The 2023 cartographic boundary shapefiles are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. A tribal block group is a cluster of census tabulation blocks within a single tribal census tract delineated by American Indian tribal participants or the Census Bureau for the purpose of presenting demographic data on their reservation and/or off-reservation trust land. The tribal block groups are defined independently of the standard county-based block group delineation. For federally recognized American Indian Tribes with reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands with a population less than 1,200, a single tribal block group is defined. Qualifying reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands with a population greater than 1,200 could define additional tribal block groups within their area without regard to the standard block group configuration. Tribal block groups do not necessarily contain tabulation blocks always beginning with the same number and could contain seemingly duplicate block numbers. Tabulation block numbers are still assigned by using standard block groups, not the tribal block groups. To better identify tribal block groups, the letter code range A through K (except I, which could be confused with a number 1) is used uniquely within each tribal census tract. The generalized boundaries of tribal block groups are based on those delineated through the Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census.

Federal (federal AIRs) are areas that have been set aside by the United States for the use of tribes, the exterior boundaries of which are more particularly defined in the final tribal treaties, agreements, executive orders, federal statutes, secretarial orders, or judicial determinations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs maintains a list of all federally recognized tribal governments and makes final determination of the inventory federal AIRs. The Census Bureau recognizes federal reservations (and associated off-reservation trust lands) as territory over which American Indian tribes have primary governmental authority. American Indian reservations can be legally described as colonies, communities, Indian colonies, Indian communities, Indian rancheria, Indian reservations, Indian villages, pueblos, rancherias, ranches, reservations, reserves, settlements, or villages. The Census Bureau contacts representatives of American Indian tribal governments to identify the boundaries for federal reservations through its annual Boundary and Annexation Survey. Federal reservations may cross state and all other area boundaries.State (state AIRs) are reservations established by some state governments for tribes recognized by the state. A governor-appointed state liaison provides the names and boundaries for state-recognized American Indian reservations to the Census Bureau. State reservations must be defined within a single state, but may cross county and other types of boundaries. To further identify and differentiate state-recognized American Indian areas from those that are federally recognized, the text, "(state)" is appended to the AIR name.Off-Reservation Trust Lands are areas for which the United States holds title in trust for the benefit of a tribe (tribal trust land) or for an individual American Indian (individual trust land). Trust lands can be alienated or encumbered only by the owner with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior or his/her authorized representative. Trust lands may be located on or off a reservation; however, the Census Bureau tabulates data only for off-reservation trust lands with the off-reservation trust lands always associated with a specific federally recognized reservation and/or tribal government. As for federally recognized reservations, the Census Bureau obtains the boundaries of off-reservation trust lands from American Indian tribal governments through its annual Boundary and Annexation Survey. The Census Bureau recognizes and tabulates data for reservations and off-reservation trust lands because American Indian tribes have primary governmental authority over these lands. The Census Bureau does not identify fee land (or land in fee simple status) or restricted fee lands as specific geographic areas.For More Information go to: https://tigerweb.geo.census.gov/tigerwebmain/TIGERweb_geography_details.html

The 2023 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. A tribal census tract is a relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a federally recognized American Indian reservation and/or off-reservation trust land, delineated by the American Indian tribal government and/or the Census Bureau for the purpose of presenting demographic data. For the 2010 Census and beyond, tribal census tracts are defined independently of the standard county-based census tract delineation. For federally recognized American Indian Tribes with reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands with a population less than 2,400, a single tribal census tract is defined. Qualifying areas with a population greater than 2,400 could define additional tribal census tracts within their area. The tribal census tract codes for the 2020 Census are six characters long with a leading "T" alphabetic character followed by a five-digit numeric code, for example, T01000, which translates as tribal census tract 10. Tribal block groups nest within tribal census tracts. Since individual tabulation blocks are defined within the standard State-county-census tract geographic hierarchy, a tribal census tract can contain seemingly duplicate block numbers, thus tribal census tracts cannot be used to uniquely identify census tabulation blocks for the 2020 Census. The generalized boundaries of tribal census tracts are based on those delineated through the Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census.

The 2020 cartographic boundary shapefiles are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files.

A tribal block group is a cluster of census tabulation blocks within a single tribal census tract delineated by American Indian tribal participants or the Census Bureau for the purpose of presenting demographic data on their reservation and/or off-reservation trust land. The tribal block groups are defined independently of the standard county-based block group delineation. For federally recognized American Indian Tribes with reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands with a population less than 1,200, a single tribal block group is defined. Qualifying reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands with a population greater than 1,200 could define additional tribal block groups within their area without regard to the standard block group configuration. Tribal block groups do not necessarily contain tabulation blocks always beginning with the same number and could contain seemingly duplicate block numbers. Tabulation block numbers are still assigned by using standard block groups, not the tribal block groups. To better identify tribal block groups, the letter code range A through K (except I, which could be confused with a number 1) is used uniquely within each tribal census tract.

The generalized boundaries of tribal block groups are based on those delineated through the Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census.

