flood zone feature class). Export as Cumberland_York_Dunes_XZone_Flood. Delete ancillary columns of data, leaving the original FLD_ZONE (X), Elev_ft, NEAR_DIST (distance, in m, to the nearest flood zone), FLD_ZONE_1 (the near flood zone), and the STATIC_BFE_1 (the nearest static BFE).Do the same as above, except with the Structures file (Cumberland_York_Structures_Lidar_DFIRM_Merged), but also select those features that are within the X zone and the OPEN WATER. Export the points as Cumberland_York_Structures_XZone. Again, run the NEAR using the merged flood zone and only AE, VE, and AO zones selected. Export the file as Cumberland_York_Structures_XZone_Flood.Merge the above feature classes with the original feature classes. Add a field BFE_ELEV_COMPARE. Select all those features whose attributes have a VE or AE flood zone and use field calculator to calculate the difference between the Elev_ft and the BFE (subtracting the STATIC_BFE from Elev_ft). Positive values mean the maximum wall value is higher than the BFE, while negative values mean the max is below the BFE. Then, select the remaining values with switch selection. Calculate the same value but use the NEAR_STATIC_BFE value instead. Select by Attributes>FLD_ZONE=AO, and use the DEPTH value to enter into the above created fields as negative values. Delete ancilary attribute fields, leaving those listed in the _FINAL feature classes described above the process steps section.