This collection grew out of a prototype case tracking and crime mapping application that was developed for the United States Attorney's Office (USAO), Southern District of New York (SDNY). The purpose of creating the application was to move from the traditionally episodic way of handling cases to a comprehensive and strategic method of collecting case information and linking it to specific geographic locations, and collecting information either not handled at all or not handled with sufficient enough detail by SDNY's existing case management system. The result was an end-user application designed to be run largely by SDNY's nontechnical staff. It consisted of two components, a database to capture case tracking information and a mapping component to link case and geographic data. The case tracking data were contained in a Microsoft Access database and the client application contained all of the forms, queries, reports, macros, table links, and code necessary to enter, navigate through, and query the data. The mapping application was developed using Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI) ArcView 3.0a GIS. This collection shows how the user-interface of the database and the mapping component were customized to allow the staff to perform spatial queries without having to be geographic information systems (GIS) experts. Part 1 of this collection contains the Visual Basic script used to customize the user-interface of the Microsoft Access database. Part 2 contains the Avenue script used to customize ArcView to link the data maintained in the server databases, to automate the office's most common queries, and to run simple analyses.

In the 1800s, the spread of railroads enabled the growth and spread of the United States. Although slow by today’s standards, trains traveled more quickly than other forms of transportation available at the time. By train, it took roughly four days to reach San Francisco from Omaha, Nebraska. By contrast, it had taken covered wagons four to six months, and stagecoaches around a month. In addition to travel, railroads facilitated trade and economic growth. Prior to railroads, people relied on a system of roads and canals for transportation of goods and crops. But this system could be unreliable depending on road conditions, the weather, and many other factors. Trains brought products made in the factories of the East and Midwest to the rest of the country and carried farm produce and livestock to urban markets. The first railroad charter was granted to John Stevens in 1815, and several railroads were in service by 1830. Early rail development was haphazard, financed by individual investors and built without government oversight. Rail gauges, or the distance between rails, could be different depending on the company. This caused a lot of problems for connecting railroads, because only trains designed for that gauge could use those sections of track. Despite miles of track being built, people were generally still skeptical about the usefulness of railroads. In 1843, the Western Railroad of Massachusetts proved to Americans that trains could transport crops and other goods long distances at low costs. By 1861, there were 35,400 kilometers (22,000 miles) of track in the North and only 15,300 kilometers (9,500 miles) in the South. Troops and supplies could be transported quickly using trains. Many battles, like the Battle of Bull Run, were fought over control of Southern railway depots, and tracks were used to move both Confederate and Union soldiers to battles. After the Civil War, railway construction increased significantly. In 1862, Congress passed the Pacific Railway Act with the goal of building a transcontinental railroad. The first, built by the Central Pacific Railroad Company in the West and the Union Pacific in the Midwest, was completed in 1869. Following roughly the route previously taken by the Pony Express and the California Trail, the route was called the Overland Route. Construction was dangerous, as rail crews had to cross mountains, rivers, and other difficult terrain. For this work, the Central Pacific and Union Pacific relied mainly on immigrant labor, recruiting Chinese immigrants in the West and Irish immigrants in the Midwest. Formerly enslaved people and Mormons were also part of these crews. Between 10,000 and 15,000 Chinese workers completed an estimated 90 percent of work on the Central Pacific’s portion of track, facing racism, violence, and discrimination. Chinese workers were often paid less than white workers and were given the most undesirable and dangerous jobs. The Overland Route was one of the first land-grant railroads. To fund construction of such a long and expensive project, the U.S. government gave railroad companies millions of acres of land that they could sell for profit. Following this model, many more railroads were built, including four additional transcontinental railroads. These new railroads took southern and northern routes across the country. In addition to connecting existing cities on the West Coast to the rest of the country, the railroads also influenced where people settled. Trains made multiple stops to refuel, make repairs, and take on more food and water. In return, towns grew around these stops. More than 7,000 cities and towns west of the Missouri River started as Union Pacific depots and water stops. In 1890, the U.S. Bureau of the Census announced that the “Frontier was closed.” The railroads had played a large role in that milestone. This dataset was researched and built by Dr. Jeremy Atack, Professor Emeritus and Research Professor of Economics at Vanderbilt University. His procedure and sources, as well as downloadable files, are documented here.

