The National Bridge Inventory dataset is as of June 27, 2024 from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). The data describes more than 615,000 of the Nation's bridges located on public roads, including Interstate Highways, U.S. highways, State and county roads, as well as publicly-accessible bridges on Federal and Tribal lands. The inventory data present a complete picture of the location, description, classification, and general condition data for each bridge. The element data present a breakdown of the condition of each structural and bridge management element for each bridge on the National Highway System (NHS). The Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges contains a detailed description of each data element including coding instructions and attribute definitions. The Coding Guide is available at: https://doi.org/10.21949/1519105.

The NBI is a collection of information (database) describing the more than 600,000 of the Nation's bridges located on public roads, including Interstate Highways, U.S. highways, State and county roads, as well as publicly-accessible bridges on Federal lands. It presents a State by State summary analysis of the number, location, and general condition of highway bridges within each State.

The National Bridge Inventory Elements dataset is as of June 27, 2024 from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). The data describes more than 615,000 of the Nation's bridges located on public roads, including Interstate Highways, U.S. highways, State and county roads, as well as publicly-accessible bridges on Federal and Tribal lands. The inventory data present a complete picture of the location, description, classification, and general condition data for each bridge. The element data present a breakdown of the condition of each structural and bridge management element for each bridge on the National Highway System (NHS). The Specification for the National Bridge Inventory Bridge Elements contains a detailed description of each data element including coding instructions and attribute definitions. The Coding Guide is available at: https://doi.org/10.21949/1519106.

The NBI is a collection of information (database) describing Alabama's bridges located on public roads as of December 31, 2018, including Interstate Highways, U.S. highways, State and county roads, as well as publicly-accessible bridges on Federal lands. It presents a State by State summary analysis of the number, location, and general condition of highway bridges within the State. Bridges found to be located outside their respective state have been reassigned to coordinates 0, 0.Metadata

Data in the NBI is used to meet legislative reporting requirements and provide bridge owners, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the general public with information on the number and condition of the Nation’s bridges.The National Bridge Inventory dataset is as of June 27, 2024 from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). The data describes more than 615,000 of the Nation's bridges located on public roads, including Interstate Highways, U.S. highways, State and county roads, as well as publicly-accessible bridges on Federal and Tribal lands. The inventory data present a complete picture of the location, description, classification, and general condition data for each bridge. The element data present a breakdown of the condition of each structural and bridge management element for each bridge on the National Highway System (NHS). The Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges contains a detailed description of each data element including coding instructions and attribute definitions. The Coding Guide is available at: https://doi.org/10.21949/1519105.

Bridges-Rail in the United States According to The National Bridge Inspection Standards published in the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 650.3), a bridge is: A structure including supports erected over a depression or an obstruction, such as water, highway, or railway, and having a track or passageway for carrying traffic or other moving loads. Each bridge was captured as a point which was placed in the center of the "main span" (highest and longest span). For bridges that cross navigable waterways, this was typically the part of the bridge over the navigation channel. If no "main span" was discernable using the imagery sources available, or if multiple non contiguous main spans were discernable, the point was placed in the center of the overall structure. Bridges that are sourced from the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) that cross state boundaries are an exception. Bridges that cross state boundaries are represented in the NBI by two records. The points for the two records have been located so as to be within the state indicated by the NBI's [STATE_CODE] attribute. In some cases, following these rules did not place the point at the location at which the bridge crosses what the user may judge as the most important feature intersected. For example, a given bridge may be many miles long, crossing nothing more than low lying ground for most of its length but crossing a major interstate at its far end. Due to the fact that bridges are often high narrow structures crossing depressions that may or may not be too narrow to be represented in the DEM used to orthorectify a given source of imagery, alignment with ortho imagery is highly variable. In particular, apparent bridge location in ortho imagery is highly dependent on collection angle. During verification, TechniGraphics used imagery from the following sources: NGA HSIP 133 City, State or Local; NAIP; DOQQ imagery. In cases where "bridge sway" or "tall structure lean" was evident, TGS attempted to compensate for these factors when capturing the bridge location. For instances in which the bridge was not visible in imagery, it was captured using topographic maps at the intersection of the water and rail line. TGS processed 784 entities previously with the HSIP Bridges-Roads (STRAHNET Option - HSIP 133 Cities and Gulf Coast). These entities were added into this dataset after processing. No entities were included in this dataset for American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Virgin Islands because there are no main line railways in these areas. At the request of NGA, text fields in this dataset have been set to all upper case to facilitate consistent database engine search results. At the request of NGA, leading and trailing spaces were trimmed from all text fields. At the request of NGA, all diacritics (e.g., the German umlaut or the Spanish tilde) have been replaced with their closest equivalent English character to facilitate use with database systems that may not support diacritics. The currentness of this dataset is given by the publication date which is 09/02/2009. A more precise measure of currentness cannot be provided since this is dependent on the NBI and the source of imagery used during processing.

