Spatial analysis and statistical summaries of the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) provide land managers and decision makers with a general assessment of management intent for biodiversity protection, natural resource management, and recreation access across the nation. The PAD-US 4.0 Combined Fee, Designation, Easement feature class in the full geodatabase inventory (with Military Lands and Tribal Areas from the Proclamation and Other Planning Boundaries feature class) was modified to prioritize overlapping designations, avoiding massive overestimation in protected area statistics, and simplified by the following PAD-US attributes to support user needs for raster analysis data: Manager Type, Manager Name, Designation Type, GAP Status Code, Public Access, and State Name. The rasterization process prioritized overlapping designations previously identified (GAP_Prity field) in the Vector Analysis file (e.g. Wilderness within a National Forest) based upon their relative biodiversity conservation (e.g. GAP Status Code 1 over 2).The 30-meter Image (IMG) grid Raster Analysis Files area extents were defined by the Census state boundary file used to clip the Vector Analysis File, the data source for rasterization ("PADUS4_0VectorAnalysis_State_Clip_CENSUS2022") feature class from ("PADUS4_0VectorAnalysisFile_OtherExtents_ClipCENSUS2022.gdb"). Alaska (AK) and Hawaii (HI) raster data are separated from the contiguous U.S. (CONUS) to facilitate analyses at manageable scales. Note, the PAD-US inventory is now considered functionally complete with the vast majority of land protection types (with a legal protection mechanism) represented in some manner, while work continues to maintain updates, improve data quality, and integrate new data as it becomes available (see inventory completeness estimates at: http://www.protectedlands.net/data-stewards/ ). In addition, protection status represents a point-in-time and changes in status between versions of PAD-US may be attributed to improving the completeness and accuracy of the spatial data more than actual management actions or new acquisitions. USGS provides no legal warranty for the use of this data. While PAD-US is the official aggregation of protected areas ( https://ngda-portfolio-community-geoplatform.hub.arcgis.com/pages/portfolio ), agencies are the best source of their lands data.

6 inch resolution raster image of New York City, classified by landcover type.

High resolution land cover data set for New York City. This is the 6 inch version of the high-resolution land cover dataset for New York City. Seven land cover classes were mapped: (1) tree canopy, (2) grass/shrub, (3) bare earth, (4) water, (5) buildings, (6) roads, and (7) other paved surfaces. The minimum mapping unit for the delineation of features was set at 3 square feet. The primary sources used to derive this land cover layer were the 2010 LiDAR and the 2008 4-band orthoimagery. Ancillary data sources included GIS data (city boundary, building footprints, water, parking lots, roads, railroads, railroad structures, ballfields) provided by New York City (all ancillary datasets except railroads); UVM Spatial Analysis Laboratory manually created railroad polygons from manual interpretation of 2008 4-band orthoimagery. The tree canopy class was considered current as of 2010; the remaining land-cover classes were considered current as of 2008. Object-Based Image Analysis (OBIA) techniques were employed to extract land cover information using the best available remotely sensed and vector GIS datasets. OBIA systems work by grouping pixels into meaningful objects based on their spectral and spatial properties, while taking into account boundaries imposed by existing vector datasets. Within the OBIA environment a rule-based expert system was designed to effectively mimic the process of manual image analysis by incorporating the elements of image interpretation (color/tone, texture, pattern, location, size, and shape) into the classification process. A series of morphological procedures were employed to insure that the end product is both accurate and cartographically pleasing. More than 35,000 corrections were made to the classification. Overall accuracy was 96%. This dataset was developed as part of the Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment for New York City. As such, it represents a 'top down' mapping perspective in which tree canopy over hanging other features is assigned to the tree canopy class. At the time of its creation this dataset represents the most detailed and accurate land cover dataset for the area. This project was funded by National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC) and the National Science Fundation (NSF), although it is not specifically endorsed by either agency. The methods used were developed by the University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Laboratory, in collaboration with the New York City Urban Field Station, with funding from the USDA Forest Service.