Your Doral Trolley Tracker provides real-time trolley information for all Routes. Unlike traditional trolley schedules, Doral Trolley Tracker lets you see and track the actual status of your trolley, so you know when your ride will arrive. Instead of waiting at the trolley stop, use Doral Trolley Tracker to help you plan your time – run another errand, finish up another project, or simply wait indoors.

The dataset and the validation are fully described in a Nature Scientific Data Descriptor https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-019-0265-5

If you want to use this dataset in an interactive environment, then use this link https://mybinder.org/v2/gh/GeographerAtLarge/TravelTime/HEAD

The following text is a summary of the information in the above Data Descriptor.

The dataset is a suite of global travel-time accessibility indicators for the year 2015, at approximately one-kilometre spatial resolution for the entire globe. The indicators show an estimated (and validated), land-based travel time to the nearest city and nearest port for a range of city and port sizes.

The datasets are in GeoTIFF format and are suitable for use in Geographic Information Systems and statistical packages for mapping access to cities and ports and for spatial and statistical analysis of the inequalities in access by different segments of the population.

These maps represent a unique global representation of physical access to essential services offered by cities and ports.

The datasets travel_time_to_cities_x.tif (where x has values from 1 to 12) The value of each pixel is the estimated travel time in minutes to the nearest urban area in 2015. There are 12 data layers based on different sets of urban areas, defined by their population in year 2015 (see PDF report).

travel_time_to_ports_x (x ranges from 1 to 5)

The value of each pixel is the estimated travel time to the nearest port in 2015. There are 5 data layers based on different port sizes.

Format Raster Dataset, GeoTIFF, LZW compressed Unit Minutes

Data type Byte (16 bit Unsigned Integer)

No data value 65535

Flags None

Spatial resolution 30 arc seconds

Spatial extent

Upper left -180, 85

Lower left -180, -60 Upper right 180, 85 Lower right 180, -60 Spatial Reference System (SRS) EPSG:4326 - WGS84 - Geographic Coordinate System (lat/long)

Temporal resolution 2015

Temporal extent Updates may follow for future years, but these are dependent on the availability of updated inputs on travel times and city locations and populations.

Methodology Travel time to the nearest city or port was estimated using an accumulated cost function (accCost) in the gdistance R package (van Etten, 2018). This function requires two input datasets: (i) a set of locations to estimate travel time to and (ii) a transition matrix that represents the cost or time to travel across a surface.

The set of locations were based on populated urban areas in the 2016 version of the Joint Research Centre’s Global Human Settlement Layers (GHSL) datasets (Pesaresi and Freire, 2016) that represent low density (LDC) urban clusters and high density (HDC) urban areas (https://ghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datasets.php). These urban areas were represented by points, spaced at 1km distance around the perimeter of each urban area.

Marine ports were extracted from the 26th edition of the World Port Index (NGA, 2017) which contains the location and physical characteristics of approximately 3,700 major ports and terminals. Ports are represented as single points

The transition matrix was based on the friction surface (https://map.ox.ac.uk/research-project/accessibility_to_cities) from the 2015 global accessibility map (Weiss et al, 2018).

Code The R code used to generate the 12 travel time maps is included in the zip file that can be downloaded with these data layers. The processing zones are also available.

Validation The underlying friction surface was validated by comparing travel times between 47,893 pairs of locations against journey times from a Google API. Our estimated journey times were generally shorter than those from the Google API. Across the tiles, the median journey time from our estimates was 88 minutes within an interquartile range of 48 to 143 minutes while the median journey time estimated by the Google API was 106 minutes within an interquartile range of 61 to 167 minutes. Across all tiles, the differences were skewed to the left and our travel time estimates were shorter than those reported by the Google API in 72% of the tiles. The median difference was −13.7 minutes within an interquartile range of −35.5 to 2.0 minutes while the absolute difference was 30 minutes or less for 60% of the tiles and 60 minutes or less for 80% of the tiles. The median percentage difference was −16.9% within an interquartile range of −30.6% to 2.7% while the absolute percentage difference was 20% or less in 43% of the tiles and 40% or less in 80% of the tiles.

This process and results are included in the validation zip file.

Usage Notes The accessibility layers can be visualised and analysed in many Geographic Information Systems or remote sensing software such as QGIS, GRASS, ENVI, ERDAS or ArcMap, and also by statistical and modelling packages such as R or MATLAB. They can also be used in cloud-based tools for geospatial analysis such as Google Earth Engine.