This layer is sourced from maps.bts.dot.gov.

Bridge and structure locations in Iowa. See NBI Guide for more info about this data set and how to use the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) fields.The data provided is based on the last inspection performed within the past 24 months and may not be included in the official data published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Data should not be used for decision making, as certain data values may not reflect current conditions. For official dataset, visit FHWAFor data questions, please contact Iowa DOT

The BSST was created for the Washington State Transportation RRAP which analyzed state highway and roads and their impacts from a Cascadia 9.0M earthquake. The RRAP report is available here: https://mil.wa.gov/asset/5d8ba2a03a1b7. The state bridge results in GIS format are available here: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/geodatacatalog/default.htm . Technical and user manuals for the BSST tool are available here: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1581518-washington-state-highway-bridge-seismic-screening-tool-bsst-technical-report In addition to the state bridges that were analyzed above, local bridges were obtained from WSDOT and analyzed in the BSST which is the data that is presented here. The data was provided from WSDOT to CISA Region 10. Much of the data for local (city/county) bridges were taken from the national bridge inventory and additional data that WSDOT had available. The local data used in the BSST is not complete and should be updated at the local level by bridge engineers and GIS specialist and analyzed in the BSST to ensure the latest bridge information is included in the tool. The data provided here is an initial analysis using data from WSDOT but it is recommend that local jurisdictions update their information and re-run the tool to ensure the most accurate data is used. The data provided here only includes bridges in western/central WA and only for a Cascadia 9.0M event. The 4,306 local highway bridges incorporated into this study from the WSDOT bridge inventory database were assessed using the BSST analysis methodology detailed previously in this report. Results consist of three types of outcomes: Bridge Damage Levels and Types, Bridge Repair Types, and Bridge Reopening Times. All output is a part of this feature class. Bridge damage types are projected on the basis of both damage level (None, Moderate, Significant), whether a bridge is a special bridge type, and also the types of damage that the bridge will experience (including both direct seismic and secondary earthquake-induced impacts); The projected repair types and reopening times necessary to bring bridges back to a minimum level of functionality that enables their use for emergency response were computed using the methodology specified in the Bridge Reopening Times section. Refer to the BSST Technical Report. The BSST was developed to assess the potential impacts of a CSZ earthquake to highway bridges in Washington State at a system-level as part of the Washington State Transportation Systems RRAP project. The results provided identify the Damage Levels, Damage Types, Repair Types and Reopening Times associated with 4,306 bridges located in Western and Central Washington that were evaluated for this RRAP project. Understanding that this analysis likely constitutes a “worst-case scenario” with respect to bridge damage, the results nonetheless project that the majority of bridges in Washington State will experience moderate to significant damage resulting from a CSZ earthquake. While the majority of bridges that experience damage could be reopened within one year of the earthquake, a substantial number of those bridges are projected to take more than a year to reopen—in many cases 2 or more years. The results also project that while many bridges may be reopened after either minor repairs/inspections or the construction of a temporary bypass road, a substantial number of more significantly damaged bridges span bodies of water and will require complete replacement prior to reopening. This suggests that significant gains in roadway corridor reopening times could be gained by focusing on retrofits or upgrades to these more vulnerable bridges that span rivers and other bodies of water. This tool is primarily intended to inform regional highway prioritization for emergency response activities; however, the BSST provides a useful evaluation methodology that could be applied to other regional emergency preparedness and infrastructure assessment studies. This could include studies of bridge infrastructure to other potential seismic events within the region, or at varying jurisdictional levels (i.e., county, local). The BSST also uses currently available seismic, seismically-induced secondary hazard and infrastructure information. As new seismic information becomes available, or as secondary-hazards (e.g., landslides, avalanches) become characterized more comprehensively, such information could be integrated into the current BSST methodology. Similarly, as seismic retrofit activities or other infrastructure improvement projects continue throughout Washington State, or as new infrastructure are built, it will be important that the infrastructure data integrated in the BSST also be updated periodically. Doing so will ensure that planners and infrastructure managers maintain the most current and complete understanding of the network-level seismic risks of a CSZ event to bridges in Washington. Please note that all results from the BSST are based on a model and information received from WSDOT. Damages from an earthquake may be different than what is provided here. Liquefaction data was used within the BSST tool. WADNR is the source for liquefaction data and is available here: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/geologic-hazards/geologic-hazard-maps#nehrp-site-class-and-liquefaction-susceptibilityUSGS ShakeMap was also used in the BSST tool for a M9.0 Cascadia earthquake and is available here: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/scenarios/eventpage/gllegacycasc9p0expanded_se/shakemap/pga. Data Assumptions/MethodologyData was provided by WSDOT for all local bridges. Data was transferred into BSST format. Bridges that were not included in the Cascadia 9.0M ShakeMap were removed from the tool. This mainly encompasses bridges in the far eastern side of the state. Removed all bridges that were designated as a pedestrian, trail or dam. Removed all bridges that had null or 0 structure length. Those bridges that had no main span quantity, all were changed to 1, meaning a single span bridge. For the bridges missing the federal functional class a value of 9 was assigned. For the bridges with a null in waterway adequacy these values were changed to N. For those bridges that had a null value for scour code these were change to N. Some points had low accuracy coordinates (lat/longs), so these locations were removed from the database since they could not be found. For those bridges that had a BMS elements ID related to a Pier Wall a W code was added to the Pier Type in the road bridges spreadsheet of the BSST tool. This would ensure these bridges were counted as having a pier wall. This information should be updated and verified by local jurisdictions. Snohomish County used the tool for their local bridges. A few of the bridges output in this tool was updated to reflect their results since better data was provided by the county. The tool uses AASHTO curves from various years. These curves were digitized in GIS from a pdf map. The accuracy of these maps could be up to +/- 10 miles due to digitizing the data at the state level. Most of the offset occurred in eastern WA, so impacts should be minimal.

