TRPA Boundary: Tahoe Regional Planning Agencies jurisdictional boundaryTown Centers: Town centers contain most of the Region’s non-residential services and have been identified as a significant source of sediments and other contaminants that continue to enter Lake Tahoe. Town centers are targeted for redevelopment in a manner that improves environmental conditions, creates a more sustainable and less auto-dependent development pattern and provides economic opportunities in the Region. Special Planning Districts: Relates to the 2012 Regional Plan Update Special District Boundaries and other related information.Area Plan, CP, and PAS boundaries: Indicates plan area boundaries, special area boundaries, preliminary community plan boundaries, redevelopment and master plan boundaries, hydrologic related area boundaries, and other related informationSpecial AreasFinal Land UseRecreation Facility: Recreation areas and facilitiesScenic Shoreline: Indicates location of scenic shore units around Lake TahoeScenic Shoreline points: Indicates location of scenic shoreline points around Lake TahoeScenic Roads: Indicates location of scenic road corridors around Lake TahoeSchools: This layer shows all the currently operational schools in the Tahoe Region. This layer is used to determine monitoring sites, safe route to school needs, and other land-use and transportation planning efforts.City of South Lake Tahoe: City of South Lake Tahoe boundaries (city limit)County Boundaries: County boundaries within TRPA jurisdiction. It was derived from the U.S. Geological Survey State Boundaries, which were derived from Digital Line Graph (DLG) files representing the 1:2,000,000-scale map in the National Atlas of the United States.Peaks: Major mountain peaks in the Lake Tahoe BasinContours - 40 ftContours - 200 ftCitiesFire DistrictsBasic Ownership

This map was produced by the Division of Realty to depict landownership at Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. It was generated from rectified aerial photography, cadastral surveys and recorded documents.

There are two types of boundary files: cartographic and digital. Cartographic boundary files portray the geographic areas using only the major land mass of Canada and its coastal islands. Digital boundary files portray the full extent of the geographic areas, including the coastal water area.

Mesoscale boundaries have an important influence on mesoscale weather. They can trigger, enhance or inhibit convections and severe weather. They are also indicators of shifts in wind speed and direction, temperature and relative humidity, and can affect air quality and heat indices. Around the Great Lakes, it has been observed that mesoscale boundaries are prevalent and can have complex interactions between each other.

A mesoscale boundary is the interface between two air masses for weather phenomenon on a scale of 5km to 100km. Mesoscale boundaries are generally associated with wind and differences in temperature, pressure and relative humidity.

A database was created containing analysis of mesoscale boundaries provided by Environment and Climate Change Canada research meteorologists. The data were collected between 2001 to 2015 around the Great Lakes and surrounding regions during four different field campaigns: ELBOW (2001), BAQS-MET (2007), RSD (2008-2014) and PANAM (2015). The types of boundaries that were collected were lake and land breeze fronts, outflow boundaries, as well as merged and other boundaries.

The data are stored annually in GeoJSON format and shapefiles. A geodatabase containing all the boundaries coordinates and properties is also included. A CSV file summarizes all the properties of the boundaries, but does not include any geometric information.

description: This map depicts lands owned and/or administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge.; abstract: This map depicts lands owned and/or administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

The bed of Utah Lake below the established boundary settlement lines is sovereign land and is managed by the Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands (FFSL). As the third-largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi River, Utah Lake has become a premier destination for boating, sailing, windsurfing, birding, fishing, and many other uses. As trustee, FFSL strives for an appropriate balance between compatible and competing uses specified in statute and policy, while ensuring that uses protected under the Public Trust Doctrine have primacy. FFSL understands the management of Utah Lake must include coordination in planning and actions with other regulatory agencies with jurisdictional responsibility for these resources.Utah Lake is a focal point of natural resource systems that contribute to the environmental health, economic prosperity, and quality of life of area residents and visitors. Through the collaborative restoration, protection and sustainable use efforts, the lake and its multiple-use amenities are fully recognized and enjoyed by current and future generations.