The nine layers represent travel times to human settlements of different population ranges. Two or more layers can be combined into one layer by recording the minimum pixel value across the layers. For example, a map of travel time to the nearest settlement of 5,000 to 50,000 people could be generated by taking the minimum of the three layers that represent the travel time to settlements with populations between 5,000 and 10,000, 10,000 and 20,000 and, 20,000 and 50,000 people.

The accessibility layers also permit user-defined hierarchies that go beyond computing the minimum pixel value across layers. A user-defined complete hierarchy can be generated when the union of all categories adds up to the global population, and the intersection of any two categories is empty. Everything else is up to the user in terms of logical consistency with the problem at hand.

The accessibility layers are relative measures of the ease of access from a given location to the nearest target. While the validation demonstrates that they do correspond to typical journey times, they cannot be taken to represent actual travel times. Errors in the friction surface will be accumulated as part of the accumulative cost function and it is likely that locations that are further away from targets will have greater a divergence from a plausible travel time than those that are closer to the targets. Care should be taken when referring to travel time to the larger cities when the locations of interest are extremely remote, although they will still be plausible representations of relative accessibility. Furthermore, a key assumption of the model is that all journeys will use the fastest mode of transport and take the shortest path.

This layer features tropical storm (hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones) tracks, positions, and observed wind swaths from the past hurricane season for the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Basins. These are products from the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC). They are part of an archive of tropical storm data maintained in the International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS) database by the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information.Data SourceNOAA National Hurricane Center tropical cyclone best track archive.Update FrequencyWe automatically check these products for updates every 15 minutes from the NHC GIS Data page.The NHC shapefiles are parsed using the Aggregated Live Feeds methodology to take the returned information and serve the data through ArcGIS Server as a map service.Area CoveredWorldWhat can you do with this layer?Customize the display of each attribute by using the ‘Change Style’ option for any layer.Run a filter to query the layer and display only specific types of storms or areas.Add to your map with other weather data layers to provide insight on hazardous weather events.Use ArcGIS Online analysis tools like ‘Enrich Data’ on the Observed Wind Swath layer to determine the impact of cyclone events on populations.Visualize data in ArcGIS Insights or Operations Dashboards.This map is provided for informational purposes and is not monitored 24/7 for accuracy and currency. Always refer to NOAA or JTWC sources for official guidance.If you would like to be alerted to potential issues or simply see when this Service will update next, please visit our Live Feed Status Page!

Abstract: Monthly and annual average solar resource potential for the lower 48 states of the United States of America.

Purpose: Provide information on the solar resource potential for the for the lower 48 states of the United States of America.

Supplemental Information: This data provides monthly average and annual average daily total solar resource averaged over surface cells of approximatley 40 km by 40 km in size. This data was developed from the Climatological Solar Radiation (CSR) Model. The CSR model was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy. Specific information about this model can be found in Maxwell, George and Wilcox (1998) and George and Maxwell (1999). This model uses information on cloud cover, atmostpheric water vapor and trace gases, and the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere to calculate the monthly average daily total insolation (sun and sky) falling on a horizontal surface. The cloud cover data used as input to the CSR model are an 7-year histogram (1985-1991) of monthly average cloud fraction provided for grid cells of approximately 40km x 40km in size. Thus, the spatial resolution of the CSR model output is defined by this database. The data are obtained from the National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina, and were developed from the U.S. Air Force Real Time Nephanalysis (RTNEPH) program. Atmospheric water vapor, trace gases, and aerosols are derived from a variety of sources. The procedures for converting the collector at latitude tilt are described in Marion and Wilcox (1994). Where possible, existing ground measurement stations are used to validate the data. Nevertheless, there is uncertainty associated with the meterological input to the model, since some of the input parameters are not avalible at a 40km resolution. As a result, it is believed that the modeled values are accurate to approximately 10% of a true measured value within the grid cell. Due to terrain effects and other micoclimate influences, the local cloud cover can vary significantly even within a single grid cell. Furthermore, the uncertainty of the modeled estimates increase with distance from reliable measurement sources and with the complexity of the terrain.

