This resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or equivalent entity, and were defined by local participants as part of the 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program. The Census Bureau delineated the census tracts in situations where no local participant existed or where all the potential participants declined to participate. The primary purpose of census tracts is to provide a stable set of geographic units for the presentation of census data and comparison back to previous decennial censuses. Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. When first delineated, census tracts were designed to be homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. The spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement. Physical changes in street patterns caused by highway construction, new development, and so forth, may require boundary revisions. In addition, census tracts occasionally are split due to population growth, or combined as a result of substantial population decline. Census tract boundaries generally follow visible and identifiable features. They may follow legal boundaries such as minor civil division (MCD) or incorporated place boundaries in some States and situations to allow for census tract-to-governmental unit relationships where the governmental boundaries tend to remain unchanged between censuses. State and county boundaries always are census tract boundaries in the standard census geographic hierarchy. In a few rare instances, a census tract may consist of noncontiguous areas. These noncontiguous areas may occur where the census tracts are coextensive with all or parts of legal entities that are themselves noncontiguous. For the 2010 Census, the census tract code range of 9400 through 9499 was enforced for census tracts that include a majority American Indian population according to Census 2000 data and/or their area was primarily covered by federally recognized American Indian reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands; the code range 9800 through 9899 was enforced for those census tracts that contained little or no population and represented a relatively large special land use area such as a National Park, military installation, or a business/industrial park; and the code range 9900 through 9998 was enforced for those census tracts that contained only water area, no land area.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Linear Water Features includes single-line drainage water features and artificial path features that run through double-line drainage features such as rivers and streams, and serve as a linear representation of these features. The artificial path features may correspond to those in the USGS National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD). However, in many cases the features do not match NHD equivalent feature and will not carry the NHD metadata codes. These features have a MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) beginning with an "H" to indicate the super class of Hydrographic Features.

This resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The All Roads Shapefile includes all features within the MTDB Super Class "Road/Path Features" distinguished where the MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) for the feature in MTDB that begins with "S". This includes all primary, secondary, local neighborhood, and rural roads, city streets, vehicular trails (4wd), ramps, service drives, alleys, parking lot roads, private roads for service vehicles (logging, oil fields, ranches, etc.), bike paths or trails, bridle/horse paths, walkways/pedestrian trails, and stairways.

These are full-resolution boundary files, derived from TIGER/Line Shapefiles, the fully-supported, core geographic products from the US Census Bureau. They are extracts of selected geographic and cartographic information from the US Census Bureau's Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) database. These include information for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Island areas (American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands). These include polygon boundaries of geographic and statistical areas, linear features including roads and hydrography, and point features. These files are converted and made available in BigQuery by the Cloud Public Datasets Program to support geospatial analysis through BigQuery GIS . The dataset describes the boundaries of the following US areas: States Counties 115th & 116th US Congressional Districts Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas Urban Areas City Limits Combined Statistical Areas Coastline Populated Places National border For more details on each dataset, see the technical documentation published by the Census Bureau. This public dataset is hosted in Google BigQuery and is included in BigQuery's 1TB/mo of free tier processing. This means that each user receives 1TB of free BigQuery processing every month, which can be used to run queries on this public dataset. Watch this short video to learn how to get started quickly using BigQuery to access public datasets. What is BigQuery .</

TIGER road data for the MSA. When compared to high-resolution imagery and other transportation datasets positional inaccuracies were observed. As a result caution should be taken when using this dataset. TIGER, TIGER/Line, and Census TIGER are registered trademarks of the U.S. Census Bureau. ZCTA is a trademark of the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census 2000 TIGER/Line files are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the Census TIGER data base. The geographic coverage for a single TIGER/Line file is a county or statistical equivalent entity, with the coverage area based on January 1, 2000 legal boundaries. A complete set of census 2000 TIGER/Line files includes all counties and statistically equivalent entities in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas. The Census TIGER data base represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts. However, each county-based TIGER/Line file is designed to stand alone as an independent data set or the files can be combined to cover the whole Nation. The Census 2000 TIGER/Line files consist of line segments representing physical features and governmental and statistical boundaries. The boundary information in the TIGER/Line files are for statistical data collection and tabulation purposes only; their depiction and designation for statistical purposes does not constitute a determination of jurisdictional authority or rights of ownership or entitlement. The Census 2000 TIGER/Line files do NOT contain the Census 2000 urban areas which have not yet been delineated. The files contain information distributed over a series of record types for the spatial objects of a county. There are 17 record types, including the basic data record, the shape coordinate points, and geographic codes that can be used with appropriate software to prepare maps. Other geographic information contained in the files includes attributes such as feature identifiers/census feature class codes (CFCC) used to differentiate feature types, address ranges and ZIP Codes, codes for legal and statistical entities, latitude/longitude coordinates of linear and point features, landmark point features, area landmarks, key geographic features, and area boundaries. The Census 2000 TIGER/Line data dictionary contains a complete list of all the fields in the 17 record types. This is part of a collection of 221 Baltimore Ecosystem Study metadata records that point to a geodatabase. The geodatabase is available online and is considerably large. Upon request, and under certain arrangements, it can be shipped on media, such as a usb hard drive. The geodatabase is roughly 51.4 Gb in size, consisting of 4,914 files in 160 folders. Although this metadata record and the others like it are not rich with attributes, it is nonetheless made available because the data that it represents could be indeed useful.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The All Roads Shapefile includes all features within the MTDB Super Class "Road/Path Features" distinguished where the MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) for the feature in MTDB that begins with "S". This includes all primary, secondary, local neighborhood, and rural roads, city streets, vehicular trails (4wd), ramps, service drives, alleys, parking lot roads, private roads for service vehicles (logging, oil fields, ranches, etc.), bike paths or trails, bridle/horse paths, walkways/pedestrian trails, and stairways.