The first basin-wide map of large stands of invasive Phragmites australis (common reed) in the coastal zone was created through a collaboration between the U.S. Geological Survey and Michigan Tech Research Institute (Bourgeau-Chavez et al 2013). This data set represents a revised version of that map and was created using multi-temporal PALSAR data and Landsat images from 2016-2017. In addition to Phragmites distribution, the data sets shows several land cover types including urban, agriculture, forest, shrub, emergent wetland, forested wetland, and some based on the dominant plant species (e.g., Schoenoplectus, Typha). The classified map was validated using over 400 field visits.This map covers the Southern portion of central Lake Erie.

Sierra Water Workgroup has created these data layers to support the Tahoe-Sierra IRWM Project Data Management Application. Data used to create these layers were largely sourced from the CA DWR, USGS, National Hydrography Database, The Nature Conservancy, USBR, USDA Forest Service, USDA, USFS, CalEPA, and the Sierra Nevada DDS. Data layers were created by Kate Gladstein of the Sierra Water Workgroup.

Jurisdictional Dams: Sierra Water Workgroup has modified this layer of Jurisdictional Dams within the Tahoe Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management Area. Data was provided by the CA Department of Water Resources. Additional Information.

Nonearthen Shores: Sierra Water Workgroup has modified this layer displaying "nonearthen shores" within the Tahoe Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management Area. Data was provided by the National Hydrography Database, a collaborative entity between DWR and the US Bureau of Reclamation. From NHD: "The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) is a feature-based database that interconnects and uniquely identifies the stream segments or reaches that make up the nation's surface water drainage system. NHD data was originally developed at 1:100,000-scale and exists at that scale for the whole country. This high-resolution NHD, generally developed at 1:24,000/1:12,000 scale, adds detail to the original 1:100,000-scale NHD. (Data for Alaska, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands was developed at high-resolution, not 1:100,000 scale.) Local resolution NHD is being developed where partners and data exist. The NHD contains reach codes for networked features, flow direction, names, and centerline representations for areal water bodies. Reaches are also defined on waterbodies and the approximate shorelines of the Great Lakes, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. The NHD also incorporates the National Spatial Data Infrastructure framework criteria established by the Federal Geographic Data Committee." Original metadata.

Wetlands: The Sierra Water Workgroup modified this layer displaying wetland areas within the Tahoe Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management Boundaries. This data set represents the extent, approximate location and type of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the conterminous United States. These data delineate the areal extent of wetlands and surface waters as defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and near shore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. By policy, the Service also excludes certain types of "farmed wetlands" as may be defined by the Food Security Act or that do not coincide with the Cowardin et al. definition. Contact the Service's Regional Wetland Coordinator for additional information on what types of farmed wetlands are included on wetland maps.

Streams: Sierra Water Workgroup has produced this layer displaying flowlines of both streams and canals, within the Tahoe Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management Area. Data was provided by the National Hydrography Database, a collaborative entity between DWR and the US Bureau of Reclamation. From NHD: "The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) is a feature-based database that interconnects and uniquely identifies the stream segments or reaches that make up the nation's surface water drainage system. NHD data was originally developed at 1:100,000-scale and exists at that scale for the whole country. This high-resolution NHD, generally developed at 1:24,000/1:12,000 scale, adds detail to the original 1:100,000-scale NHD. (Data for Alaska, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands was developed at high-resolution, not 1:100,000 scale.) Local resolution NHD is being developed where partners and data exist. The NHD contains reach codes for networked features, flow direction, names, and centerline representations for areal water bodies. Reaches are also defined on waterbodies and the approximate shorelines of the Great Lakes, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. The NHD also incorporates the National Spatial Data Infrastructure framework criteria established by the Federal Geographic Data Committee." Original metadata.Critical Aquatic Refuges: Sierra Water Workgroup has created this layer of critical aquatic ecosystem refuges. USDA-originated data was provided to SWWG by the ecological forecasting team Sierra Nevada DSS. From USDA FS: "This polygon layer consists of Critical Aquatic Reguges (CARs) found in the Sierra Nevada. This data was developed by the USDA Forest Service for use in the Sierra Nevada Fores Plan Amendment. Critical aquatic refuges provide habitat for native fish, amphibian and aquatic invertebrate populations." Original metadata.