Other Citation Details: George, R, and E. Maxwell, 1999: "High-Resolution Maps of Solar Collector Performance Using A Climatological Solar Radiation Model", Proceedings of the 1999 Annual Conference, American Solar Energy Society, Portland, ME.

License Info

This GIS data was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ("NREL"), which is operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE"). The user is granted the right, without any fee or cost, to use, copy, modify, alter, enhance and distribute this data for any purpose whatsoever, provided that this entire notice appears in all copies of the data. Further, the user of this data agrees to credit NREL in any publications or software that incorporate or use the data.

Access to and use of the GIS data shall further impose the following obligations on the User. The names DOE/NREL may not be used in any advertising or publicity to endorse or promote any product or commercial entity using or incorporating the GIS data unless specific written authorization is obtained from DOE/NREL. The User also understands that DOE/NREL shall not be obligated to provide updates, support, consulting, training or assistance of any kind whatsoever with regard to the use of the GIS data.

THE GIS DATA IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL DOE/NREL BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLAIMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOSS OF DATA OR PROFITS, WHICH MAY RESULT FROM AN ACTION IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS CLAIM THAT ARISES OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCESS OR USE OF THE GIS DATA.

The User acknowledges that access to the GIS data is subject to U.S. Export laws and regulations and any use or transfer of the GIS data must be authorized under those regulations. The User shall not use, distribute, transfer, or transmit GIS data or any products incorporating the GIS data except in compliance with U.S. export regulations. If requested by DOE/NREL, the User agrees to sign written assurances and other export-related documentation as may be required to comply with U.S. export regulations.

This geodatabase of point, line and polygon features is an effort to consolidate all of the range improvement locations on BLM-managed land in Idaho into one database. Currently, the polygon feature class has some data for all of the BLM field offices except the Coeur d'Alene and Cottonwood field offices. Range improvements are structures intended to enhance rangeland resources, including wildlife, watershed, and livestock management. Examples of range improvements include water troughs, spring headboxes, culverts, fences, water pipelines, gates, wildlife guzzlers, artificial nest structures, reservoirs, developed springs, corrals, exclosures, etc. These structures were first tracked by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Job Documentation Report (JDR) System in the early 1960s, which was predominately a paper-based tracking system. In 1988 the JDRs were migrated into and replaced by the automated Range Improvement Project System (RIPS), and version 2.0 is currently being used today. It tracks inventory, status, objectives, treatment, maintenance cycle, maintenance inspection, monetary contributions and reporting. Not all range improvements are documented in the RIPS database; there may be some older range improvements that were built before the JDR tracking system was established. There also may be unauthorized projects that are not in RIPS. Official project files of paper maps, reports, NEPA documents, checklists, etc., document the status of each project and are physically kept in the office with management authority for that project area. In addition, project data is entered into the RIPS system to enable managers to access the data to track progress, run reports, analyze the data, etc. Before Geographic Information System technology most offices kept paper atlases or overlay systems that mapped the locations of the range improvements. The objective of this geodatabase is to migrate the location of historic range improvement projects into a GIS for geospatial use with other data and to centralize the range improvement data for the state. This data set is a work in progress and does not have all range improvement projects that are on BLM lands. Some field offices have not migrated their data into this database, and others are partially completed. New projects may have been built but have not been entered into the system. Historic or unauthorized projects may not have case files and are being mapped and documented as they are found. Many field offices are trying to verify the locations and status of range improvements with GPS, and locations may change or projects that have been abandoned or removed on the ground may be deleted. Attributes may be incomplete or inaccurate. This data was created using the standard for range improvements set forth in Idaho IM 2009-044, dated 6/30/2009. However, it does not have all of the fields the standard requires. Fields that are missing from the polygon feature class that are in the standard are: ALLOT_NO, POLY_TYPE, MGMT_AGCY, ADMIN_ST, and ADMIN_OFF. The polygon feature class also does not have a coincident line feature class, so some of the fields from the polygon arc feature class are included in the polygon feature class: COORD_SRC, COORD_SRC2, DEF_FET, DEF_FEAT2, ACCURACY, CREATE_DT, CREATE_BY, MODIFY_DT, MODIFY_BY, GPS_DATE, and DATAFILE. There is no National BLM standard for GIS range improvement data at this time. For more information contact us at blm_id_stateoffice@blm.gov.