This map package includes the official Tribal areas that NTIA recognizes for their grant programs. The map package includes the following layers. Alaska Native Villages - this layer represents Alaska Native Villages and is created by Census. The layer was downloaded on Jan. 28, 2025, from here: TIGER/Line® Shapefiles.Native Hawaiian Areas - this layer represents Native Hawaiian Areas and is created by Census. The layer was downloaded on Jan. 28, 2025, from here: TIGER/Line® Shapefiles and has been filtered to only include Native Hawaiian Areas. BIA AIAN National LAR - this layer represents American Indian Lands and is created by the BIA. The layer was accessed here: BIA Access Open Data and was exported on Jan. 28, 2025. The layer was filtered to only include lands across the continental U.S. BIA AIAN LAR Supplemental - this layer is a supplemental dataset to the LAR. The layer was accessed here: BIA Access Open Data and was exported on Jan. 28, 2025.BIA AIAN Tribal Statistical Areas - this layer represents Tribal Statistical Areas located in Oklahoma. The layer was accessed here: BIA Access Open Data and was exported on Jan. 28, 2025.This map package was created on Jan. 28, 2025 and was created using ArcGIS Pro 3.4.0. If you have any questions regarding the map package please e-mail NTIAanalytics@ntia.gov.ResourcesCensus DataBIA Open DataBIA Data DisclaimerBy using this product, the user agrees to the below terms and conditions:No warranty is made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the use of the data for purposes not intended by the BIA. This GIS Dataset may contain errors. There is no impact on the legal status of the land areas depicted herein and no impact on land ownership. No legal inference can or should be made from the information in this GIS Dataset. The GIS Dataset is prepared strictly for illustrative and reference purposes only and should not be used, and is not intended for legal, survey, engineering or navigation purposes. These data have been developed from the best available sources. Although efforts have been made to ensure that the data are accurate and reliable, errors and variable conditions originating from source documents and/or the translation of information from source documents to the systems of record continue to exist. Users must be aware of these conditions and bear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, scale, resolution, rectification, positional accuracy, development methodology, time period, environmental and climatic conditions and other circumstances specific to these data. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of the data provided herein. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user. The user should refer to the accompanying metadata notes for a description of the data and data development procedures.Census Use RestraintsThe TIGER/Line Shapefile products are not copyrighted however TIGER/Line and Census TIGER are registered trademarks of the U.S. Census Bureau. These products are free to use in a product or publication, however acknowledgement must be given to the U.S. Census Bureau as the source. The boundary information in the TIGER/Line Shapefiles are for statistical data collection and tabulation purposes only; their depiction and designation for statistical purposes does not constitute a determination of jurisdictional authority or rights of ownership or entitlement and they are not legal land descriptions. Coordinates in the TIGER/Line shapefiles have six implied decimal places, but the positional accuracy of these coordinates is not as great as the six decimal places suggest.

This shapefile represents habitat suitability categories (High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat) derived from a composite, continuous surface of sage-grouse habitat suitability index (HSI) values for Nevada and northeastern California during spring, which is a surrogate for habitat conditions during the sage-grouse breeding and nesting period. Summary of steps to create Habitat Categories: HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX: The HSI was derived from a generalized linear mixed model (specified by binomial distribution) that contrasted data from multiple environmental factors at used sites (telemetry locations) and available sites (random locations). Predictor variables for the model represented vegetation communities at multiple spatial scales, water resources, habitat configuration, urbanization, roads, elevation, ruggedness, and slope. Vegetation data was derived from various mapping products, which included NV SynthMap (Petersen 2008, SageStitch (Comer et al. 2002, LANDFIRE (Landfire 2010), and the CA Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP 2006). The analysis was updated to include high resolution percent cover within 30 x 30 m pixels for Sagebrush, non-sagebrush, herbaceous vegetation, and bare ground (C. Homer, unpublished; based on the methods of Homer et al. 2014, Xian et al. 2015 ) and conifer (primarily pinyon-juniper, P. Coates, unpublished). The pool of telemetry data included the same data from 1998 - 2013 used by Coates et al. (2014); additional telemetry location data from field sites in 2014 were added to the dataset. The dataset was then split according calendar date into three seasons (spring, summer, winter). Spring included telemetry locations (n = 14,058) from mid-March to June, and is a surrogate for habitat conditions during the sage-grouse breeding and nesting period. All age and sex classes of marked grouse were used in the analysis. Sufficient data (i.e., a minimum of 100 locations from at least 20 marked Sage-grouse) for modeling existed in 10 subregions for spring and summer, and seven subregions in winter, using all age and sex classes of marked grouse. It is important to note that although this map is composed of HSI values derived from the seasonal data, it does not explicitly represent habitat suitability for reproductive females (i.e., nesting). Insufficient data were available to allow for estimation of this habitat type for all seasons throughout the study area extent. A Resource Selection Function (RSF) was calculated for each subregion and using generalized linear models to derive model-averaged parameter estimates for each covariate across a set of additive models. Subregional RSFs were transformed into Habitat Suitability Indices, and averaged together to produce an overall statewide HSI whereby a relative probability of occurrence was calculated for each raster cell during the spring season. In order to account for discrepancies in HSI values caused by varying ecoregions within Nevada, the HSI was divided into north and south extents using a slightly modified flood region boundary (Mason 1999) that was designed to represent respective mesic and xeric regions of the state. North and south HSI rasters were each relativized according to their maximum value to rescale between zero and one, then mosaicked once more into a state-wide extent. HABITAT CATEGORIZATION: Using the same ecoregion boundaries described above, the habitat classification dataset (an independent data set comprising 10% of the total telemetry location sample) was split into locations falling within respective north and south regions. HSI values from the composite and relativized statewide HSI surface were then extracted to each classification dataset location within the north and south region. The distribution of these values were used to identify class break values corresponding to 0.5 (high), 1.0 (moderate), and 1.5 (low) standard deviations (SD) from the mean HSI. These class breaks were used to classify the HSI surface into four discrete categories of habitat suitability: High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat. In terms of percentiles, High habitat comprised greater than 30.9 % of the HSI values, Moderate comprised 15 – 30.9%, Low comprised 6.7 – 15%, and Non-Habitat comprised less than 6.7%.The classified north and south regions were then clipped by the boundary layer and mosaicked to create a statewide categorical surface for habitat selection. Each habitat suitability category was converted to a vector output where gaps within polygons less than 1.2 million square meters were eliminated, polygons within 500 meters of each other were connected to create corridors and polygons less than 1.2 million square meters in one category were incorporated to the adjacent category. The final step was to mask major roads that were buffered by 50m (Census, 2014), lakes (Peterson, 2008) and urban areas, and place those masked areas into the non-habitat category. The existing urban layer (Census 2010) was not sufficient for our needs because it excluded towns with a population lower than 1,500. Hence, we masked smaller towns (populations of 100 to 1500) and development with Census Block polygons (Census 2015) that had at least 50% urban development within their boundaries when viewed with reference imagery (ArcGIS World Imagery Service Layer). REFERENCES: California Forest and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP). 2006. Statewide Land Use / Land Cover Mosaic. [Geospatial data.] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata-sw-rangeland-assessment_data.php Census 2010. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Urban Areas [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2014. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Roads [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2015. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Blocks [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Overton, C.T., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Kroger, T., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Howe, K., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J. 2014, Spatially explicit modeling of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern California—A decision-support tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1163, 83 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141163. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) Comer, P., Kagen, J., Heiner, M., and Tobalske, C. 2002. Current distribution of sagebrush and associated vegetation in the western United States (excluding NM). [Geospatial data.] Interagency Sagebrush Working Group, http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov Homer, C.G., Aldridge, C.L., Meyer, D.K., and Schell, S.J. 2014. Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Sagebrush Characterization with Regression Trees over Wyoming, USA; Laying a Foundation for Monitoring. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 14, Elsevier, US. LANDFIRE. 2010. 1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type Layer. [Geospatial data.] U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ Mason, R.R. 1999. The National Flood-Frequency Program—Methods For Estimating Flood Magnitude And Frequency In Rural Areas In Nevada U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 123-98 September, 1999, Prepared by Robert R. Mason, Jr. and Kernell G. Ries III, of the U.S. Geological Survey; and Jeffrey N. King and Wilbert O. Thomas, Jr., of Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-123-98/ Peterson, E. B. 2008. A Synthesis of Vegetation Maps for Nevada (Initiating a 'Living' Vegetation Map). Documentation and geospatial data, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City, Nevada, http://www.heritage.nv.gov/gis Xian, G., Homer, C., Rigge, M., Shi, H., and Meyer, D. 2015. Characterization of shrubland ecosystem components as continuous fields in the northwest United States. Remote Sensing of Environment 168:286-300. NOTE: This file does not include habitat areas for the Bi-State management area and the spatial extent is modified in comparison to Coates et al. 2014