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 Natural Resource Management (NRM) Regions dataset was prepared for the purpose of reporting on the Australian Government's previous natural resource management program, Caring for our Country (2008-2013). The dataset was designed to cover all Australian territory where Caring for our Country projects might have taken place including major islands; external territories; state and coastal waters; in addition to the 56 NRM regions. This version of the data is an update and formalisation of the 'interim 2010' dataset (which was an interim update of the NRM Regions 2009 dataset- publicly released in Feb 09). Whilst the boundaries of NRM Regions are defined by legislation in some states and territories this dataset should not be used to represent legal boundaries in any way. It is an administrative dataset developed for the purpose of reporting and public information. It should be noted that from time to time the states and/or territories may revise their regional boundaries in accordance with local needs and therefore alterations to either the attribution or boundaries of the data may occur in the future. 'Caring for our Country commenced on 1 July 2008 and closed on 30 June 2013. It integrated delivery of the Australian Government's previous natural resource management programs: the Natural Heritage Trust, the National Landcare Program, the Environmental Stewardship Program and the Working on Country Indigenous land and sea ranger program. This is an administrative dataset developed for the purpose of reporting and public information. The dataset is not a legal boundary dataset and does not represent legal boundaries in any way.

Purpose

Whilst the boundaries of NRM Regions are defined by legislation in some states and territories this dataset should not be used to represent legal boundaries in any way. It is an administrative dataset developed for the purpose of reporting and public information. It should be noted that from time to time the states and/or territories may revise their regional boundaries in accordance with local needs and therefore alterations to either the attribution or boundaries of the data may occur in the future.

This is an administrative dataset developed for the purpose of reporting and public information. The dataset is not a legal boundary dataset and does not represent legal boundaries in any way.

Dataset History

Downloadable through ERIN/SEWPAC's Discover Information Geographically portal.

The base layer for this dataset is the Natural Resource Management (NRM) Region Boundaries (formerly known as Natural Heritage Trust II (NHT2) Region Boundaries (2006)). This base layer was reviewed and built on to develop the NRM Regions 2009 dataset. The main changes to the data at that time included: updates to the internal boundaries within WA and Qld; the seaward extent of coastal regions being extended to the 3 Nm coastal waters limit for all States and the Northern Territory; the inclusion of more offshore islands (and coastal waters); and, the addition of external territories and their 12 Nm territories sea.

The base layer previously included an offshore component for regions in SA, TAS and QLD. Offshore components for the other States and the Northern Territories were created using Geoscience Australia's AMB 2006 coastal waters data. Mainland region boundaries were checked with all state and territory agencies resulting in changes to the internal mainland boundaries for QLD and WA. The amended boundaries were sourced from the relevant agency from these States.

Geoscience Australia's Geodata Coast 100K 2004 dataset was used for mainland state/territory borders. The AMB 2006 data was used to define the offshore boundaries between the States and the Northern Territory. Offshore boundaries between NRM Regions within a State were produced by extending region boundaries at 90 degrees to the state 100k coastline unless otherwise requested by state or territory agencies. VIC and NSW each have unique offshore NRM divisions in the regions of Port Phillip and Western Port (VIC) and Hawkesbury-Nepean (NSW) which are described below.

The coastline has been removed from the data in line with the decision to extend all coastal NRM Regions to the outer limit of the adjacent coastal waters. It should be noted that the removal of the coastline means that islands lying within the outer limit of the Coastal Waters adjacent to the mainland are no longer depicted as separate features in the data. For example the many islands in Shark Bay WA are not displayed as separate entities in this dataset as they fall within the expanded (marine) extent of the Rangelands NRM Region in the new dataset.

Not all coastal waters for the States and/or the Northern Territory have been included in the data. The primary consideration was whether land based activities might affect the adjacent waters. For the purpose of this dataset coastal waters adjacent to the mainland and islands contained in the Geodata Coast 100K dataset are included in the data. Significant islands include Macquarie Island (Tas) and Lord Howe Island (NSW).

Australia's External Territories (Heard and McDonald Islands, Cocos Keeling Islands, Christmas Island, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, and Norfolk Islands) are included in this version of the data. The reporting region for these islands is the area within the outer limit of the 12 Nm Territorial Sea adjacent to each of these External Territories as sourced from the AMB 2006 data.

Specific issues for each State are described below:

NSW - Jervis Bay was added to the Southern Rivers NRM region after consultation with the Australian Government Land and Coasts NSW Team. Lord Howe Island was added to the NSW dataset as a part of the Northern Rivers NRM Region. The NSW Catchment Management Authority (CMA) Hawkesbury-Nepean, provided the marine NRM divisions between theirs and Central-Rivers, identifying that their northern regional boundary bisects Lion Island.

VIC - The Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) provided a state NRM dataset for this update. Their boundaries matched the pre-existing NRM Region Boundaries dataset, except for one small area between East and West Gippsland. Victoria agreed to use the pre-existing NRM boundaries in this area.

Dataset Citation

Geoscience Australia (2013) Natural Resource Management (NRM) Regions 2010. Bioregional Assessment Source Dataset. Viewed 13 March 2019, http://data.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/dataset/1d54e38f-4051-4f0c-a350-c7dbd8eba65b.