HUC-12 Watersheds Boundaries: Sierra Water Work Group has modified this layer showing HUC-12 watershed boundaries outside the Tahoe-Sierra IRWM. Watershed Boundary data for this was provided by the USGS National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). From USGS: “WBD provides a uniquely identified and uniform method of subdividing large drainage areas. The data is intended to be used as a tool for water-resource management and planning activities, particularly for site-specific and localized studies requiring a level of detail provided by large-scale map information. The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) defines the areal extent of surface water drainage to a point, accounting for all land and surface areas. Watershed Boundaries are determined solely upon science-based hydrologic principles, not favoring any administrative boundaries or special projects, nor particular program or agency. The intent of defining Hydrologic Units (HU) for the Watershed Boundary Dataset is to establish a baseline drainage boundary framework, accounting for all land and surface areas. At a minimum, the WBD is being delineated and georeferenced to the USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic base map meeting National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS). Hydrologic units are given a Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). For example, a hydrologic region has a 2-digit HUC. A HUC describes where the unit is in the country and the level of the unit. The document "Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)" can be found here. ‘A hydrologic unit is a drainage area delineated to nest in a multi-level, hierarchical drainage system. Its boundaries are defined by hydrographic and topographic criteria that delineate an area of land upstream from a specific point on a river, stream or similar surface waters. A hydrologic unit can accept surface water directly from upstream drainage areas, and indirectly from associated surface areas such as remnant, non-contributing, and diversions to form a drainage area with single or multiple outlet points. Hydrologic units are only synonymous with classic watersheds when their boundaries include all the source area contributing surface water to a single defined outlet point.’” Original metadata.Private Water Districts: Sierra Water Workgroup has modified this layer of private water district boundaries in the Tahoe-Sierra Watershed Region. The Private Water District boundaries database is cooperatively shared between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Mid-Pacific regional office (MP), MPGIS Service Center and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The USBR maintains this database with the voluntary assistance of the Private Water Districts. Original metadata. Montane Meadow Vegetation: The Sierra Water Workgroup modified this layer displaying meadow vegetation within the Tahoe Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management Boundaries. From USDA: "Data for this layer was developed by the USDA Forest Service for use in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement. This layer depicts montane meadow vegetation on National Forests in the Sierra Nevada range. Meadows are wet and dry grassland types and short emergent meadow types maintained by man-made dams. Vegetation consists of a mixture of grasses, perennial herbs, rushes, and sedges. Woody vegetation is typically associated with riparian meadows. Riparian vegetation can be shrub or tree form, such as willow, alder, cottonwood, and aspen types. Meadow types are coded as wet or dry, with or without woody vegetation, or short emergent wetland. Meadow polygons are mapped to a minimum of 5 acres. California Vegetation (CALVEG) types within a meadow polygon are mapped to a minimum of 2.5 acres." Original Metadata.

Wells, Springs, Waterfalls, Gage Stations: Sierra Water Workgroup has modified this layer of hydrographic points within the Tahoe Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management Area. Data was provided by the National Hydrography Database, a collaborative entity between DWR and the US Bureau of Reclamation. From NHD: "The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) is a feature-based database that interconnects and uniquely identifies the stream segments or reaches that make up the nation's surface water drainage system. NHD data was originally developed at 1:100,000-scale and exists at that scale for the whole country. This high-resolution NHD, generally developed at 1:24,000/1:12,000 scale, adds detail to the original 1:100,000-scale NHD. (Data for Alaska, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands was developed at high-resolution, not

BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE. A spatial representation of generalized Oakland County community master plans. These polygons were digitized from each of Oakland's 62 community's future land use map in their master plan. The data was completed in March of 2006 and will be updated as each community amends their plan. The key attribute is Composite Plan representing generalized, countywide future land uses.This data depicts a future land use based on each community's master plan as currently adopted. The data will be updated each time a community amends their master plan. Below is a list recording the master plan and date of adoption that was used to digitize each community. Township of Addison Addison Township Land Use Master Plan - 7/9/2002 City of Auburn Hills City of Auburn Hills Master Land Use Plan - 11/7/2002 Auburn Hills Opkyke Road Corridor Study - 2/1/2007 Auburn Hills Collier Road Area Land Use Study - 1/3/2008 City of Berkley City of Berkley, Michigan Master Plan Update - 1/23/2007 Village of Beverly Hills Village of Beverly Hills Master Plan - 3/28/2007 Village of Bingham Farms Village of Bingham Farms Master Plan - 9/13/2004 City of Birmingham The Birmingham Plan - 1/1/1979 Township of Bloomfield Charter Township of Bloomfield Master Plan Update - 3/26/2007 City of Bloomfield Hills Master Plan of Land Use City of Bloomfield Hills - 8/11/1987 Township of Brandon Brandon Township Land Use Plan Update - 3/14/2000 City of the Village of Clarkston Master Plan City of the Village of Clarkston - 8/4/1997City of Clawson Downtown Clawson Framework Urban Design Plan - 11/1/2004 Master Plan City of Clawson - 1/23/1990 Township of Commerce Commerce Charter Township Master Plan 2003 - 6/28/2004 Commerce Charter Township Master Plan Amendment - 11/27/2006 City of Farmington Master Plan City of Farmington - 2/1/1998 City of Farmington Hills Master Plan for Future Land Use City of Farmington Hills - 3/28/1996 City of Fenton Holly Township Master Plan - 11/10/2003 (Used the Holly Township Master Plan because Fenton's was unavailable) City of Ferndale City of Ferndale Land Use Plan - 6/1/1998 Village of Franklin Franklin Village Master Plan Update - 10/15/1997 Township of Groveland Master Plan for Future Land Use - 5/9/2005 City of Hazel Park Master Plan, Hazel Park Michigan - 3/21/2000 Township of Highland Highland Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2000-2020 - 7/6/2000 South Milford Road Corridor Micro-Area Analysis - 4/13/2005 East Highland Commercial District Micro Area Analysis - 12/19/2002 West Highland Micro-Area Analysis - 8/2/2001 North Hickory Ridge Road Micro-Area Analysis - 12/7/2006 Township of Holly Holly Township Master Plan - 11/10/2003 Village of Holly Village of Holly Master Plan - 1/24/2007 City of Huntington Woods Huntington Woods Master Plan - 12/17/2007 Township of Independence Independence Township Vision 2020 Master Plan - 12/9/1999 City of Keego Harbor City of Keego Harbor Comprehensive Master Plan - 9/5/2002 City of Lake Angelus City of Lake Angelus Master Plan - 7/25/1994 Village of Lake Orion Master Plan 2002-2022 - 1/6/2003 Amendment #1 to Lake Orion Master Plan - 3/3/2008 City of Lathrup Village The Lathrup Village Plan - 1/1/1981 Village of Leonard Master Plan Village of Leonard - 10/17/1991 Township of Lyon Charter Township of Lyon Master Plan - 3/27/2006 City of Madison Heights Madison Heights Master Plan: 1990, 2000, 2010 - 10/16/1990 Madison Heights Future Land Use Plan Amendment - 5/15/2007 Township of Milford Charter Township of Milford Land Use Plan Update - 5/27/1999 Village of Milford Village of Milford Master Plan - 3/1/1998 City of Northville City of Northville Master Plan - 2/22/2000 City of Novi City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use 2004 - 12/1/2004 City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use Amendments - 4/16/2008 Township of Novi None (Does not have a Master Plan, assumed to be Single Family Residential) City of Oak Park City of Oak Park Master Plan - 9/9/1996 City of Oak Park Master Plan Addition - Unknown Township of Oakland Oakland Charter Township A Community Master Plan - 1/4/2005 City of Orchard Lake Village Master Plan City of Orchard Lake Village - 6/6/2006 Township of Orion Orion Township Master Plan - 5/7/2003 Lapeer Road Master Plan Update - 4/19/2006 Village of Ortonville The Ortonville Plan - 1/1/1980 Township of Oxford Charter Township of Oxford Master Plan - 7/14/2005 Village of Oxford Village of Oxford Master Plan - 5/10/2005 City of Pleasant Ridge City of Pleasant Ridge Community Master Plan - 9/1/1999 City of Pontiac Pontiac 2010 A New Reality - 12/4/1991 City of Rochester Master Plan: 2000 City of Rochester - 6/3/2000 Downtown Development Area MP amendment - 5/2/2005 City of Rochester Hills Rochester Hills Master Land Use Plan 2007 - 2/6/2007 Township of Rose Master Plan Rose Township - 7/7/2005 City of Royal Oak Master Plan City of Royal Oak - 8/24/1999 Township of Royal Oak A Vision for the Year 2010 Master Plan 1996 Update - 12/11/1996 City of South Lyon Master Plan of Future Land Use City of South Lyon - 1/10/2002 City of Southfield Southfield Master Plan - 1/1/1988 Township of Southfield Southfield Township Master Plan - 11/25/2002 Township of Springfield Springfield Township Master Plan - 3/7/2002 City of Sylvan Lake Sylvan Lake Master Plan 2005 - 4/10/2007 City of Troy City of Troy Future Land Use Plan - 1/8/2002 City of Walled Lake City of Walled Lake Master Plan - 8/1/2002 Township of Waterford Waterford Master Plan 2003-2023 - 1/2/2003 Township of West Bloomfield West Bloomfield Township 2005 Master Land Use Plan Update - 7/26/2005 Township of White Lake White Lake Township Master Plan - 10/6/2006 City of Wixom City of Wixom Master Plan - 8/9/2005 Village of Wolverine Lake Village of Wolverine Lake Land Use Plan - 12/4/1985 Every category identified on the future land use map within each master plan was translated into a composite value. For example, one community may have two commercial districts- Local Commerical and General Commercial. Another community may have three commercial districts- Neighborhood Commercial, Hi-Tech Office, and Retail Commercial. A wide range of uses could be included in these categories, but for the purpose of this feature class, they are all translated into "Commercial/Office." In some cases a category on community's future land use map could not be translated into a single composite category. When this occurred, areas were manually translated into the appropriate generalized category. For example, a Public Lands class on a community's map would be manually translated into the Public/Institutional and Recreation/Conservation composite categories.