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Face refers to the areal (polygon) topological primitives that make up MTDB. A face is bounded by one or more edges; its boundary includes only the edges that separate it from other faces, not any interior edges contained within the area of the face. The Topological Faces Shapefile contains the attributes of each topological primitive face. Each face has a unique topological face identifier (TFID) value. Each face in the shapefile includes the key geographic area codes for all geographic areas for which the Census Bureau tabulates data for both the 2020 Census and the annual estimates and surveys. The geometries of each of these geographic areas can then be built by dissolving the face geometries on the appropriate key geographic area codes in the Topological Faces Shapefile.

These are the full-resolution boundary zip code tabular areas (ZCTA), derived from the US Census Bureau's TIGER/Line Shapefiles. The dataset contains polygons that roughly approximate each of the USPS 5-digit zip codes. It is one of many geography datasets available in BigQuery through the Google Cloud Public Dataset Program to support geospatial analysis. You can find more information on the other datasets at the US Geographic Boundaries Marketplace page . Though they do not continuously cover all land and water areas in the United States, ZCTAs are a great way to visualize geospatial data in an understandable format with excellent spatial resolution. This dataset gives the area of land and water within each zip code, as well as the corresponding city and state for each zip code. This makes the dataset an excellent candidate for JOINs to support geospatial queries with BigQuery’s GIS capabilities. Note: BQ-GIS is in public beta, so your GCP project will need to be whitelisted to try out these queries. You can sign up to request access here . This public dataset is hosted in Google BigQuery and is included in BigQuery's 1TB/mo of free tier processing. This means that each user receives 1TB of free BigQuery processing every month, which can be used to run queries on this public dataset. Watch this short video to learn how to get started quickly using BigQuery to access public datasets. What is BigQuery .

National Risk Index Version: March 2023 (1.19.0)An Ice Storm is a freezing rain situation (rain that freezes on surface contact) with significant ice accumulations of 0.25 inches or greater. Annualized frequency values for Ice Storms are in units of event-days per year.The National Risk Index is a dataset and online tool that helps to illustrate the communities most at risk for 18 natural hazards across the United States and territories: Avalanche, Coastal Flooding, Cold Wave, Drought, Earthquake, Hail, Heat Wave, Hurricane, Ice Storm, Landslide, Lightning, Riverine Flooding, Strong Wind, Tornado, Tsunami, Volcanic Activity, Wildfire, and Winter Weather. The National Risk Index provides Risk Index values, scores and ratings based on data for Expected Annual Loss due to natural hazards, Social Vulnerability, and Community Resilience. Separate values, scores and ratings are also provided for Expected Annual Loss, Social Vulnerability, and Community Resilience. For the Risk Index and Expected Annual Loss, values, scores and ratings can be viewed as a composite score for all hazards or individually for each of the 18 hazard types.Sources for Expected Annual Loss data include: Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Arizona State University’s (ASU) Center for Emergency Management and Homeland Security (CEMHS), California Department of Conservation, California Office of Emergency Services California Geological Survey, Colorado Avalanche Information Center, CoreLogic’s Flood Services, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program, Humanitarian Data Exchange (HDX), Iowa State University's Iowa Environmental Mesonet, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MLRC) Consortium, National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Cooperative Open Online Landslide Repository (COOLR), National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Hurricane Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service (NWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Geophysical Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Storm Prediction Center, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System, Puerto Rico Seismic Network, Smithsonian Institution's Global Volcanism Program, State of Hawaii’s Office of Planning’s Statewide GIS Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), U.S. Forest Service's Fire Modeling Institute's Missoula Fire Sciences Lab, U.S. Forest Service's National Avalanche Center (NAC), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Geological Survey's Landslide Hazards Program, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), University of Alaska – Fairbanks' Alaska Earthquake Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln's National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), University of Southern California's Tsunami Research Center, and Washington State Department of Natural Resources.Data for Social Vulnerability are provided by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index, and data for Community Resilience are provided by University of South Carolina's Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute’s (HVRI) 2020 Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities.The source of the boundaries for counties and Census tracts are based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 TIGER/Line shapefiles. Building value and population exposures for communities are based on FEMA’s Hazus 6.0. Agriculture values are based on the USDA 2017 Census of Agriculture.