The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is a database, compiled by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), with information of all the bridges and tunnels in the United States that have roads passing above or below them.This Excel Workbook contains a separate sheet for each year from 2016 to 2024 for the bridges on the National Highway System (NHS). The NHS includes the Interstate Highway System as well as other roads important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility. It was developed by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in cooperation with the states, local officials, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). TPB Staff downloads NBI data annually from the FHWA. TPB staff extracts NHS bridges in the TPB Planning Region, assigns a regional unique ID, calculates the bridge condition according to the federal rule, calculates the deck area, and summarizes the bridge condition data by jurisdiction to use as input to the federally-required Performance-Based Planning and Programming (PBPP) target setting and monitoring process.TPB staff use the geographic coordinates in the NBI file to calculate the latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. Several of the latitude and longitude coordinates were incorrectly located and have been updated by the TPB staff. Each bridge has a unique ID and can be linked to the annual files by the field PBPP ID.

Staff applied the final rule to the region’s latest bridge condition data for the TPB Planning Region. The data are reported per the required performance measures (good and poor conditions), see the rule and National Bridge Inventory Guide for more information.For more information:FHWA PBPP FHWA Transportation Performance Management TPM Frequently Asked QuestionsTPM Bridge Performance Measures

The files linked to this reference are the geospatial data created as part of the completion of the baseline vegetation inventory project for the NPS park unit. Current format is ArcGIS file geodatabase but older formats may exist as shapefiles. The mapping component of the NABR project used a combination of methods to interpret and delineate vegetation polygons. A trained interpreter visually examined the 9 x 9-inch photographs in stereo to identify vegetation polygons. Polygons were drawn on Mylar overlays that were later scanned, or digitally on a computer screen. Digitizing was performed using vector editing in ArcGIS. Each vegetation and land use polygon so produced was given map class and other descriptive attributes. The Monument and an area of environs surrounding it were interpreted and mapped to the same level of detail. Each polygon was assigned a map class number, alpha code and name, Anderson land use class, and vegetation density, pattern, and height attributes. In order to improve the utility of the map and related data, the spatial database was moved into a geodatabase format. This format allows text and image information to be incorporated and linked to spatial coordinates. Twenty map classes were developed to describe the NABR vegetation mapping project area. Of these, 17 are vegetation map classes and 3 are non-vegetated land-use map classes. Of the 17 vegetation map classes, one is represented by points only, one is a single polygon, and three represent single NVC plant associations. The remaining 12 vegetation map classes contain multiple plant associations.