A 6-in resolution 8-class land cover dataset derived from the 2017 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data capture. This dataset was developed as part of an updated urban tree canopy assessment and therefore represents a ''top-down" mapping perspective in which tree canopy overhanging features is assigned to the tree canopy class. The eight land cover classes mapped were: (1) Tree Canopy, (2) Grass\Shrubs, (3) Bare Soil, (4) Water, (5) Buildings, (6) Roads, (7) Other Impervious, and (8) Railroads. The primary sources used to derive this land cover layer were 2017 LiDAR (1-ft post spacing) and 2016 4-band orthoimagery (0.5-ft resolution). Object based image analysis was used to automate land-cover features using LiDAR point clouds and derivatives, orthoimagery, and vector GIS datasets -- City Boundary (2017, NYC DoITT) Buildings (2017, NYC DoITT) Hydrography (2014, NYC DoITT) LiDAR Hydro Breaklines (2017, NYC DoITT) Transportation Structures (2014, NYC DoITT) Roadbed (2014, NYC DoITT) Road Centerlines (2014, NYC DoITT) Railroads (2014, NYC DoITT) Green Roofs (date unknown, NYC Parks) Parking Lots (2014, NYC DoITT) Parks (2016, NYC Parks) Sidewalks (2014, NYC DoITT) Synthetic Turf (2018, NYC Parks) Wetlands (2014, NYC Parks) Shoreline (2014, NYC DoITT) Plazas (2014, NYC DoITT) Utility Poles (2014, ConEdison via NYCEM) Athletic Facilities (2017, NYC Parks) For the purposes of classification, only vegetation > 8 ft were classed as Tree Canopy. Vegetation below 8 ft was classed as Grass/Shrub. To learn more about this dataset, visit the interactive "Understanding the 2017 New York City LiDAR Capture" Story Map -- https://maps.nyc.gov/lidar/2017/ Please see the following link for additional documentation on this dataset -- https://github.com/CityOfNewYork/nyc-geo-metadata/blob/master/Metadata/Metadata_LandCover.md

Mountain lions need room to roam, and the rugged mountains northwest of Los Angeles provide this protected species the space it needs to hunt and breed. The problem? Their population is suffering as these creatures are killed crossing the roads intersecting their habitat. The solution? Build bridges over these roads enabling mountain lions to proliferate in safety. In this lesson, you'll use ArcGIS Pro to create the geoprocessing models identifying the best locations for these overpasses.

In this lesson you will build skills in the these areas:

• Building a model in ModelBuilder
• Creating a suitability model
• Processing rasters

Learn ArcGIS is a hands-on, problem-based learning website using real-world scenarios. Our mission is to encourage critical thinking, and to develop resources that support STEM education.

This submission includes maps of the spatial distribution of basaltic, and felsic rocks in the Oregon Cascades. It also includes a final Play Fairway Analysis (PFA) model, with the heat and permeability composite risk segments (CRS) supplied separately. Metadata for each raster dataset can be found within the zip files, in the TIF images

Abstract

The dataset was derived by the Bioregional Assessment Programme from multiple source datasets. The source datasets are identified in the Lineage field in this metadata statement. The processes undertaken to produce this derived dataset are described in the History field in this metadata statement.

This resource contains raster datasets created using ArcGIS to analyse groundwater levels in the Namoi subregion.

Purpose

These data layers were created in ArcGIS as part of the analysis to investigate surface water - groundwater connectivity in the Namoi subregion. The data layers provide several of the figures presented in the Namoi 2.1.5 Surface water - groundwater interactions report.

Dataset History

Extracted points inside Namoi subregion boundary. Converted bore and pipe values to Hydrocode format, changed heading of 'Value' column to 'Waterlevel' and removed unnecessary columns then joined to Updated_NSW_GroundWaterLevel_data_analysis_v01\NGIS_NSW_Bore_Join_Hydmeas_unique_bores.shp clipped to only include those bores within the Namoi subregion.

Selected only those bores with sample dates between >=26/4/2012 and <31/7/2012. Then removed 4 gauges due to anomalous ref_pt_height values or WaterElev values higher than Land_Elev values.

Then added new columns of calculations:

WaterElev = TsRefElev - Water_Leve

DepthWater = WaterElev - Ref_pt_height

Ref_pt_height = TsRefElev - LandElev

Alternatively - Selected only those bores with sample dates between >=1/5/2006 and <1/7/2006

2012_Wat_Elev - This raster was created by interpolating Water_Elev field points from HydmeasJune2012_only.shp, using Spatial Analyst - Topo to Raster tool. And using the alluvium boundary (NAM_113_Aquifer1_NamoiAlluviums.shp) as a boundary input source.