National Risk Index Version: March 2023 (1.19.0)A Tornado is a narrow, violently rotating column of air that extends from the base of a thunderstorm to the ground and is visible only if it forms a condensation funnel made up of water droplets, dust and debris. Annualized frequency values for Tornadoes are in units of events per year.The National Risk Index is a dataset and online tool that helps to illustrate the communities most at risk for 18 natural hazards across the United States and territories: Avalanche, Coastal Flooding, Cold Wave, Drought, Earthquake, Hail, Heat Wave, Hurricane, Ice Storm, Landslide, Lightning, Riverine Flooding, Strong Wind, Tornado, Tsunami, Volcanic Activity, Wildfire, and Winter Weather. The National Risk Index provides Risk Index values, scores and ratings based on data for Expected Annual Loss due to natural hazards, Social Vulnerability, and Community Resilience. Separate values, scores and ratings are also provided for Expected Annual Loss, Social Vulnerability, and Community Resilience. For the Risk Index and Expected Annual Loss, values, scores and ratings can be viewed as a composite score for all hazards or individually for each of the 18 hazard types.Sources for Expected Annual Loss data include: Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Arizona State University’s (ASU) Center for Emergency Management and Homeland Security (CEMHS), California Department of Conservation, California Office of Emergency Services California Geological Survey, Colorado Avalanche Information Center, CoreLogic’s Flood Services, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program, Humanitarian Data Exchange (HDX), Iowa State University's Iowa Environmental Mesonet, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MLRC) Consortium, National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Cooperative Open Online Landslide Repository (COOLR), National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Hurricane Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service (NWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Geophysical Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Storm Prediction Center, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System, Puerto Rico Seismic Network, Smithsonian Institution's Global Volcanism Program, State of Hawaii’s Office of Planning’s Statewide GIS Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), U.S. Forest Service's Fire Modeling Institute's Missoula Fire Sciences Lab, U.S. Forest Service's National Avalanche Center (NAC), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Geological Survey's Landslide Hazards Program, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), University of Alaska – Fairbanks' Alaska Earthquake Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln's National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), University of Southern California's Tsunami Research Center, and Washington State Department of Natural Resources.Data for Social Vulnerability are provided by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index, and data for Community Resilience are provided by University of South Carolina's Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute’s (HVRI) 2020 Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities.The source of the boundaries for counties and Census tracts are based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 TIGER/Line shapefiles. Building value and population exposures for communities are based on FEMA’s Hazus 6.0. Agriculture values are based on the USDA 2017 Census of Agriculture.

This dataset contains shapefile boundaries for CA State, counties and places from the US Census Bureau's 2023 MAF/TIGER database. Current geography in the 2023 TIGER/Line Shapefiles generally reflects the boundaries of governmental units in effect as of January 1, 2023.

description: This raster represents a continuous surface of sage-grouse habitat suitability index (HSI, created using ArcGIS 10.2.2) values for Nevada during spring, which is a surrogate for habitat conditions during the sage-grouse breeding and nesting period. Summary of steps to create Habitat Categories: HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX: The HSI was derived from a generalized linear mixed model (specified by binomial distribution) that contrasted data from multiple environmental factors at used sites (telemetry locations) and available sites (random locations). Predictor variables for the model represented vegetation communities at multiple spatial scales, water resources, habitat configuration, urbanization, roads, elevation, ruggedness, and slope. Vegetation data was derived from various mapping products, which included NV SynthMap (Petersen 2008, SageStitch (Comer et al. 2002, LANDFIRE (Landfire 2010), and the CA Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP 2006). The analysis was updated to include high resolution percent cover within 30 x 30 m pixels for Sagebrush, non-sagebrush, herbaceous vegetation, and bare ground (C. Homer, unpublished; based on the methods of Homer et al. 2014, Xian et al. 2015 ) and conifer (primarily pinyon-juniper, P. Coates, unpublished). The pool of telemetry data included the same data from 1998 - 2013 used by Coates et al. (2014); additional telemetry location data from field sites in 2014 were added to the dataset. The dataset was then split according calendar date into three seasons (spring, summer, winter). Summer included telemetry locations (n = 14,058) from mid-March to June. All age and sex classes of marked grouse were used in the analysis. Sufficient data (i.e., a minimum of 100 locations from at least 20 marked Sage-grouse) for modeling existed in 10 subregions for spring and summer, and seven subregions in winter, using all age and sex classes of marked grouse. It is important to note that although this map is composed of HSI values derived from the seasonal data, it does not explicitly represent habitat suitability for reproductive females (i.e., nesting and with broods). Insufficient data were available to allow for estimation of this habitat type for all seasons throughout the study area extent. A Resource Selection Function (RSF) was calculated using R Software (v 3.13) for each subregion and using generalized linear models to derive model-averaged parameter estimates for each covariate across a set of additive models. Subregional RSFs were transformed into Habitat Suitability Indices, and averaged together to produce an overall statewide HSI whereby a relative probability of occurrence was calculated for each raster cell during the spring. In order to account for discrepancies in HSI values caused by varying ecoregions within Nevada, the HSI was divided into north and south extents using a slightly modified flood region boundary (Mason 1999) that was designed to represent respective mesic and xeric regions of the state. North and south HSI rasters were each relativized according to their maximum value to rescale between zero and one, then mosaicked once more into a state-wide extent. REFERENCES: California Forest and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP). 2006. Statewide Land Use / Land Cover Mosaic. [Geospatial data.] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata-sw-rangeland-assessment_data.php Census 2010. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Urban Areas [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2014. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Roads [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2015. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Blocks [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Overton, C.T., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Kroger, T., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Howe, K., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J. 2014, Spatially explicit modeling of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern CaliforniaA decision-support tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1163, 83 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141163. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) Comer, P., Kagen, J., Heiner, M., and Tobalske, C. 2002. Current distribution of sagebrush and associated vegetation in the western United States (excluding NM). [Geospatial data.] Interagency Sagebrush Working Group, http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov Homer, C.G., Aldridge, C.L., Meyer, D.K., and Schell, S.J. 2014. Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Sagebrush Characterization with Regression Trees over Wyoming, USA; Laying a Foundation for Monitoring. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 14, Elsevier, US. LANDFIRE. 2010. 1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type Layer. [Geospatial data.] U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ Mason, R.R. 1999. The National Flood-Frequency ProgramMethods For Estimating Flood Magnitude And Frequency In Rural Areas In Nevada U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 123-98 September, 1999, Prepared by Robert R. Mason, Jr. and Kernell G. Ries III, of the U.S. Geological Survey; and Jeffrey N. King and Wilbert O. Thomas, Jr., of Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-123-98/ Peterson, E. B. 2008. A Synthesis of Vegetation Maps for Nevada (Initiating a 'Living' Vegetation Map). Documentation and geospatial data, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City, Nevada, http://www.heritage.nv.gov/gis Xian, G., Homer, C., Rigge, M., Shi, H., and Meyer, D. 2015. Characterization of shrubland ecosystem components as continuous fields in the northwest United States. Remote Sensing of Environment 168:286-300. NOTE: This file does not include habitat areas for the Bi-State management area and the spatial extent is modified in comparison to Coates et al. 2014; abstract: This raster represents a continuous surface of sage-grouse habitat suitability index (HSI, created using ArcGIS 10.2.2) values for Nevada during spring, which is a surrogate for habitat conditions during the sage-grouse breeding and nesting period. Summary of steps to create Habitat Categories: HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX: The HSI was derived from a generalized linear mixed model (specified by binomial distribution) that contrasted data from multiple environmental factors at used sites (telemetry locations) and available sites (random locations). Predictor variables for the model represented vegetation communities at multiple spatial scales, water resources, habitat configuration, urbanization, roads, elevation, ruggedness, and slope. Vegetation data was derived from various mapping products, which included NV SynthMap (Petersen 2008, SageStitch (Comer et al. 2002, LANDFIRE (Landfire 2010), and the CA Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP 2006). The analysis was updated to include high resolution percent cover within 30 x 30 m pixels for Sagebrush, non-sagebrush, herbaceous vegetation, and bare ground (C. Homer, unpublished; based on the methods of Homer et al. 2014, Xian et al. 2015 ) and conifer (primarily pinyon-juniper, P. Coates, unpublished). The pool of telemetry data included the same data from 1998 - 2013 used by Coates et al. (2014); additional telemetry location data from field sites in 2014 were added to the dataset. The dataset was then split according calendar date into three seasons (spring, summer, winter). Summer included telemetry locations (n = 14,058) from mid-March to June. All age and sex classes of marked grouse were used in the analysis. Sufficient data (i.e., a minimum of 100 locations from at least 20 marked Sage-grouse) for modeling existed in 10 subregions for spring and summer, and seven subregions in winter, using all age and sex classes of marked grouse. It is important to note that although this map is composed of HSI values derived from the seasonal data, it does not explicitly represent habitat suitability for reproductive females (i.e., nesting and with broods). Insufficient data were available to allow for estimation of this habitat type for all seasons throughout the study area extent. A Resource Selection Function (RSF) was calculated using R Software (v 3.13) for each subregion and using generalized linear models to derive model-averaged parameter estimates for each covariate across a set of additive models. Subregional RSFs were transformed into Habitat Suitability Indices, and averaged together to produce an overall statewide HSI whereby a relative probability of occurrence was calculated for each raster cell during the spring. In order to account for discrepancies in HSI values caused by varying ecoregions within Nevada, the HSI was divided into north and south extents using a slightly modified flood region boundary (Mason 1999) that was designed to represent respective mesic and xeric regions of the state. North and south HSI rasters were each relativized according to their maximum value to rescale between zero and one, then mosaicked once more into a state-wide extent. REFERENCES: California Forest and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP). 2006. Statewide Land Use / Land Cover Mosaic. [Geospatial data.] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata-sw-rangeland-assessment_data.php Census 2010. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Urban Areas [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2014. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Roads [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2015. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Blocks [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C.,