The 2022 cartographic boundary shapefiles are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. A tribal census tract is a relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a federally recognized American Indian reservation and/or off-reservation trust land, delineated by the American Indian tribal government and/or the Census Bureau for the purpose of presenting demographic data. For the 2010 Census and beyond, tribal census tracts are defined independently of the standard county-based census tract delineation. For federally recognized American Indian Tribes with reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands with a population less than 2,400, a single tribal census tract is defined. Qualifying areas with a population greater than 2,400 could define additional tribal census tracts within their area. The tribal census tract codes for the 2020 Census are six characters long with a leading "T" alphabetic character followed by a five-digit numeric code, for example, T01000, which translates as tribal census tract 10. Tribal block groups nest within tribal census tracts. Since individual tabulation blocks are defined within the standard State-county-census tract geographic hierarchy, a tribal census tract can contain seemingly duplicate block numbers, thus tribal census tracts cannot be used to uniquely identify census tabulation blocks for the 2020 Census. The generalized boundaries of tribal census tracts are based on those delineated through the Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census.

Recent research has called for a more comprehensive approach to natural resource management that balances social, ecological, and economic obligations. Within this framework, this 2004 study examines the public's trust as a measure of managerial success, and attempts to identify and measure the components that most influence it. A review of trust literature yielded 14 attributes that were hypothesized to contribute to trust, in three dimensions. Based on this review, a telephone survey was developed and administered in the summer of 2004 to a sample of Montana residents in Ravalli county, living adjacent to the Bitterroot National Forest (N=1152). This data publication contains the 2004 survey results with a weighting variable based upon the distribution of the sample across the study area.Following the severe forest fires in Western Montana in 2000, the Bitterroot National Forest commissioned a social survey to help gain a representative understanding of how residents of Ravalli County, Montana viewed the Bitterroot National Forest, and how they preferred it to be managed. One proposition that arose from responses to the survey was that some Bitterroot residents had a lack of trust in the USDA Forest Service. It was not clear how pervasive this lack of trust was, nor what it was limited in scope to. In order to gain insight into the causes and consequences of a lack of trust, as well as to gain a more thorough understanding of the extent of Ravalli County residents' trust in the Bitterroot National Forest, a study was initiated in 2004. Throughout 2005 and 2006, the data from that study served various purposes for interpretation: to evaluate levels of trust, fire and fuel management practices, and for general knowledge on individual-government relations. All analytical documents are based on the same data set, but the methods, results, and discussion are distinctly different.

The National Conservation Lands Database contains data on the location and nature of private lands protected and/or managed for conservation purposes in Australia. This data set was created as part of a collaborative project between the data contributors and the Australian Government. The project was governed by a Steering Committee with representatives from five of the nine data contributors listed below. These acronyms are used in the remainder of the data. The program that contributed the data is described in the Completeness section of the metadata.DEC: Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation DECCW: New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and WaterDEH: South Australia Department of Environment and Heritage - now the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and Natural ResourcesDERM: Queensland Department of Environment and Resource ManagementDPIPWE: Tasmania Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and EnvironmentNCT: New South Wales Nature Conservation Trusts Covenanting program NRETAS: Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport Covenanting ProgramNTA WA: The National Trust of Australia (WA) TFN: Trust For Nature (Victoria) This 2009 (first) version of the database includes the majority of high security mechanisms operating on private land in Australia, where conservation is the sole or key objective. The data set contains all agreements from the inception of the program through which they were delivered to (and including) those established on the 30 June 2009. The department intends to annually update the database.The database contains:- an NCLD_DESC table - that contains descriptions of each agreement- an NCLD_POLY feature class - that contains all the agreement polygons- a NCLD_LABEL layer - that contains one point for each agreement that fits within an agreement polygon- a NCLD_OVERLAP_POLY feature class -that contains all agreement polygons that overlapped higher level agreement polygons. This is explained below.The polygons in this data set represent the land subject to private land conservation agreements. Each agreement is uniquely identified by AGREMT_ID. There are two polygon layers associated with the database. The principle layer is called the NCLD_POLY feature class and contains polygons of the location of the agreements. Where there are overlapping agreements, the most secure agreement is represented in the polygon layer and those agreements that were of lower security and overlapped, have been removed from the agreement polygon layer and stored in the NCLD_OVERLAP_POLY feature class. The NCLD_POLY feature class and the NCLD_OVERLAP_POLY feature class attribute table that the AGREMT_ID and few other fields. The descriptive details of each agreement are stored in the NCLD_DESC table including the GIS_AREA for the convenience of calculating statistics. This text table can be linked to the polygon layers for GIS analysis. The attributes of the NCLD_DESC table are described in the Attribute Accuracy section of this metadata. Many of the attributes are the same as those used in the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database .In order to facilitate topology checking and analysis the NCLD_POLY feature class does not contain overlapping polygons. Overlapping agreements do occur in practice, where there is more than one agreement legally still in place at a time. To capture this information the polygon data has been processed to represent the highest security agreement at any one location in the agreements polygon layer. Agreements that are completely displaced by a higher security agreement have the value in the OVERLAP field in the text table, a GIS_AREA of 0 (zero) and the entire polygon represented only in the NCLD_OVERLAP_POLY feature class. Agreements that are only partially displaced have the displaced portion of the polygon(s) in the NCLD_OVERLAP_POLY feature class. In the agreements text table the partially displaced agreements will have the reduced value in the OVERLAP field and a GIS_AREA is the area of the remaining polygon in the NCLD_POLY feature class.All the overlaps in this version of the database occurred within the DECCW agreements. A hierarchy of highest to lower level agreements was decided in collaboration with DECCW. TYPE = Conservation Agreements were agreed to have the highest protection value, being in perpetuity, registered on title and as the agreement contains a broader range of conservation measures. TYPE = Registered property agreements were ranked the middle security level as these were registered on title and the agreements had more restricted conservation scope. The lowest level agreements were considered to be TYPE = Wildlife Refuge, as these were not registered on title and of an indefinite term and contained the lowest level of restrictions on activities and conservation measures that had to be adopted as part of the agreement compared to the other two types.The way that agreements were mapped differed between authorities and agreement types. Some types only mapped the high conservation value portion of a land parcel whereas others mapped the entire title or property or nearly the whole title and subdivided into zones with one a conservation or protected zone. For example a WA Department of Environment and Conservation Covenant does not have any zones and only covers the conservation or protected area. In contrast, a Trust for Nature Victoria Conservation Covenant is subdivided into three zones; Modified Land, Domestic Area and Protected Area.Programs that map only the high conservation value portion of a land parcel are those that have AUTHORITY of DEC, NCT, DEH, DPIPWE (most agreements) and DECCW (where TYPE is Conservation Agreement or Registered Property Agreement). In the case of AUTHORITY = NTA WA AND TYPE = National Trust Covenants the entire property is mapped and subdivided into farmland and bushland zones. In the case AUTHORITY = DECCW AND TYPE = Wildlife Refuge , the whole title was mapped (the high conservation value area is delineated on a map filed with the agreement -but not mapped in their spatial database). DERM and VIC TFN map either the entire property or part of the property and use zones to differentiate between the conservation area and areas where less restricted activity can take place. Examples of DERM Nature Refuge zone types are conservation, domestic, infrastructure, agriculture, restoration. A few DPIPWE Conservation Covenants contain zones. This data set only maps the area of the whole agreement, and does not delineate zones. Therefore although the area of the conservation part of the agreement could be the same between a DEC agreement and a NTA WA agreement, the GIS_AREA will be higher for the NTA WA agreement that also includes farmland. GIS_AREA will be higher for programs that map a larger area in addition to the high conservation value area.NOTE: This item refers to a dataset with restricted access. The related metadata is available for download as a Word document as necessary. Additional information about this dataset or requests for access to the data should be directed to geospatial@dcceew.gov.au