12_dw_olp_enf - Select out only those bores that are in both source files.

Then using depthwater in Topo to Raster, with alluvium as the boundary, ENFORCE field chosen, and using only those bores present in 2012 and 2006 dataset.

2012dw1km_alu - Clipped the 'watercourselines' layer to the Namoi Subregion, then selected 'Major' water courses only. Then used the Geoprocessing 'Buffer' tool to create a polygon delineating an area 1km around all the major streams in the Namoi subregion.

selected points from HydmeasJune2012_only.shp that were within 1km of features the WatercourseLines then used the selected points and the 1km buffer around the major water courses and the Topo to Raster tool in Spatial analyst to create the raster.

Then used the alluvium boundary to truncate the raster, to limit to the area of interest.

12_minus_06 - Select out bores from the 2006 dataset that are also in the 2012 dataset. Then create a raster using depth_water in topo to raster, with ENFORCE field chosen to remove sinks, and alluvium as boundary. Then, using Map Algebra - Raster Calculator, subtract the raster just created from 12_dw_olp_enf

Dataset Citation

Bioregional Assessment Programme (2017) Namoi bore analysis rasters. Bioregional Assessment Derived Dataset. Viewed 10 December 2018, http://data.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/dataset/7604087e-859c-4a92-8548-0aa274e8a226.

Dataset Ancestors

• Derived From Bioregional Assessment areas v02

• Derived From Gippsland Project boundary

• Derived From Bioregional Assessment areas v04

• Derived From Upper Namoi groundwater management zones

• Derived From Natural Resource Management (NRM) Regions 2010

• Derived From Bioregional Assessment areas v03

• Derived From Victoria - Seamless Geology 2014

• Derived From GIS analysis of HYDMEAS - Hydstra Groundwater Measurement Update: NSW Office of Water - Nov2013

• Derived From Bioregional Assessment areas v01

• Derived From GEODATA TOPO 250K Series 3, File Geodatabase format (.gdb)

• Derived From GEODATA TOPO 250K Series 3

• Derived From NSW Catchment Management Authority Boundaries 20130917

• Derived From Geological Provinces - Full Extent

• Derived From Hydstra Groundwater Measurement Update - NSW Office of Water, Nov2013

In this course, you will learn to work within the free and open-source R environment with a specific focus on working with and analyzing geospatial data. We will cover a wide variety of data and spatial data analytics topics, and you will learn how to code in R along the way. The Introduction module provides more background info about the course and course set up. This course is designed for someone with some prior GIS knowledge. For example, you should know the basics of working with maps, map projections, and vector and raster data. You should be able to perform common spatial analysis tasks and make map layouts. If you do not have a GIS background, we would recommend checking out the West Virginia View GIScience class. We do not assume that you have any prior experience with R or with coding. So, don't worry if you haven't developed these skill sets yet. That is a major goal in this course. Background material will be provided using code examples, videos, and presentations. We have provided assignments to offer hands-on learning opportunities. Data links for the lecture modules are provided within each module while data for the assignments are linked to the assignment buttons below. Please see the sequencing document for our suggested order in which to work through the material. After completing this course you will be able to: prepare, manipulate, query, and generally work with data in R. perform data summarization, comparisons, and statistical tests. create quality graphs, map layouts, and interactive web maps to visualize data and findings. present your research, methods, results, and code as web pages to foster reproducible research. work with spatial data in R. analyze vector and raster geospatial data to answer a question with a spatial component. make spatial models and predictions using regression and machine learning. code in the R language at an intermediate level.