This shapefile represents habitat suitability categories (High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat) derived from a composite, continuous surface of sage-grouse habitat suitability index (HSI) values for Nevada and northeastern California during the winter season, and is a surrogate for habitat conditions during periods of cold and snow. Summary of steps to create Habitat Categories: HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX: The HSI was derived from a generalized linear mixed model (specified by binomial distribution and created using ArcGIS 10.2.2) that contrasted data from multiple environmental factors at used sites (telemetry locations) and available sites (random locations). Predictor variables for the model represented vegetation communities at multiple spatial scales, water resources, habitat configuration, urbanization, roads, elevation, ruggedness, and slope. Vegetation data was derived from various mapping products, which included NV SynthMap (Petersen 2008, SageStitch (Comer et al. 2002, LANDFIRE (Landfire 2010), and the CA Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP 2006). The analysis was updated to include high resolution percent cover within 30 x 30 m pixels for Sagebrush, non-sagebrush, herbaceous vegetation, and bare ground (C. Homer, unpublished; based on the methods of Homer et al. 2014, Xian et al. 2015 ) and conifer (primarily pinyon-juniper, P. Coates, unpublished). The pool of telemetry data included the same data from 1998 - 2013 used by Coates et al. (2014); additional telemetry location data from field sites in 2014 were added to the dataset. The dataset was then split according calendar date into three seasons (spring, summer, winter). Winter included telemetry locations (n = 4862) from November to March. All age and sex classes of marked grouse were used in the analysis. Sufficient data (i.e., a minimum of 100 locations from at least 20 marked Sage-grouse) for modeling existed in 10 subregions for spring and summer, and seven subregions in winter, using all age and sex classes of marked grouse. It is important to note that although this map is composed of HSI values derived from the seasonal data, it does not explicitly represent habitat suitability for reproductive females (i.e., nesting and with broods). Insufficient data were available to allow for estimation of this habitat type for all seasons throughout the study area extent. A Resource Selection Function (RSF) was calculated for each subregion using R software (v 3.13) and using generalized linear models to derive model-averaged parameter estimates for each covariate across a set of additive models. Subregional RSFs were transformed into Habitat Suitability Indices, and averaged together to produce an overall statewide HSI whereby a relative probability of occurrence was calculated for each raster cell during the spring season. In order to account for discrepancies in HSI values caused by varying ecoregions within Nevada, the HSI was divided into north and south extents using a slightly modified flood region boundary (Mason 1999) that was designed to represent respective mesic and xeric regions of the state. North and south HSI rasters were each relativized according to their maximum value to rescale between zero and one, then mosaicked once more into a state-wide extent. HABITAT CATEGORIZATION: Using the same ecoregion boundaries described above, the habitat classification dataset (an independent data set comprising 10% of the total telemetry location sample) was split into locations falling within respective north and south regions. HSI values from the composite and relativized statewide HSI surface were then extracted to each classification dataset location within the north and south region. The distribution of these values were used to identify class break values corresponding to 0.5 (high), 1.0 (moderate), and 1.5 (low) standard deviations (SD) from the mean HSI. These class breaks were used to classify the HSI surface into four discrete categories of habitat suitability: High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat. In terms of percentiles, High habitat comprised greater than 30.9 % of the HSI values, Moderate comprised 15 – 30.9%, Low comprised 6.7 – 15%, and Non-Habitat comprised less than 6.7%.The classified north and south regions were then clipped by the boundary layer and mosaicked to create a statewide categorical surface for habitat selection . Each habitat suitability category was converted to a vector output where gaps within polygons less than 1.2 million square meters were eliminated, polygons within 500 meters of each other were connected to create corridors and polygons less than 1.2 million square meters in one category were incorporated to the adjacent category. The final step was to mask major roads that were buffered by 50m (Census, 2014), lakes (Peterson, 2008) and urban areas, and place those masked areas into the non-habitat category. The existing urban layer (Census 2010) was not sufficient for our needs because it excluded towns with a population lower than 1,500. Hence, we masked smaller towns (populations of 100 to 1500) and development with Census Block polygons (Census 2015) that had at least 50% urban development within their boundaries when viewed with reference imagery (ArcGIS World Imagery Service Layer). REFERENCES: California Forest and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP). 2006. Statewide Land Use / Land Cover Mosaic. [Geospatial data.] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata-sw-rangeland-assessment_data.php Census 2010. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Urban Areas [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2014. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Roads [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2015. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Blocks [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Overton, C.T., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Kroger, T., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Howe, K., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J. 2014, Spatially explicit modeling of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern California—A decision-support tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1163, 83 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141163. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) Comer, P., Kagen, J., Heiner, M., and Tobalske, C. 2002. Current distribution of sagebrush and associated vegetation in the western United States (excluding NM). [Geospatial data.] Interagency Sagebrush Working Group, http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov Homer, C.G., Aldridge, C.L., Meyer, D.K., and Schell, S.J. 2014. Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Sagebrush Characterization with Regression Trees over Wyoming, USA; Laying a Foundation for Monitoring. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 14, Elsevier, US. LANDFIRE. 2010. 1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type Layer. [Geospatial data.] U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ Mason, R.R. 1999. The National Flood-Frequency Program—Methods For Estimating Flood Magnitude And Frequency In Rural Areas In Nevada U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 123-98 September, 1999, Prepared by Robert R. Mason, Jr. and Kernell G. Ries III, of the U.S. Geological Survey; and Jeffrey N. King and Wilbert O. Thomas, Jr., of Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-123-98/ Peterson, E. B. 2008. A Synthesis of Vegetation Maps for Nevada (Initiating a 'Living' Vegetation Map). Documentation and geospatial data, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City, Nevada, http://www.heritage.nv.gov/gis Xian, G., Homer, C., Rigge, M., Shi, H., and Meyer, D. 2015. Characterization of shrubland ecosystem components as continuous fields in the northwest United States. Remote Sensing of Environment 168:286-300. NOTE: This file does not include habitat areas for the Bi-State management area and the spatial extent is modified in comparison to Coates et al. 2014