This is a map of trails in Pennypack Park, Lorimer Park and Pennypack Trust located in Northeast Philadelphia and Montgomery County, PA. Trails were identified and collected using common GPS watches (Garmin, Polar, etc) GPX data and verifying trails visually using high res aerial imagery to accurately adjust to trails.

The 2023 cartographic boundary shapefiles are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. A tribal census tract is a relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a federally recognized American Indian reservation and/or off-reservation trust land, delineated by the American Indian tribal government and/or the Census Bureau for the purpose of presenting demographic data. For the 2010 Census and beyond, tribal census tracts are defined independently of the standard county-based census tract delineation. For federally recognized American Indian Tribes with reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands with a population less than 2,400, a single tribal census tract is defined. Qualifying areas with a population greater than 2,400 could define additional tribal census tracts within their area. The tribal census tract codes for the 2020 Census are six characters long with a leading "T" alphabetic character followed by a five-digit numeric code, for example, T01000, which translates as tribal census tract 10. Tribal block groups nest within tribal census tracts. Since individual tabulation blocks are defined within the standard State-county-census tract geographic hierarchy, a tribal census tract can contain seemingly duplicate block numbers, thus tribal census tracts cannot be used to uniquely identify census tabulation blocks for the 2020 Census. The generalized boundaries of tribal census tracts are based on those delineated through the Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census.

Abstract

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

Abstract: The Biodiversity Investment Opportunities Map (BIO Map) is a key deliverable of the NSW Government's $40 million Green Corridors program, a Government priority action identified in NSW 2021: A Plan to make NSW number one. The map was prepared with funding provided by the NSW Environmental Trust. The Illawarra BIO Map covers a 112,942-hectare area defined by the Kiama, Shellharbour and Wollongong Local Government Areas. This includes the Illawarra coastal plain and escarpment, and the eastern parts of the sandstone plateau to the west. Each of these landscapes provides a diversity of vegetation types, habitats and landforms, which combined make the region rich in overall biodiversity values. Mapping criteria were used to identify and map priority investment areas, and targeted stakeholder consultation was conducted to inform the outputs of the project. Stakeholders consulted included nine state government authorities, four local councils and six non-government organisations. The priority investment areas comprise of biodiversity core areas and a network of state and regional biodiversity corridors within the Illawarra region. The total area represented within the mapped priority investment areas is 66,827 hectares, comprising 13,980 hectares of core area and 52,847 hectares of corridors. This represents about 59 per cent of the Illawarra region. The BIO Map project aims to achieve better biodiversity outcomes by directing biodiversity investment funding to the strategic locations of greatest benefit. A landholder's right to carry out agricultural and developmental activities on their land are not altered by their property being identified as a priority investment area on the BIO Map. The BIO Map identifies areas where landowners have more opportunities to receive funding to protect their bushland. Any involvement by a landowner in such programs is entirely voluntary. Report Title: Biodiversity Investment Opportunities Map Mapping Priority Investment Areas for the Illawarra Region