This dataset contains the processing unit for Greenland from the Hydrological Derivatives for Modeling and Analysis (HDMA) database. The HDMA database provides comprehensive and consistent global coverage of raster and vector topographically derived layers, including raster layers of digital elevation model (DEM) data, flow direction, flow accumulation, slope, and compound topographic index (CTI); and vector layers of streams and catchment boundaries. The coverage of the data is global (-180º, 180º, -90º, 90º) with the underlying DEM being a hybrid of three datasets: HydroSHEDS (Hydrological data and maps based on SHuttle Elevation Derivatives at multiple Scales), Global Multi-resolution Terrain Elevation Data 2010 (GMTED2010) and the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM). For most of the globe south of 60º North, the raster resolution of the data is 3-arc-seconds, corresponding to the resolution of the SRTM. For the areas North of 60º, the resolution is 7.5-arc-seconds (the sma ...

The SWOT Level 2 KaRIn High Rate Raster Product (SWOT_L2_HR_Raster_D) provides rasterized estimates of water surface elevation, inundation extent, and radar backscatter derived from high-resolution radar observations by the Ka-band Radar Interferometer (KaRIn) on the SWOT satellite. This product aggregates the irregularly spaced pixel cloud data from the PIXC and PIXCVec products onto a uniform geographic grid to facilitate spatial analysis of water surface features across inland, estuarine, and coastal domains.

Standard granules cover non-overlapping 128 × 128 km² scenes in the UTM projection at 100 m and 250 m resolution, stored in NetCDF-4 format. Each file contains 2D image layers representing water surface elevation (corrected for geoid, solid Earth, load, and pole tides, as well as atmospheric and ionospheric path delays), surface area, water fraction, and sigma0, along with quality flags and uncertainty estimates. On-demand versions are available at user-specified resolutions and projections, with optional overlapping granules and GeoTIFF output via SWODLR: https://swodlr.podaac.earthdatacloud.nasa.gov/

The raster product offers a gridded alternative to the unstructured pixel cloud, supporting hydrologic and geomorphic analyses in complex flow environments such as braided rivers, floodplains, wetlands, and coastal zones. It enables consistent spatiotemporal sampling while reducing noise through spatial aggregation, making it especially suitable for applications that require map-like continuity or integration with geospatial models.
This dataset is the parent collection to the following sub-collections:
https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/SWOT_L2_HR_Raster_100m_D
https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/SWOT_L2_HR_Raster_250m_D

This zip file contains geodatabases with raster mosaic datasets. The raster mosaic datasets consist of georeferenced tiff images of mineral potential maps, their associated metadata, and descriptive information about the images. These images are duplicates of the images found in the georeferenced tiff images zip file. There are four geodatabases containing the raster mosaic datasets, one for each of the four SaMiRA report areas: North-Central Montana; North-Central Idaho; Southwestern and South-Central Wyoming and Bear River Watershed; and Nevada Borderlands. The georeferenced images were clipped to the extent of the map and all explanatory text, gathered from map explanations or report text was imported into the raster mosaic dataset database as ‘Footprint’ layer attributes. The data compiled into the 'Footprint' layer tables contains the figure caption from the original map, online linkage to the source report when available, and information on the assessed commodities according to the legal definition of mineral resources—metallic, non-metallic, leasable non-fuel, leasable fuel, geothermal, paleontological, and saleable. To use the raster mosaic datasets in ArcMap, click on “add data”, double click on the [filename].gdb, and add the item titled [filename]_raster_mosaic. This will add all of the images within the geodatabase as part of the raster mosaic dataset. Once added to ArcMap, the raster mosaic dataset appears as a group of three layers under the mosaic dataset. The first item in the group is the ‘Boundary’, which contains a single polygon representing the extent of all images in the dataset. The second item is the ‘Footprint’, which contains polygons representing the extent of each individual image in the dataset. The ‘Footprint’ layer also contains the attribute table data associated with each of the images. The third item is the ‘Image’ layer and contains the images in the dataset. The images are overlapping and must be selected and locked, or queried in order to be viewed one at a time. Images can be selected from the attribute table, or can be selected using the direct select tool. When using the direct select tool, you will need to deselect the ‘overviews’ after clicking on an image or group of images. To do this, right click on the ‘Footprint’ layer and hover over ‘Selection’, then click ‘Reselect Only Primary Rasters’. To lock a selected image after selecting it, right-click on the ‘Footprint’ layer in the table of contents window and hover over ‘Selection’, then click ‘Lock To Selected Rasters’. Another way to view a single image is to run a definition query on the image. This is done by right clicking on the raster mosaic in the table of contents and opening the layer properties box. Then click on the ‘Definition Query’ tab and create a query for the desired image.