Areas managed as WILDERNESSwithin Glacier National Park. This mapping was compiled in 2014, implementing NPS Director's Order 41 (2013), which provides guidelines to NPS units for delineating wilderness boundaries. The two main criteria provided by DO-41 are that boundaries 1) must be easily identifiable on the ground, and 2) standard boundary setbacks from roads, paved or unpaved, should be 100-feet either side of centerline. Included in this mapping are areas EXCLUDED from wilderness, which generally fall within 100-feet of road centerline or are part of the park's Visitor Service Zone (GMP, 1999). Additional areas categorized as 'Excluded from wilderness' include lands designated as part of the Visitor Service Zone (VSZ), documented in the GLAC Commercial Serices Plan (2004). Developed area footprints were mapped and then buffered 300-feet. Utility corridors and point locations were mapped and buffered 25-feet. Also, large lakes with existing commercial services were included in the VSZ and thus were categorized as Excluded.POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AREAS (PWA) are the 3rd map class; these lands are currently in private ownership, providing access to private ownership, or are small fragmented areas (i.e. not easily identified on the ground and difficult to manage as wilderness due to size and surrounding land uses) between areas excluded from wilderness (e.g. utility corridors and lands between utility corridors and other excluded areas).Chronology of edits:Begin edits 11/8/13 to implement DO-41. Update layer March 4, 2014 - create version 3 with the following edits - based on 3/3/14 meeting with GLAC Leadership Team (Kym Hall):1. Camas Cr patrol cabin, include 100-ft buffer of cabin + 100-ft buffer of roadway from Inside Rd.2. Bowman CG area: extend 'excluded' area from admin road to creek edge to accommodate admin road/trail (to bridge) not yet mapped. Also inlcude 100-ft buffered trail and 100-ft buffered buildings due east of bridge. 3. Kintla CG - same changes as Bowman, using standard 100-ft buffer of road/cabins4. Belly River enclave is added to the data set.-----------Update layer January 24, 2014 with these edits:1. Add Marias Pass 'excluded' area; 100-ft buffer of RR turnaround.2. Extend HQ area 'excluded' polygon to river /park bdy3. Create Dev Area footprints for Road Camp & Packer's Roost; buffer 300-ft and add to 'excluded'.----------Update layer January 13, 2014 with these edits:1. Bowman CG - add admin road missed, 2. Walton - remove exclusion area between road buffer and boundary, and 3. Swiftcurrent - include Swiftcurrent+Josephine Lakes as excluded, plus bump-out areas for boat storage and creek used to ferry supplies from Swift. Lake to Josephine Lake.---------Update layer April 15-18, 2014 with these additions/edits:1. Create developed area for Apgar Lookout; buffer 300-ft.2. Create developed area for 1913 Ranger Station (St Mary); buffer 300-ft.3. Add 2 monitoring wells in St Mary Flats (foot of lake south of GTSR); buffer 25-ft and connect to 'excluded area' polygon4. Add water source point for Many Glacier winter cabin (north of MG road near hotel jct; buffer 25-ft and add to 'excluded area' polygon5. Buffer McCarthy Homestead structures 100-ft and add to Excluded Area polygon for Inside North Fork Rd6. Buffer Ford Creek cabin structures 100-ft and add to Excluded Area polygon for Inside North Fork Rd7. Buffer Baring Crek cabin structures 100-ft and add to Excluded Area polygon Going to the Sun Rd8. Add to Excluded Area a strip of land 60-ft south of the International Boundary (per 1974 Wilderness proposal & MOU with GLAC and Int'l Boundary Comm).---------Updated layer 5/27/2014 - add approx. 2 acres to 'Excluded fro mWilderness' near the St Mary River bridge along GTSR. This sliver of land was included to utilize the river bank as a visible and distinguishable boundary in the field.