Dataset History

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

Lineage: Lineage: Core areas are areas of native vegetation and habitat where management will be of greatest benefit to the conservation of state and regional biodiversity values within a region. Combined with state and regional corridors, the areas are termed Priority Investment Areas (PIAs) PIAs were mapped from a combination of existing and established data and from new data layers created specifically for the project. To identify core areas, a seamless vegetation layer was made from 20 separate fine-scale vegetation maps. Vegetation types were then assigned to a single, state-wide classification (i.e. Plant Community Type) and to Threatened Ecological Communities listed in NSW. Core areas were defined as contiguous patches (separated by 30 metres or less) of Threatened Ecological Communities greater than 10 hectares in size. Threatened ecological communities were identified by mapping the associations of PCTs with the NSW Scientific Committee determinations of threatened communities. Land was removed from core areas in cases where it was deemed likely to be affected by development; this included land zoned for urban land uses or areas where land-use intensification or fragmentation was likely. As a general rule, land zoned residential (e.g. R1 to R4 under a standard LEP, or equivalent), industrial (e.g. IN1 to IN4) or business (e.g. B1 to B7) was removed from core areas. Zoning data were obtained from LEPs in force throughout the study area. After stakeholder consultation and feedback, these areas were then refined into fine-scale boundaries based on either property or vegetation boundaries. The boundaries identified focused on capturing entire patches of the vegetation type identified, not just the amount needed to meet the minimum representation target. Therefore, the areas of some vegetation types significantly exceeded their targets. Targeted stakeholder consultation informed and improved the outputs of the project. Nine state government authorities, four local councils and six non-government organisations were engaged to comment on the draft map. Suggestions from stakeholders were assessed against the mapping criteria and (where appropriate) were incorporated into the final BIO Map. Six core areas added to, or expanded, on the basis of stakeholder feedback and the incorporation of more accurate local information. The total area represented within the mapped PIAs is 66 827 hectares, comprising 13 980 hectares of core area and 52 847 hectares of corridors. This represents about 59% of the Illawarra region. Positional accuracy: Digitising was conducted at a scale of approximately 1:10,000-1:15,000. Attribute accuracy: All attributes have been checked. Completeness: The layer is complete. The layer will require periodic updating to account for any clearing or vegtetation change resulting from future landuse activites.

Dataset Citation

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (2015) Illawarra Region BIO Map Corridors 20150430. Bioregional Assessment Source Dataset. Viewed 18 June 2018, http://data.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/dataset/edd25bee-de70-47ba-a3af-b6f08846fdfa.

Legally defined Regional District polygons were drawn from metes and bounds descriptions as written in Letters Patent for Regional Districts in the province of British Columbia. In the event of a discrepancy in the data, the metes and bounds description will prevail. Although the boundaries were drawn based on the legal metes and bounds descriptions, they may differ from how regional districts and their member municipalities and electoral areas currently view and/or manage their boundaries. Where discrepancies are noted, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (the custodian) enters into discussion with the local governments whose boundaries are affected. In order to effect a change to the boundary, Cabinet approval is required. This is done through an Order in Council (OIC). While discrepancies to administrative boundaries are being resolved, boundaries may be adjusted on an ongoing basis until the requested changes are completed. The OIC_YEAR and OIC_NUMBER fields indicate the year that the boundary was passed under OIC and its associated number. The AFFECTED_ADMIN_AREA_ABRVN identifies the administrative areas that are affected by the OIC. Please note that the Northern Rockies Regional Municipality appears to be a gap in the Regional District layer, but it is a municipality and can be found in the Municipalities Layer. A polygon dataset that includes all of the administrative areas currently in the Administrative Boundaries Management System (ABMS) is available here. A complimentary point dataset that defines the administrative areas is also available available here. Other individual datasets are available from the following records: https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/electoral-areas-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/province-of-british-columbia-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/islands-trust-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/local-trust-areas-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc

NOTE: A more current version of the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is available: PAD-US 3.0 https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B. 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 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, 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 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 over twenty-five attributes and five feature classes representing the U.S. protected areas network in separate feature classes: Fee (ownership parcels), Designation, Easement, Marine, Proclamation and Other Planning Boundaries. Five additional feature classes include various combinations of the primary layers (for example, Combined_Fee_Easement) to support data management, queries, web mapping services, and analyses. This PAD-US Version 2.1 dataset includes a variety of updates and new data from the previous Version 2.0 dataset (USGS, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5066/P955KPLE ), achieving the primary goal to "Complete the PAD-US Inventory by 2020" (https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/pad-us-vision) by addressing known data gaps with newly available data. 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 PAD-US, along with continued improvements and regular maintenance of the federal theme. Completing the PAD-US Inventory: 1) Integration of over 75,000 city parks in all 50 States (and the District of Columbia) from The Trust for Public Land's (TPL) ParkServe data development initiative (https://parkserve.tpl.org/) added nearly 2.7 million acres of protected area and significantly reduced the primary known data gap in previous PAD-US versions (local government lands). 2) First-time integration of the Census American Indian/Alaskan Native Areas (AIA) dataset (https://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2019/AIANNH) representing the boundaries for federally recognized American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust lands across the nation (as of January 1, 2020, as reported by the federally recognized tribal governments through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey) addressed another major PAD-US data gap. 3) Aggregation of nearly 5,000 protected areas owned by local land trusts in 13 states, aggregated by Ducks Unlimited through data calls for easements to update the National Conservation Easement Database (https://www.conservationeasement.us/), increased PAD-US protected areas by over 350,000 acres. Maintaining regular Federal updates: 1) Major update of the Federal estate (fee ownership parcels, easement interest, and management designations), including authoritative data from 8 agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Census Bureau (Census), 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), 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) Complete National Marine Protected Areas (MPA) update: from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) MPA Inventory, including conservation measure ('GAP Status Code', 'IUCN Category') review by NOAA; Other changes: 1) PAD-US field name change - The "Public Access" field name changed from 'Access' to 'Pub_Access' to avoid unintended scripting errors associated with the script command 'access'. 2) Additional field - The "Feature Class" (FeatClass) field was added to all layers within PAD-US 2.1 (only included in the "Combined" layers of PAD-US 2.0 to describe which feature class data originated from). 3) Categorical GAP Status Code default changes - National Monuments are categorically assigned GAP Status Code = 2 (previously GAP 3), in the absence of other information, to better represent biodiversity protection restrictions associated with the designation. The Bureau of Land Management Areas of Environmental Concern (ACECs) are categorically assigned GAP Status Code = 3 (previously GAP 2) as the areas are administratively protected, not permanent. More information is available upon request. 4) Agency Name (FWS) geodatabase domain description changed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (previously U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). 5) Select areas in the provisional PAD-US 2.1 Proclamation feature class were removed following a consultation with the data-steward (Census Bureau). Tribal designated statistical areas are purely a geographic area for providing Census statistics with no land base. Most affected areas are relatively small; however, 4,341,120 acres and 37 records were removed in total. Contact Mason Croft (masoncroft@boisestate) for more information about how to identify these records. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, https://usgs.gov/gapanalysis/PAD-US/. For more information about data aggregation please review the Online PAD-US Data Manual available at https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/pad-us-data-manual .