This data publication contains twenty-four GeoTIFF files for four significant geographic areas (SGAs) in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The extent of the SGAs are defined within the America's Longleaf Range-wide Conservation Plan for Longleaf (2009). A raster grid file is provided for the extent of each SGA within each state and shows the amount of pine basal area per acre (BAA), the amount of all species BAA, the amount of pine trees per acre (TPA), the amount of all species TPA, dominant forest type classification, visually identified classification, the probability of an area being composed primarily of longleaf pine BAA, and the probability of an area being composed primarily of regeneration. These raster surfaces were created using machine learning relationships between FIA plot information (2010-2015) and NAIP imagery (2013) and are intended to be used to help quantify existing conditions of forested ecosystems and help prioritize longleaf restoration efforts across the four SGAs.

Analysis Image Service generated from Extract Raster Data

Statewide Ecopia 3 foot Land Cover (2021-2022)This raster land cover data is based off of high-resolution statewide imagery from 2021-2022. It was used by Ecopia to extract and digitize the entire state into 7 different land cover classes. Download Notes:This service can be entered into ArcGIS Pro where "Download Rasters" can be used to download approximately 20 square miles at a time. (Rt. click layer in TOC > Data > Download Rasters)Alternatively, the entire statewide 3ft dataset is available as a zipped download from here (includes colormap file): Ecopia_Statewide_3ft_Raster_TilesClasses available at bottom of this pages.Data SpecificationImagery Used for Extraction: Pixel resolution: 15 cm (6")Camera sensor: Hexagon Pushbroom (Content Mapper)Date of capture: 06/25/2021 - 08/14/2022Date of Vector Extraction: June 2023Extraction Methodology:Ecopia uses proprietary extraction and modeling software to process raw images into high-resolution land cover classifications.Quality Measurements:Measure Name - Threshold across Impervious Polygons:False Negatives <= 5% All PolygonsFalse Positives <= 5% All PolygonsValid Interpretation >= 95% All PolygonsMinimum Area 100% All PolygonsValid Geometry 100% All PolygonsMeasure Name - Threshold across Natural Polygons:False Negatives <=5% All PolygonsFalse Positives <=5% All PolygonsValid Interpretation >=90% All PolygonsMinimum Area 100% All PolygonsValid Geometry 100% All PolygonsLand Cover Classes:UnclassifiedImperviousImpervious, covered by treesShrub/low vegetationTree/forest/high vegetationOpen waterRailroadVegetation (Canopy Mapping)Tree canopy will be captured as a unique polygon layer. It can therefore overlap impervious layers.High vegetation is distinguished from low vegetation based on crown, texture, and derived height models. Leveraging stereo imagery produces results using 3D elevation models used to aid the distinction of vegetation categories. Distinguishing low from high vegetation is based on a 5m threshold, but this is not always feasible, especially in areas where heavy canopy prevents a visualization of the ground. In these circumstances, high vegetation will be given the priority over low vegetation. For more information visit: www.ecopiatech.comClasses:0: No data - Null, clear1: Unclassified2: Impervious3: Impervious, Covered by Tree Canopy6: Shrub/Low Vegetation7: Tree/Forest/High Vegetation8: Open Water12: Railroad

This dataset consists of raster geotiff outputs of annual map projections of land use and land cover for the California Central Valley for the period 2011-2101 across 5 future scenarios. Four of the scenarios were developed as part of the Central Valley Landscape Conservation Project. The 4 original scenarios include a Bad-Business-As-Usual (BBAU; high water availability, poor management), California Dreamin’ (DREAM; high water availability, good management), Central Valley Dustbowl (DUST; low water availability, poor management), and Everyone Equally Miserable (EEM; low water availability, good management). These scenarios represent alternative plausible futures, capturing a range of climate variability, land management activities, and habitat restoration goals. We parameterized our models based on close interpretation of these four scenario narratives to best reflect stakeholder interests, adding a baseline Historical Business-As-Usual scenario (HBAU) for comparison. For these future map projections, the model was initialized in 2011 and run forward on an annual time step to 2101. Each filename has the associated scenario ID (scn418 = DUST, scn419 = DREAM, scn420 = HBAU, scn421 = BBAU, and scn426 = EEM), State Class identification as “sc”, model iteration (= it1 in all cases as only 1 Monte Carlo simulation was modeled), and timestep as “ts” information embedded in the file naming convention. For example, the filename scn418.sc.it1.ts2027.tif represents the DUST scenario (scn418), state class information (sc), iteration 1 (it1), for the 2027 model year (ts2027). The full methods and results of this research are described in detail in the parent manuscript "Integrated modeling of climate, land use, and water availability scenarios and their impacts on managed wetland habitat: A case study from California’s Central Valley" (2021).