© NPS, Glacier NP GIS Program

This layer is a component of Glacier National Park.

This map service provides layers covering a variety of different datasets and themes for Glacier National Park. It is meant to be consumed by internet mapping applications and for general reference. It is for internal NPS use only. Produced November 2014.

© Denver Service Center Planning Division, IMR Geographic Resources Division, Glacier National Park

This map was produced by the Division of Realty to depict landownership at Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge. It was generated from rectified aerial photography, cadastral surveys and recorded documents.

This map presents the percentage of existing wetlands that are in a protected status by sub-lake unit (reporting unit) for each Great Lake, as determined by the LAMPs for each lake. Lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario report by sub-lake units. Lake Superior reports by watersheds.*Coastal Wetlands defined here as connected to the Great Lakes and >2 ha (5 acres) in size.Data SourcesWe used the following database for coastal wetland area:Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands 2004 Polygons (Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium): https://www.glc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CWC-GreatLakesCoastalWetlandsInventory-Metadata.pdf We used the following databases for protected area: Nature Conservancy Canada (data agreement) Commission for Environmental Cooperation (databasin.org)- Canada Protected Terrestrial Areas 2012 (Ontario)Ontario GeoHub- Ontario Federal Protected Lands (Ontario) 2018:PAD-US (Protected Areas Database of the U.S.) 2018. CARL (Conservation and Recreation Lands) 2017. Feature Service for Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Great Lakes Atlantic Region (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa). This layer contains fee lands, preserves, designated lands and other protected lands. This layer does not contain easements.Consultations with regional land experts (The Nature Conservancy GIS Managers) for the states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin.

The first basin-wide map of large stands of invasive Phragmites australis (common reed) in the coastal zone was created through a collaboration between the U.S. Geological Survey and Michigan Tech Research Institute (Bourgeau-Chavez et al 2013). This data set represents a revised version of that map and was created using multi-temporal PALSAR data and Landsat images from 2016-2017. In addition to Phragmites distribution, the data sets shows several land cover types including urban, agriculture, forest, shrub, emergent wetland, forested wetland, and some based on the dominant plant species (e.g., Schoenoplectus, Typha). The classified map was validated using over 400 field visits.This map covers the southern portion of Lake Michigan.