Land Cover Map 2021 (LCM2021) is a suite of geospatial land cover datasets (raster and polygon) describing the UK land surface in 2021. These were produced at the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology by classifying satellite images from 2021. Land cover maps describe the physical material on the surface of the country. For example grassland, woodland, rivers & lakes or man-made structures such as roads and buildingsThis is a 10 m Classified Pixel dataset, classified to create a single mosaic of national cover. Provenance and quality:UKCEH’s automated land cover classification algorithms generated the 10m classified pixels. Training data were automatically selected from stable land covers over the interval of 2017 to 2019. A Random Forest classifier used these to classify four composite images representing per season median surface reflectance. Seasonal images were integrated with context layers (e.g., height, aspect, slope, coastal proximity, urban proximity and so forth) to reduce confusion among classes with similar spectra.Land cover was validated by organising the pixel classification into a land parcel framework (the LCM2021 Classified Land Parcels product). The classified land parcels were compared to known land cover producing confusion matrix to determine overall and per class accuracy.View full metadata information and download the data at catalogue.ceh.ac.uk

Blockchain in Network Security Management Market Outlook

The global market size for Blockchain in Network Security Management is projected to witness significant growth, with market size expanding from $2.46 billion in 2023 to an estimated $23.97 billion by 2032, reflecting a robust CAGR of 29.1%. Driving this remarkable growth are factors such as the increasing complexity of cyber threats, the rise in digital transformation initiatives across industries, and the growing adoption of blockchain technology for enhanced security protocols.

One of the primary growth factors for the Blockchain in Network Security Management market is the escalating frequency and sophistication of cyber-attacks. As cyber threats become more complex and pervasive, traditional security measures are increasingly inadequate, prompting organizations to seek more advanced and reliable security solutions. Blockchain technology, with its decentralized and immutable nature, provides a robust defense mechanism against data breaches, unauthorized access, and other security vulnerabilities. The integration of blockchain in network security management offers transparent and tamper-proof logs, which are critical for identifying and mitigating cyber threats effectively.

Another significant driver is the accelerating pace of digital transformation across various sectors. Businesses and institutions worldwide are adopting digital technologies to enhance operational efficiency, customer experience, and competitiveness. However, this digital shift also introduces new security challenges. Blockchain technology is emerging as a vital component in securing digital infrastructures, ensuring data integrity, and protecting sensitive information. As organizations continue to digitize their operations, the demand for blockchain-based security solutions is expected to surge, fueling market growth.

Moreover, regulatory compliance and data privacy concerns are compelling organizations to adopt blockchain in network security management. Regulatory frameworks such as GDPR, HIPAA, and CCPA mandate stringent data protection measures, and non-compliance can result in severe penalties. Blockchain's ability to provide secure and auditable records aligns with these regulatory requirements, making it an attractive solution for organizations seeking to comply with data protection laws. This regulatory push is anticipated to further drive the adoption of blockchain technology in network security management.

In the realm of cybersecurity, Zero-Trust Security has emerged as a pivotal strategy to counteract the rising tide of sophisticated cyber threats. Unlike traditional security models that operate on the assumption of trust within the network perimeter, Zero-Trust Security adopts a more rigorous approach by verifying every request as though it originates from an open network. This model is particularly relevant in today's digital landscape, where the proliferation of remote work and cloud computing has blurred the boundaries of traditional network perimeters. By integrating Zero-Trust principles with blockchain technology, organizations can establish a more resilient security framework that ensures continuous verification of user identities and access privileges, thereby significantly reducing the risk of unauthorized access and data breaches.