description: This layer depicts the status, or degree of disturbance, to plant communities on the main Hawaiian Islands. Several layers were uset to create this version (v 3.4). The original HabQual layer was developed by Jon Price and Jim Jacobi based on the mapped land cover units from the Hawaii GAP analysis program (Gon et al. 2006). This map was revised by combining data on land use and the Bare category from the NOAA C-CAP 2005 map (NOAA National Ocean Service Coastal Services Center 2012), and adding road corridors to the heavily disturbed category based on the Tiger Roads layer (United States Census Bureau 2014). Additionally, corrections were made to this version of the map by visually inspecting previously mapped units and comparing them to recent high-resolution imagery including WorldView 2 multi-spectral imagery and to very-high resolution RGB imagery obtained from Pictometry Online (Pictometery International 2014). Changes were made to the map using the program GRID Editor developed by ARIS B.V. (2014) by Jim Jacobi. Latest edits made in September 2014.The starting raster "Habqual" was developed by Jim Jacobi, USGS PIERC. The bare earth category came from NOAA's CCAP dataset and was used to overwrite the original Habqual dataset for categories 2 & 3 (native and mixed). If Habqual was already distrubed (category = 1), then it was NEVER overwritten as bare earth; instead it remained classified as disturbed. Lastly, the TIGER roads layer was buffered and converted into a raster of category 1 (distrubed). The roads raster was then mosaic'ed on top of Habqual to expand the distrubed class to include roads & adjacent disturbed areas.This layer has four mapped values: 1 = heavily disturbed areas including agriculture and urban developments; 2 = mixed native-alien dominated plant communities; 3 = native dominated vegetation; and 4 = bare lands or <5% plant cover.ReferencesARIS B.V. 2014, GRID Editor for ArcMap. ARIS B.V., Netherlands. http://www.aris.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=211Gon, S. M., III, A. Allison, R. J. Cannarella, J. D. Jacobi, K. Y. Kaneshiro, M. H. Kido, M. Lane-Kamahele, and S. E. Miller. 2006. The Hawaii GAP Analysis Final Report. Report, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 162 p plus tables, figures, maps, and appendices.NOAA National Ocean Service Coastal Services Center. 2012. C-CAP Hawaii 2005 Land Cover Map. NOAA's Ocean Service, Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC USA. http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/ccapregional. Pictometery International. 2014, Pictometry Online. Pictometry International Corp., Rochester NY. http://www.pictometry.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84&Itemid=93United States Census Bureau. 2014, TIGER/Line Shapefiles and TIGER/Line Files. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html; abstract: This layer depicts the status, or degree of disturbance, to plant communities on the main Hawaiian Islands. Several layers were uset to create this version (v 3.4). The original HabQual layer was developed by Jon Price and Jim Jacobi based on the mapped land cover units from the Hawaii GAP analysis program (Gon et al. 2006). This map was revised by combining data on land use and the Bare category from the NOAA C-CAP 2005 map (NOAA National Ocean Service Coastal Services Center 2012), and adding road corridors to the heavily disturbed category based on the Tiger Roads layer (United States Census Bureau 2014). Additionally, corrections were made to this version of the map by visually inspecting previously mapped units and comparing them to recent high-resolution imagery including WorldView 2 multi-spectral imagery and to very-high resolution RGB imagery obtained from Pictometry Online (Pictometery International 2014). Changes were made to the map using the program GRID Editor developed by ARIS B.V. (2014) by Jim Jacobi. Latest edits made in September 2014.The starting raster "Habqual" was developed by Jim Jacobi, USGS PIERC. The bare earth category came from NOAA's CCAP dataset and was used to overwrite the original Habqual dataset for categories 2 & 3 (native and mixed). If Habqual was already distrubed (category = 1), then it was NEVER overwritten as bare earth; instead it remained classified as disturbed. Lastly, the TIGER roads layer was buffered and converted into a raster of category 1 (distrubed). The roads raster was then mosaic'ed on top of Habqual to expand the distrubed class to include roads & adjacent disturbed areas.This layer has four mapped values: 1 = heavily disturbed areas including agriculture and urban developments; 2 = mixed native-alien dominated plant communities; 3 = native dominated vegetation; and 4 = bare lands or <5% plant cover.ReferencesARIS B.V. 2014, GRID Editor for ArcMap. ARIS B.V., Netherlands. http://www.aris.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=211Gon, S. M., III, A. Allison, R. J. Cannarella, J. D. Jacobi, K. Y. Kaneshiro, M. H. Kido, M. Lane-Kamahele, and S. E. Miller. 2006. The Hawaii GAP Analysis Final Report. Report, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 162 p plus tables, figures, maps, and appendices.NOAA National Ocean Service Coastal Services Center. 2012. C-CAP Hawaii 2005 Land Cover Map. NOAA's Ocean Service, Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC USA. http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/ccapregional. Pictometery International. 2014, Pictometry Online. Pictometry International Corp., Rochester NY. http://www.pictometry.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84&Itemid=93United States Census Bureau. 2014, TIGER/Line Shapefiles and TIGER/Line Files. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html