This submission contains raster files associated with several datasets that include earthquake density, Na/K geothermometers, fault density, heat flow, and gravity. Integrated together using spatial modeler tools in ArcGIS, these files can be used for play fairway analysis in regard to geothermal exploration.

An index of TIFs received from the Rural Water Association. The TIFs are comparable to the Unconsolidated Aquifers and the Surficial Geologic Matetrials shapefiles. Data exists for the following towns: Ancram, Austerlitz, Chatham, Claverack, Copake, Germantown, Ghent, Hillsdale, Stuyvesant, and Taghkanic.

TIF Data current as of March 2016.

Wildfire is a significant threat to ecosystems and human safety, exacerbated by climate warming. The Penticton region of British-Columbia, Canada is an area which is experiencing increasingly worsening wildfire events. These natural disturbance events represent a significant threat to local ecosystems, property and human life and wellbeing. As fire conditions worsen, and the population density of this region increases, landscape analysis of fire hazard levels is necessary to direct emergency service management prior to and during wildfire events and to inform policy on how to manage these natural disasters. To assess fire hazard levels, a GIS-based multi-criteria analysis was performed to understand fire hazard spatially, subdivided into low, moderate, high, and severe hazard areas. Two models were built to achieve this, taking into account commonly used variables employed to assess fire hazard severity around the world. To identify potential differences in hazard assessment, the models weighted these variables differently from one another. Fire location points from the year 2000 to 2021 were overlayed with each respective model output. Model 1 spatially overlapped with 73.88% of these fires, while model 2 spatially overlapped with 74.35%. These results can help identify areas of elevated hazard under ideal burning conditions, inform deployment of emergency services and resources, and provide a framework for using a GIS to conduct a fire hazard landscape assessment. Datasets associated and created to complete analysis employed in this research project.

Geographic Information System (GIS) analyses are an essential part of natural resource management and research. Calculating and summarizing data within intersecting GIS layers is common practice for analysts and researchers. However, the various tools and steps required to complete this process are slow and tedious, requiring many tools iterating over hundreds, or even thousands of datasets. USGS scientists will combine a series of ArcGIS geoprocessing capabilities with custom scripts to create tools that will calculate, summarize, and organize large amounts of data that can span many temporal and spatial scales with minimal user input. The tools work with polygons, lines, points, and rasters to calculate relevant summary data and combine them into a single output table that can be easily incorporated into statistical analyses. These tools are useful for anyone interested in using an automated script to quickly compile summary information within all areas of interest in a GIS dataset

Rasters assocaited with elevation (from the National elevation dataset), slope (created from the elevation dataset using ArcGIS), a Shannon diversity index as a metric of landscape fragmentation (created from the forest/shrub layer using Fragstats), distance to all roads (created in ArcGIS using a road TIGER shapefile), distance to forest/shrubs (created using NLCD 2016 data), human population density (created using data from the US Census Bureau). All rasters are at a 90m resolution.

MODIS Water Lake Powell Raster Dataset

  Dataset Summary

Raster dataset comprised of MODIS surface reflectance bands along with calculated indices and a label (water/not-water)

  Dataset Structure





  Data Fields

water: Label, water or not-water (binary) sur_refl_b01_1: MODIS surface reflection band 1 (-100, 16000) sur_refl_b02_1: MODIS surface reflection band 2 (-100, 16000) sur_refl_b03_1: MODIS surface reflection band 3 (-100, 16000) sur_refl_b04_1:… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/nasa-cisto-data-science-group/modis-lake-powell-raster-dataset.