From a regional perspective, North America currently dominates the Blockchain in Network Security Management market, owing to the high concentration of technology companies, advanced IT infrastructure, and proactive cybersecurity measures. The region's strong focus on innovation and early adoption of emerging technologies positions it as a leader in this market. Additionally, Europe and Asia Pacific are expected to witness substantial growth, driven by increased investments in cybersecurity, growing awareness about blockchain technology, and supportive government initiatives aimed at enhancing national cyber resilience.

Component Analysis

The Blockchain in Network Security Management market is segmented by components into Software, Hardware, and Services. The software segment is expected to hold the largest market share, driven by the increasing development of blockchain-based security solutions. Software components include platforms and applications that enable secure communication, data protection, identity management, and transaction processing. These solutions are being rapidly adopted by organizations seeking to enhance their security posture

This dataset was updated April, 2024.

This ownership dataset was generated primarily from CPAD data, which already tracks the majority of ownership information in California. CPAD is utilized without any snapping or clipping to FRA/SRA/LRA. CPAD has some important data gaps, so additional data sources are used to supplement the CPAD data. Currently this includes the most currently available data from BIA, DOD, and FWS. Additional sources may be added in subsequent versions. Decision rules were developed to identify priority layers in areas of overlap.

Starting in 2022, the ownership dataset was compiled using a new methodology. Previous versions attempted to match federal ownership boundaries to the FRA footprint, and used a manual process for checking and tracking Federal ownership changes within the FRA, with CPAD ownership information only being used for SRA and LRA lands. The manual portion of that process was proving difficult to maintain, and the new method (described below) was developed in order to decrease the manual workload, and increase accountability by using an automated process by which any final ownership designation could be traced back to a specific dataset.

The current process for compiling the data sources includes:

* Clipping input datasets to the California boundary

* Filtering the FWS data on the Primary Interest field to exclude lands that are managed by but not owned by FWS (ex: Leases, Easements, etc)

* Supplementing the BIA Pacific Region Surface Trust lands data with the Western Region portion of the LAR dataset which extends into California.

* Filtering the BIA data on the Trust Status field to exclude areas that represent mineral rights only.

* Filtering the CPAD data on the Ownership Level field to exclude areas that are Privately owned (ex: HOAs)

* In the case of overlap, sources were prioritized as follows: FWS > BIA > CPAD > DOD

* As an exception to the above, DOD lands on FRA which overlapped with CPAD lands that were incorrectly coded as non-Federal were treated as an override, such that the DOD designation could win out over CPAD.

In addition to this ownership dataset, a supplemental _source dataset is available which designates the source that was used to determine the ownership in this dataset.

Data Sources:

* GreenInfo Network's California Protected Areas Database (CPAD2023a). https://www.calands.org/cpad/; https://www.calands.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CPAD-2023a-Database-Manual.pdf

* US Fish and Wildlife Service FWSInterest dataset (updated December, 2023). https://gis-fws.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/9c49bd03b8dc4b9188a8c84062792cff_0/explore

* Department of Defense Military Bases dataset (updated September 2023) https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/military-bases

* Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Region, Surface Trust and Pacific Region Office (PRO) land boundaries data (2023) via John Mosley John.Mosley@bia.gov

* Bureau of Indian Affairs, Land Area Representations (LAR) and BIA Regions datasets (updated Oct 2019) https://biamaps.doi.gov/bogs/datadownload.html

Data Gaps & Changes:

Known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. Additionally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the appropriate source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.

24_1: Input datasets this year included numerous changes since the previous version, particularly the CPAD and DOD inputs. Of particular note was the re-addition of Camp Pendleton to the DOD input dataset, which is reflected in this version of the ownership

Census tracts as of 2018."Census Tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or equivalent entity that are updated by local participants prior to each decennial census as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program. The Census Bureau delineates census tracts in situations where no local participant existed or where state, local, or tribal governments declined to participate. The primary purpose of census tracts is to provide a stable set of geographic units for the presentation of statistical data.Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. A census tract usually covers a contiguous area; however, the spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement. Census tract boundaries are delineated with the intention of being maintained over a long time so that statistical comparisons can be made from census to census. Census tracts occasionally are split due to population growth or merged as a result of substantial population decline.Census tract boundaries generally follow visible and identifiable features. They may follow nonvisible legal boundaries, such as minor civil division (MCD) or incorporated place boundaries in some states and situations, to allow for census-tract-to-governmental-unit relationships where the governmental boundaries tend to remain unchanged between censuses. State and county boundaries always are census tract boundaries in the standard census geographic hierarchy. Tribal census tracts are a unique geographic entity defined within federally recognized American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust lands and can cross state and county boundaries. Tribal census tracts may be completely different from the census tracts and block groups defined by state and county.Census Tract Codes and Numbers—Census tracts are identified by an up to four-digit integer number and may have an optional two-digit suffix; for example 1457.02 or 23. The census tract codes consist of six digits with an implied decimal between the fourth and fifth digit corresponding to the basic census tract number but with leading zeroes and trailing zeroes for census tracts without a suffix. The tract number examples above would have codes of 145702 and 002300, respectively."- US Census Bureau For information about US Census Bureau geographies, click here. USE CONSTRAINTS: The Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED) provides the data in this application as a service to the public. DCCED makes no warranty, representation, or guarantee as to the content, accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided on this site. DCCED shall not be liable to the user for damages of any kind arising out of the use of data or information provided. DCCED is not the authoritative source for American Community Survey data, and any data or information provided by DCCED is provided "as is". Data or information provided by DCCED shall be used and relied upon only at the user's sole risk.