These ESRI shape files are of National Park Service tract and boundary data that was created by the Land Resources Division. Tracts are numbered and created by the regional cartographic staff at the Land Resources Program Centers and are associated to the Land Status Maps. This data should be used to display properties that NPS owns and properties that NPS may have some type of interest such as scenic easements or right of ways.

There are two types of boundary files: cartographic and digital. Cartographic boundary files portray the geographic areas using only the major land mass of Canada and its coastal islands. Digital boundary files portray the full extent of the geographic areas, including the coastal water area.

This map was produced by the Division of Realty to depict landownership at Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. It was generated from rectified aerial photography, cadastral surveys and recorded documents.

The Atlas of the Biosphere is a product of the Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE), part of the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. The goal is to provide more information about the environment, and human interactions with the environment, than any other source.

The Atlas provides maps of an ever-growing number of environmental variables, under the following categories:

Human Impacts (Humans and the environment from a socio-economic perspective; i.e., Population, Life Expectancy, Literacy Rates);

Land Use (How humans are using the land; i.e., Croplands, Pastures, Urban Lands);

Ecosystems (The natural ecosystems of the world; i.e., Potential Vegetation, Temperature, Soil Texture); and

Water Resources (Water in the biosphere; i.e., Runoff, Precipitation, Lakes and Wetlands).

Map coverages are global and regional in spatial extent. Users can download map images (jpg) and data (a GIS grid of the data in ESRI ArcView Format), and can view metadata online.

Recent efforts to model spring breeding habitats of fish in the St. Lawrence have revealed significant gaps in land use descriptions for the floodplains of Lac Saint-Pierre. In order to fill these gaps, aerial photographs taken in 1950, 1964 and 1997 were assembled in mosaic fashion and then digitized, georeferenced and interpreted to categorize 28 fish habitat classes. For each of the three periods, interpretation made it possible to categorize and georeference polygons (e.g. wet meadows, perennial crops) and linear elements (e.g. windbreaks, riparian strips, roads) and to compile these with their properties (habitat class, length, perimeter, surface area). To facilitate and refine subsequent analyses, all polygons and linear elements were delineated with the aid of several layers of information, including the boundaries of regional county municipalities, drainage basins, several flood scenarios, and three large units: the north and south shores of Lac Saint-Pierre and the Sorel archipelago. This report describes the methods used and the constraints encountered; it also presents certain interpretation limits and a summary analysis of habitat classes in the three periods studied. A temporal trend analysis of habitat dynamics in the three periods has yet to be completed. Source files containing the data have been published and are available to anyone interested in land use in the floodplains of Lac Saint-Pierre or wishing to extend the study of changes in these landscapes and habitats over the past fifty years, depending on their field of interest (e.g. fish habitats, waterfowl nesting, agricultural landscape).

Lake cover strongly affects the reflectance of the land surface over large areas of Alaska, and was useful for identifying extensive wetlands. Lake cover was based on the number of AVHRR water pixels in each mapped polygon, divided by the number of pixels in the polygon. Since the imagery has a pixel size of 1 km^2, lake cover is underestimated for areas with many small lakes. Pixels within 2 km of the coastline were excluded to avoid ocean water. The percent cover data were grouped into six categories: 25%. Back to Alaska Arctic Tundra Vegetation Map (Raynolds et al. 2006) Go to Website Link :: Toolik Arctic Geobotanical Atlas below for details on legend units, photos of map units and plant species, glossary, bibliography and links to ground data. Map Themes AVHRR NDVI , Bioclimate Subzone, Elevation, False Color-Infrared CIR, Floristic Province, Lake Cover, Landscape, Substrate Chemistry, Vegetation References Raynolds, M.K., Walker, D.A., Maier, H.A. 2005. Plant community-level mapping of arctic Alaska based on the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map. Phytocoenologia. 35(4):821-848. http://doi.org/10.1127/0340-269X/2005/0035-0821 Raynolds, M.K., Walker, D.A., Maier, H.A. 2006. Alaska Arctic Tundra Vegetation Map. 1:4,000,000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, AK.