Currently, Iowa townships are not actually classified as civil townships, but as special district governments. Special district governments exist to provide only one or a limited number ofdesignated functions, and with sufficient administrative and fiscal autonomy to qualify as separate governments. Iowa townships today provide governmental functions that are outside the realm of both county and municipal authority. The three main functions of Iowa townships are fire protection, cemetery management, and fence maintenance and boundary dispute resolution within the township. The TIGER/Line Files are shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) that are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line File is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. County subdivisions are the primary divisions of counties and their equivalent entities for the reporting of Census Bureau data, and they include legally minor civil divisions (MCDs) and statistical census county divisions (CCDs), and unorganized territories. For the 2010 Census, the legal MCDs are the primary governmental and/or administrative divisions of counties in 29 States and Puerto Rico; Tennessee changed from having CCDs for Census 2000 to having MCDs for the 2010 Census. In MCD States where no MCD exists or is not defined, the Census Bureau creates statistical unorganized territories to complete coverage. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by county subdivisions. The boundaries of all 2010 Census legal MCDs are as of January 1, 2010 as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). For the 2010 Census, CCDs or their equivalents are delineated in 21 States. The boundaries of all 2010 Census statistical CCDs were delineated as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP).

This resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The All Roads Shapefile includes all features within the MTDB Super Class "Road/Path Features" distinguished where the MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) for the feature in MTDB that begins with "S". This includes all primary, secondary, local neighborhood, and rural roads, city streets, vehicular trails (4wd), ramps, service drives, alleys, parking lot roads, private roads for service vehicles (logging, oil fields, ranches, etc.), bike paths or trails, bridle/horse paths, walkways/pedestrian trails, and stairways.

This raster represents a continuous surface of sage-grouse habitat suitability index (HSI) values for Nevada during the winter season, and is a surrogate for habitat conditions during periods of cold and snow. Summary of steps to create Habitat Categories: HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX: The HSI was derived from a generalized linear mixed model (specified by binomial distribution and created using ArcGIS 10.2.2) that contrasted data from multiple environmental factors at used sites (telemetry locations) and available sites (random locations). Predictor variables for the model represented vegetation communities at multiple spatial scales, water resources, habitat configuration, urbanization, roads, elevation, ruggedness, and slope. Vegetation data was derived from various mapping products, which included NV SynthMap (Petersen 2008, SageStitch (Comer et al. 2002, LANDFIRE (Landfire 2010), and the CA Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP 2006). The analysis was updated to include high resolution percent cover within 30 x 30 m pixels for Sagebrush, non-sagebrush, herbaceous vegetation, and bare ground (C. Homer, unpublished; based on the methods of Homer et al. 2014, Xian et al. 2015 ) and conifer (primarily pinyon-juniper, P. Coates, unpublished). The pool of telemetry data included the same data from 1998 - 2013 used by Coates et al. (2014); additional telemetry _location data from field sites in 2014 were added to the dataset. The dataset was then split according calendar date into three seasons (spring, summer, winter). Winter included telemetry locations (n = 4862) from November to March. All age and sex classes of marked grouse were used in the analysis. Sufficient data (i.e., a minimum of 100 locations from at least 20 marked Sage-grouse) for modeling existed in 10 subregions for spring and summer, and seven subregions in winter, using all age and sex classes of marked grouse. It is important to note that although this map is composed of HSI values derived from the seasonal data, it does not explicitly represent habitat suitability for reproductive females (i.e., nesting and with broods). Insufficient data were available to allow for estimation of this habitat type for all seasons throughout the study area extent. A Resource Selection Function (RSF) was calculated for each subregion using R software (v 3.13) using generalized linear models to derive model-averaged parameter estimates for each covariate across a set of additive models. Subregional RSFs were transformed into Habitat Suitability Indices, and averaged together to produce an overall statewide HSI whereby a relative probability of occurrence was calculated for each raster cell during the winter season. In order to account for discrepancies in HSI values caused by varying ecoregions within Nevada, the HSI was divided into north and south extents using a slightly modified flood region boundary (Mason 1999) that was designed to represent respective mesic and xeric regions of the state. North and south HSI rasters were each relativized according to their maximum value to rescale between zero and one, then mosaicked once more into a state-wide extent. REFERENCES: California Forest and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP). 2006. Statewide Land Use / Land Cover Mosaic. [Geospatial data.] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata-sw-rangeland-assessment_data.php Census 2010. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Urban Areas [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2014. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Roads [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2015. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Blocks [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Overton, C.T., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Kroger, T., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Howe, K., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J. 2014, Spatially explicit modeling of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern California—A decision-support tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1163, 83 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141163. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) Comer, P., Kagen, J., Heiner, M., and Tobalske, C. 2002. Current distribution of sagebrush and associated vegetation in the western United States (excluding NM). [Geospatial data.] Interagency Sagebrush Working Group, http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov Homer, C.G., Aldridge, C.L., Meyer, D.K., and Schell, S.J. 2014. Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Sagebrush Characterization with Regression Trees over Wyoming, USA; Laying a Foundation for Monitoring. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 14, Elsevier, US. LANDFIRE. 2010. 1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type Layer. [Geospatial data.] U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ Mason, R.R. 1999. The National Flood-Frequency Program—Methods For Estimating Flood Magnitude And Frequency In Rural Areas In Nevada U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 123-98 September, 1999, Prepared by Robert R. Mason, Jr. and Kernell G. Ries III, of the U.S. Geological Survey; and Jeffrey N. King and Wilbert O. Thomas, Jr., of Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-123-98/ Peterson, E. B. 2008. A Synthesis of Vegetation Maps for Nevada (Initiating a 'Living' Vegetation Map). Documentation and geospatial data, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City, Nevada, http://www.heritage.nv.gov/gis Xian, G., Homer, C., Rigge, M., Shi, H., and Meyer, D. 2015. Characterization of shrubland ecosystem components as continuous fields in the northwest United States. Remote Sensing of Environment 168:286-300. NOTE: This file does not include habitat areas for the Bi-State management area and the spatial extent is modified in comparison to Coates et al. 2014