The Nature Conservancy and Texas A&M AgriLife Extension completed the Green Stormwater Infrastructure for Urban Resilience: Opportunity Analysis for Dallas, Texas in collaboration with the City of Dallas and The Trust for Public Land, to identify areas in Dallas where green stormwater infrastructure can most effectively enhance urban flood management – considering capacity, cost, and future impacts of climate change. The focus was on evaluating opportunities where the existing drainage network may be limited, and likely to lead to areal flooding.The priority subwatersheds and GSI opportunity layers included here are outputs from modeling and spatial analysis, which have inherent limitations and uncertainties [1]. We share these layers to facilitate community, policy, and investment considerations, and recommend they be considered together with additional data, such as: City data on channel flooding, customer service calls and upcoming streets and parks projects; FEMA floodplain maps and Community Rating System scores; and data on water quality, equity and land use types available within The Trust for Public Land’s Smart Growth for Dallas tool [2]. Data from this analysis has been integrated into TPL’s Smart Growth for Dallas Decision Support Tool.

Priority Subwatersheds. These subwatersheds represent priority areas where GSI could improve stormwater drainage. These areas drain to stormwater network inlets that overflowed in study models* under a variety of rainfall events and indicate where the drainage network is undersized and likely to contribute to aerial flooding. These areas do not represent areal flood risk. (*modeled using EPA SWMM v 5.1.; see analysis sections 2.1-2.3 and 3.2).

Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Opportunity Areas, for the 100-year current conditions storm. The GSI opportunity areas identified are high level and focus on the three types of GSI systems included in the study: bioretention areas, rain gardens, and rainwater harvesting cisterns falling within priority subwatersheds for current conditions storms. Opportunities exist outside of these areas and for other types of GSI. Furthermore, additional detailed feasibility studies would be required for any potential site.

Legally defined Electoral Area polygons were drawn from metes and bounds descriptions as written in Letters Patent for Regional District Electoral Areas in the province of British Columbia. In the event of a discrepancy in the data, the metes and bounds description will prevail. Although the boundaries were drawn based on the legal metes and bounds descriptions, they may differ from how regional districts and their member municipalities and electoral areas currently view and/or manage their boundaries. Where discrepancies are noted, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (the custodian) enters into discussion with the local governments whose boundaries are affected. In order to effect a change to the boundary, Cabinet approval is required. This is done through an Order in Council (OIC). While discrepancies to administrative boundaries are being resolved, boundaries may be adjusted on an ongoing basis until the requested changes are completed. The OIC_YEAR and OIC_NUMBER fields indicate the year that the boundary was passed under OIC and its associated number. The AFFECTED_ADMIN_AREA_ABRVN identifies the administrative areas that are affected by the OIC. A polygon dataset that includes all of the administrative areas currently in the Administrative Boundaries Management System (ABMS) is available here. A complimentary point dataset that defines the administrative areas is also available available here. Other individual datasets are available from the following records: https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/regional-districts-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/province-of-british-columbia-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/islands-trust-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/local-trust-areas-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc

Federal (federal AIRs) are areas that have been set aside by the United States for the use of tribes, the exterior boundaries of which are more particularly defined in the final tribal treaties, agreements, executive orders, federal statutes, secretarial orders, or judicial determinations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs maintains a list of all federally recognized tribal governments and makes final determination of the inventory federal AIRs. The Census Bureau recognizes federal reservations (and associated off-reservation trust lands) as territory over which American Indian tribes have primary governmental authority. American Indian reservations can be legally described as colonies, communities, Indian colonies, Indian communities, Indian rancheria, Indian reservations, Indian villages, pueblos, rancherias, ranches, reservations, reserves, settlements, or villages. The Census Bureau contacts representatives of American Indian tribal governments to identify the boundaries for federal reservations through its annual Boundary and Annexation Survey. Federal reservations may cross state and all other area boundaries.State (state AIRs) are reservations established by some state governments for tribes recognized by the state. A governor-appointed state liaison provides the names and boundaries for state-recognized American Indian reservations to the Census Bureau. State reservations must be defined within a single state, but may cross county and other types of boundaries. To further identify and differentiate state-recognized American Indian areas from those that are federally recognized, the text, "(state)" is appended to the AIR name.Off-Reservation Trust Lands are areas for which the United States holds title in trust for the benefit of a tribe (tribal trust land) or for an individual American Indian (individual trust land). Trust lands can be alienated or encumbered only by the owner with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior or his/her authorized representative. Trust lands may be located on or off a reservation; however, the Census Bureau tabulates data only for off-reservation trust lands with the off-reservation trust lands always associated with a specific federally recognized reservation and/or tribal government. As for federally recognized reservations, the Census Bureau obtains the boundaries of off-reservation trust lands from American Indian tribal governments through its annual Boundary and Annexation Survey. The Census Bureau recognizes and tabulates data for reservations and off-reservation trust lands because American Indian tribes have primary governmental authority over these lands. The Census Bureau does not identify fee land (or land in fee simple status) or restricted fee lands as specific geographic areas.Download: https://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2023/AIANNH/tl_2023_us_aiannh.zipMetadata: https://meta.geo.census.gov/data/existing/decennial/GEO/GPMB/TIGERline/Current_19115/series_tl_2023_aiannh.shp.iso.xml