This inventory of Detroit pedestrian bridges and their condition assessments is derived from the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and includes pedestrian bridges that span State of Michigan roadways only.Inspections of pedestrian bridges over State of Michigan routes are performed on a risk-based interval by MDOT, not to exceed 24 months. While not governed by the National Bridge Inspection Standards, these inspections are performed to maintain safety of the traveled way and to provide information needed for asset management. Routine Inspections of the entire structure may be supplemented by Special Inspections of Bridge Components that require more frequent monitoring. Condition ratings for pedestrian bridges are evaluated following the National Bridge Inventory Condition Ratings in a similar manner to vehicle bridges. These ratings are based on a 0-9 scale, where 0 is "Failed condition" and 9, "Excellent condition". Condition ratings are assigned for the deck, superstructure and substructure of each bridge or for each culvert. A culvert is a structure that allows passage under a roadway and has a short span (less than 20 feet).

Tunnels in the United States According to the HSIP Tiger Team Report, a tunnel is defined as a linear underground passageway open at both ends. This dataset is based on the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Bridge Inventory (NBI). Records in the NBI that are attributed as "Tunnels" were extracted by TGS and were located using a combination of ortho imagery, topographic DRGs, NAVTEQ streets, and NAVTEQ railroads. Two points were captured for each tunnel, one at each tunnel opening. A line was then created either by tracing the NAVTEQ street / railroad, or, if there was not a NAVTEQ street / railroad coincident with the tunnel, then by a straight line joining the two points. For some tunnels, the NBI contains two records, one for the road through the tunnel and one for the road on top of the tunnel (if any). In these cases, both have been captured in this dataset. Features in this dataset that are over tunnels have a [RECTYPE] of "1", while features that are in tunnels have a [RECTYPE] of "2". Presumably, this was done because both roads could be blocked if the tunnel was destroyed. In some cases, the NBI only represented a tunnel with a record of type = "1" (over). In these cases, the following rules were applied: 1) If there was no road running through the tunnel, the road on top of the tunnel was captured. For example, if a mine conveyor runs through the tunnel and a county highway runs on top of the tunnel, the county highway was captured. 2) If a road ran through the tunnel, then this road was captured and the [RECTYPE] was changed to "2". The "feature carried" and "feature intersected" fields were also changed to be consistent with the feature actually captured. According to the U.S. DOT: "Our reporting requirements do not extend to tunnels, therefore, any info we have should be considered incomplete."

© U.S. Department of Transportation's National Bridge Inventory This layer is a component of Road and Rail Tunnels.

This is a subset of the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Bridge Inventory that depicts tunnels associated with roads and rail lines.

© U.S. Department of Transportation's National Bridge Inventory

The Digital Geologic-GIS Map of Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables, and is available in the following GRI-supported GIS data formats: 1.) a 10.1 file geodatabase (nabr_geology.gdb), a 2.) Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) geopackage, and 3.) 2.2 KMZ/KML file for use in Google Earth, however, this format version of the map is limited in data layers presented and in access to GRI ancillary table information. The file geodatabase format is supported with a 1.) ArcGIS Pro map file (.mapx) file (nabr_geology.mapx) and individual Pro layer (.lyrx) files (for each GIS data layer), as well as with a 2.) 10.1 ArcMap (.mxd) map document (nabr_geology.mxd) and individual 10.1 layer (.lyr) files (for each GIS data layer). The OGC geopackage is supported with a QGIS project (.qgz) file. Upon request, the GIS data is also available in ESRI 10.1 shapefile format. Contact Stephanie O'Meara (see contact information below) to acquire the GIS data in these GIS data formats. In addition to the GIS data and supporting GIS files, three additional files comprise a GRI digital geologic-GIS dataset or map: 1.) A GIS readme file (nabr_geology_gis_readme.pdf), 2.) the GRI ancillary map information document (.pdf) file (nabr_geology.pdf) which contains geologic unit descriptions, as well as other ancillary map information and graphics from the source map(s) used by the GRI in the production of the GRI digital geologic-GIS data for the park, and 3.) a user-friendly FAQ PDF version of the metadata (nabr_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Please read the nabr_geology_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the GIS data and other map files. Google Earth software is available for free at: https://www.google.com/earth/versions/. QGIS software is available for free at: https://www.qgis.org/en/site/. Users are encouraged to only use the Google Earth data for basic visualization, and to use the GIS data for any type of data analysis or investigation. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Division funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/geologic-resources-inventory-products.htm. For more information about the Geologic Resources Inventory Program visit the GRI webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/gri,htm. At the bottom of that webpage is a "Contact Us" link if you need additional information. You may also directly contact the program coordinator, Jason Kenworthy (jason_kenworthy@nps.gov). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: Michigan Technological University. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (nabr_geology_metadata.txt or nabr_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:24,000 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 12.2 meters or 40 feet of their actual _location as presented by this dataset. Users of this data should thus not assume the _location of features is exactly where they are portrayed in Google Earth, ArcGIS, QGIS or other software used to display this dataset. All GIS and ancillary tables were produced as per the NPS GRI Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 2.3. (available at: https://www.nps.gov/articles/gri-geodatabase-model.htm).