In late September 2017, intense precipitation associated with Hurricane Maria caused extensive landsliding across Puerto Rico. Much of the Lares municipality in central-western Puerto Rico was severely impacted by landslides., Landslide density in this region was mapped as greater than 25 landslides/km2 (Bessette-Kirton et al., 2019). In order to better understand the controlling variables of landslide occurrence and runout in this region, three 2.5-km2 study areas were selected and all landslides within were mapped in detail using remote-sensing data. Included in the data release are five separate shapefiles: geographic areas representing the mapping extent of the four distinct areas (map areas, filename: map_areas), initiation location polygons (source areas, filename: SourceArea), polygons of the entire impacted area consisting of source, transport, and deposition (affected areas, filename: AffectArea), points on the furthest upslope extent of the landslide source areas (headscarp point, filename: HSPoint), and lines reflecting the approximate travel paths from the furthest upslope extent to the furthest downslope extent of the landslides (runout lines, filename: RunoutLine). These shapefiles contain a number of attributes, some subjective (including general geomorphic setting and impact of human activity), some geometric (including length, width, and depth), and others on the underlying geology and soil of the landslides. A table detailing each attribute, attribute abbreviations, the possible choices for each attribute, and a short description of each attribute is provided as a table in the file labeled AttributeDescription.docx. The headscarp point shapefile attribute tables contain closest distance between headscarp and paved road (road_d_m; road data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). The runout line shapefile attribute table reflects if the landslide was considered independently unmappable past a road or river (term_drain), the horizontal length of the runout (length_m), the fall height from the headscarp to termination (h_m), the ratio of fall height to runout length (hlratio), distance to nearest paved road (road_d_m), and the watershed area upslope from the upper end of the runout line (wtrshd_m2). All quantitative metrics were calculated using tools available in ESRI ArcMap v. 10.6. The source area shapefile attribute table reflects general source area vegetation (vegetat) and land use (land_use), whether the slide significantly disaggregated during movement (flow), the failure mode (failmode), if the slide was a reactivation of a previous one (reactivate), if the landslide directly impacted the occurrence of another slide (ls_complex), the proportion of source material that left the source area (sourc_evac), the state of the remaining material (remaining), the curvature of the source area (sourc_curv), potential human impact on landslide occurrence (human_caus), potential landslide impact on human society (human_effc), if a building exists within 10 meters of the source area (buildng10m), if a road exists within 50 meters of the source area (road50m), the planimetric area of the source area (area_m2), the dimension of the source area perpendicular to the direction of motion (width_m), the dimension of the source area parallel to the direction of motion (length_m), the geologic formation of the source area (FMATN; from Bawiec, W.J., 1998), the soil type of the source area (MUNAME; from Acevido, G., 2020), the root-zone (0-100 cm deep) soil moisture estimated by the NASA SMAP mission for 9:30 am Atlantic Standard Time on 21 September 2017 (the day after Hurricane María) (smap; NASA, 2017), the average precipitation amount in the source area for the duration of the hurricane (pptn_mm; from Ramos-Scharrón, C.E., and Arima, E., 2019), the source area mean slope (mn_slp_d), the source area median slope (mdn_slp_d), the average depth change of material from the source area after the landslide (mn_dpth_m), the median depth change of material from the source area after the landslide (mdn_dpt_m), the sum of the volumetric change of material in the source area after the landslide (ldr_sm_m3), the major geomorphic landform of the source (maj_ldfrm), and the landcover of the source area (PRGAP_CL; from Homer, C. C. Huang, L. Yang, B. Wylie and M. Coan, 2004). The affected area shapefile attribute table reflects the general affected area vegetation type (vegetat), the major geomorphic landform on which the landslide occurred (maj_ldfrm), whether the slide disaggregated during movement (flow), the general land use (land_use), the planimetric area of the affected area (area_m2), the dominant geologic formation of the affected area (FMATN; from Bawiec, W.J., 1998), the dominant soil type of the affected area (MUNAME; from Acevido, G., 2020), the sum of the volumetric change of material in all the contributing source areas for the affected area (Sum_ldr_sm), the average volumetric change of material in all the contributing source areas for the affected area (Avg_ldr_sm), if the landslide was considered independently unmappable past a road or river (term_drain), the number of contributing source areas to the affected area (num_srce), and the dominant landcover of the affected area (PRGAP_CL; from Homer, C. C. Huang, L. Yang, B. Wylie and M. Coan, 2004). Mapping was conducted using aerial imagery collected between 9-15 October 2017 at 25-cm resolution (Quantum Spatial, Inc., 2017), a 1-m-resolution pre-event lidar digital elevation model (DEM) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2018), and a 1-m-resolution post-event lidar DEM (U.S. Geological Survey, 2020). In order to accurately determine the extent of the mapped landslides and to verify the georeferencing of the aerial imagery, aerial photographs were overlain with each DEM as well as a pre- and post-event lidar difference (2016-2018), and corrections were made as needed. Additional data sources described in the AttributeDescription document and metadata were used to extract spatial data once mapping was complete and results were appended to the shapefile attribute tables. Data in this release are provided as ArcGIS point (HSPoint), line (RunoutLine), and polygon (AffectArea and SourceArea) feature class files. Bessette-Kirton, E.K., Cerovski-Darriau, C., Schulz, W.H., Coe, J.A., Kean, J.W., Godt, J.W, Thomas, M.A., and Hughes, K. Stephen, 2019, Landslides Triggered by Hurricane Maria: Assessment of an Extreme Event in Puerto Rico: GSA Today, v. 29, doi:10.1130/GSATG383A.1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015, 2015 TIGER/Line Shapefiles, State, Puerto Rico, primary and secondary roads State-based Shapefile: United States Census Bureau, accessed September 12, 2019, at http://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2015/ PRISECROADS/tl_2015_72_prisecroads.zip. Bawiec, W.J., 1998, Geology, geochemistry, geophysics, mineral occurrences and mineral resource assessment for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-38, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/of98-038/ (accessed May 2020). Acevido, G., 2020, Soil Survey of Arecibo Area of Norther Puerto Rico: United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA], 2017, SMAP L4 Global 3-hourly 9 km EASE-Grid Surface and Root Zone Soil Moisture Analysis Update, Version 4: National Snow & Ice Data Center web page, accessed September 12, 2019, at https://nsidc.org/data/SPL4SMAU/versions/4. Ramos-Scharrón, C.E., and Arima, E., 2019, Hurricane María’s precipitation signature in Puerto Rico—A conceivable presage of rains to come: Scientific Reports, v. 9, no. 1, article no. 15612, accessed February 28, 2020, at https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-019-52198-2. Homer, C. C. Huang, L. Yang, B. Wylie and M. Coan, 2004, Development of a 2001 National Landcover Database for the United States: Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, Vol. 70, No. 7, July 2004, pp. 829-840. Quantum Spatial, Inc., 2017, FEMA PR Imagery: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fema-cap-imagery/Others/Maria (accessed October 2017). U.S. Geological Survey, 2018, USGS NED Original Product Resolution PR Puerto Rico 2015: http://nationalmap.gov/elevation.html (accessed October 2018). U.S. Geological Survey, 2020, USGS NED Original Product Resolution PR Puerto Rico 2018: http://nationalmap.gov/elevation.html (accessed June 2020). Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.