The Unpublished Digital Geologic Map of Bering Land Bridge National Preserve and Vicinity, Alaska is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables in a 10.1 file geodatabase (bela_geology.gdb), a 10.1 ArcMap (.MXD) map document (bela_geology.mxd), individual 10.1 layer (.LYR) files for each GIS data layer, an ancillary map information (.PDF) document (bela_geology.pdf) which contains source map unit descriptions, as well as other source map text, figures and tables, metadata in FGDC text (.TXT) and FAQ (.HTML) formats, and a GIS readme file (bela_gis_readme.pdf). Please read the bela_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the file geodatabase and other map files. To request GIS data in ESRI 10.1 shapefile format contact Stephanie O’Meara (stephanie.omeara@colostate.edu; see contact information below). The data is also available as a 2.2 KMZ/KML file for use in Google Earth, however, this format version of the map is limited in data layers presented and in access to GRI ancillary table information. Google Earth software is available for free at: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html. Users are encouraged to only use the Google Earth data for basic visualization, and to use the GIS data for any type of data analysis or investigation. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Division funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: U.S. Geological Survey. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (bela_metadata_faq.html; available at http://nrdata.nps.gov/geology/gri_data/gis/bela/bela_metadata_faq.html). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:500,000 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 254 meters or 833.3 feet of their actual location as presented by this dataset. Users of this data should thus not assume the location of features is exactly where they are portrayed in Google Earth, ArcGIS or other software used to display this dataset. All GIS and ancillary tables were produced as per the NPS GRI Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 2.2. (available at: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/geology/GeologyGISDataModel.cfm). The GIS data projection is NAD83, UTM Zone AD_1983_Alaska_AlbersN, however, for the KML/KMZ format the data is projected upon export to WGS84 Geographic, the native coordinate system used by Google Earth. The data is within the area of interest of Bering Land Bridge National Preserve.

The Digital Geologic-GIS Map of Rainbow Bridge National Monument and Vicinity, Utah is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables, and is available in the following GRI-supported GIS data formats: 1.) a 10.1 file geodatabase (rabr_geology.gdb), a 2.) Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) geopackage, and 3.) 2.2 KMZ/KML file for use in Google Earth, however, this format version of the map is limited in data layers presented and in access to GRI ancillary table information. The file geodatabase format is supported with a 1.) ArcGIS Pro map file (.mapx) file (rabr_geology.mapx) and individual Pro layer (.lyrx) files (for each GIS data layer), as well as with a 2.) 10.1 ArcMap (.mxd) map document (rabr_geology.mxd) and individual 10.1 layer (.lyr) files (for each GIS data layer). The OGC geopackage is supported with a QGIS project (.qgz) file. Upon request, the GIS data is also available in ESRI 10.1 shapefile format. Contact Stephanie O'Meara (see contact information below) to acquire the GIS data in these GIS data formats. In addition to the GIS data and supporting GIS files, three additional files comprise a GRI digital geologic-GIS dataset or map: 1.) A GIS readme file (rabr_geology_gis_readme.pdf), 2.) the GRI ancillary map information document (.pdf) file (rabr_geology.pdf) which contains geologic unit descriptions, as well as other ancillary map information and graphics from the source map(s) used by the GRI in the production of the GRI digital geologic-GIS data for the park, and 3.) a user-friendly FAQ PDF version of the metadata (rabr_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Please read the rabr_geology_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the GIS data and other map files. Google Earth software is available for free at: https://www.google.com/earth/versions/. QGIS software is available for free at: https://www.qgis.org/en/site/. Users are encouraged to only use the Google Earth data for basic visualization, and to use the GIS data for any type of data analysis or investigation. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Division funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/geologic-resources-inventory-products.htm. For more information about the Geologic Resources Inventory Program visit the GRI webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/gri,htm. At the bottom of that webpage is a "Contact Us" link if you need additional information. You may also directly contact the program coordinator, Jason Kenworthy (jason_kenworthy@nps.gov). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: Utah Geological Survey. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (rabr_geology_metadata.txt or rabr_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:24,000 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 12.2 meters or 40 feet of their actual location as presented by this dataset. Users of this data should thus not assume the location of features is exactly where they are portrayed in Google Earth, ArcGIS, QGIS or other software used to display this dataset. All GIS and ancillary tables were produced as per the NPS GRI Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 2.3. (available at: https://www.nps.gov/articles/gri-geodatabase-model.htm).

The Digital Geologic Map of the Germanna Bridge Quadrangle, Virginia is comprised of GIS data layers, two ancillary GIS tables, a Windows Help File with ancillary map text, figures and tables, GIS data layer and table FGDC metadata, ArcMap 9.1 layer (.LYR) files, and an ArcMap 9.1 map document (.MXD) file. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Evaluation (GRE) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). All GIS and ancillary tables were produced as per the NPS GRE Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 1.3.1 (available at: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/geology/GeologyGISDataModel.htm). The GIS data is available as an 9.1 personal geodatabase (gebr_geology.mdb), as coverage and table export (.E00) files, and as a shapefile (.SHP) and DBASEIV (.DBF) table files. The GIS data projection is NAD83, UTM Zone 18N. That data is within the area of interest of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park.

The files linked to this reference are the geospatial data created as part of the completion of the baseline vegetation inventory project for the NPS park unit. Current format is ArcGIS file geodatabase but older formats may exist as shapefiles. Aerial photointerpretation was conducted by the Project Manager with the help of an assistant mapper between the fall of 2012 and fall of 2014, using the 2009 1-meter spatial resolution National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery for the Utah portions of GLCA, and the 2010 1-meter spatial resolution NAIP for the Arizona portions of GLCA as the base image layers. The project used the program standard minimum mapping unit (MMU) of 0.5 ha with few exceptions. The majority of the mapping work was performed using ArcGIS editing tools and onscreen, heads-up digitizing, aided by ancillary datasets. Map classes were defined for the project by the primary photointerpreter (PI) with input from the GLCA Chief Scientist. A draft vegetation map and associated spatial database were completed for the Orange Cliffs section of GLCA in the summer of 2014 and for the remainder of GLCA/RABR in the late fall of 2014. Forty-eight map classes represented by 33,691 polygons were developed for GLCA/RABR. A total of 31,058 polygons represent 37 natural or semi-natural vegetation map classes covering 75% of the mapping project area. Eleven additional land use/land cover and geologic map classes describe 2,633 polygons (25% of the area). Average polygon size across all map classes is 23.1 ha (57.2 acres). Blackbrush Shrublands had the highest number of polygons (5,560) polygons covering 14.5% of the total vegetated mapping area.

The Bridge dataset was developed using data provided by the Bridge Inspection Database. The Bridge Inspection Database contains a record for each Bridge Structure on public roadways in Texas. This includes Bridges maintained by TxDOT, Toll Authorities, Counties, Municipalities, and other jurisdictions. Bridge Inspection data is the primary source used to update the National Bridge Inspection File (NBI) in Washington. For more information on Bridge attribute data, please consult the Bridge Inspection Coding Guide and the Bridge Data Dictionary found at the links below:TxDOT Bridge Coding GuideTxDOT Bridge Data DictionaryUpdate Frequency: NightlySecurity Level: Public

This map service contains bridge data from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Highway Division (MassDOT) Bridge Inspection Management System (BIMS). The data is refreshed from the BIMS database on a biweekly basis. Included in this layer are: • MassDOT and municipally-owned structures with spans greater than 20 feet. These are categorized as National Bridge Inventory (NBI) structures. MassDOT inspects NBI bridges on a biannual basis. • MassDOT Highway and municipally-owned short span bridges with spans between 10 to 20 feet. These are categorized as “BRI” structures. The first complete Inspection of the short span bridge inventory is currently in progress. • MassDOT Highway and municipally-owned Culverts with spans of 4 to 10 feet. This category is incomplete and an inventory effort is underway. Structures under Federal, other State entities or Private ownership are not contained in this layer. Also excluded are minor non-highway structures such as pedestrian and bicycle overpasses. Access and Use Constraints The Massachusetts Department of Transportation shall not be held liable for any errors in this data. This includes errors of omission, commission, errors concerning the content of the data, and relative and positional accuracy of the data. This data cannot be construed to be a legal document. Primary sources from which this data was compiled must be consulted for verification of information contained in this data.