This data provides monthly average and annual average daily total solar resource averaged over surface cells of 0.1 degrees in both latitude and longitude, or about 10 km in size. This data was developed using the State University of New York/Albany satellite radiation model. This model was developed by Dr. Richard Perez and collaborators at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and other universities for the U.S. Department of Energy. Specific information about this model can be found in Perez, et al. (2002). This model uses hourly radiance images from geostationary weather satellites, daily snow cover data, and monthly averages of atmospheric water vapor, trace gases, and the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere to calculate the hourly total insolation (sun and sky) falling on a horizontal surface. Atmospheric water vapor, trace gases, and aerosols are derived from a variety of sources. A modified Bird model is used to calculate clear sky direct normal (DNI). This is then adjusted as a function of the ratio of clear sky global horizontal (GHI) and the model predicted GHI. Where possible, existing ground measurement stations are used to validate the data. Nevertheless, there is uncertainty associated with the meteorological input to the model, since some of the input parameters are not available at a 10km resolution. As a result, it is believed that the modeled values are accurate to approximately 15% of a true measured value within the grid cell. Due to terrain effects and other microclimate influences, the local cloud cover can vary significantly even within a single grid cell. Furthermore, the uncertainty of the modeled estimates increase with distance from reliable measurement sources and with the complexity of the terrain.

License Info

DISCLAIMER NOTICE This GIS data was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ("NREL"), which is operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE"). The user is granted the right, without any fee or cost, to use, copy, modify, alter, enhance and distribute this data for any purpose whatsoever, provided that this entire notice appears in all copies of the data. Further, the user of this data agrees to credit NREL in any publications or software that incorporate or use the data.

Access to and use of the GIS data shall further impose the following obligations on the User. The names DOE/NREL may not be used in any advertising or publicity to endorse or promote any product or commercial entity using or incorporating the GIS data unless specific written authorization is obtained from DOE/NREL. The User also understands that DOE/NREL shall not be obligated to provide updates, support, consulting, training or assistance of any kind whatsoever with regard to the use of the GIS data.

THE GIS DATA IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL DOE/NREL BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLAIMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOSS OF DATA OR PROFITS, WHICH MAY RESULT FROM AN ACTION IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS CLAIM THAT ARISES OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCESS OR USE OF THE GIS DATA.

The User acknowledges that access to the GIS data is subject to U.S. Export laws and regulations and any use or transfer of the GIS data must be authorized under those regulations. The User shall not use, distribute, transfer, or transmit GIS data or any products incorporating the GIS data except in compliance with U.S. export regulations. If requested by DOE/NREL, the User agrees to sign written assurances and other export-related documentation as may be required to comply with U.S. export regulations.

DNRGPS is an update to the popular DNRGarmin application. DNRGPS and its predecessor were built to transfer data between Garmin handheld GPS receivers and GIS software.

DNRGPS was released as Open Source software with the intention that the GPS user community will become stewards of the application, initiating future modifications and enhancements.

DNRGPS does not require installation. Simply run the application .exe

See the DNRGPS application documentation for more details.

Compatible with: Windows (XP, 7, 8, 10, and 11), ArcGIS shapefiles and file geodatabases, Google Earth, most hand-held Garmin GPSs, and other NMEA output GPSs

Limited Compatibility: Interactions with ArcMap layer files and ArcMap graphics are no longer supported. Instead use shapefile or geodatabase.

Prerequisite: .NET 4 Framework

DNR Data and Software License Agreement

Subscribe to the DNRGPS announcement list to be notified of upgrades or updates.

The information in the abstract is translated from the archeological report: The results of the archaeological investigations and preliminary investigations presented in this report is part of a work in progress along the railway line Mjölby - Hallsberg. The investigated section are running between Mjölby and Motala in the western part of Östergötland and was early identified as one of the province's major central areas. The survey found many relics that have been dated from the Mesolithic period , 6000 - 8000 BC, up to early modern period. Among other things, a new and unique mesolitisk residence was found at the Motala Ström beach. Skänninge is another location where new information has come to light. Remains of extensive engineering activities were found outside the central medieval city area. Along the railway tracks several sites has shown on settlements from the Bronze Age and early Iron Age, periods which we previously had little knowledge about in this part of Östergötland.

Purpose:

The information in the purpose is translated from the archeological report: The reason for the investigations is the Swedish Rail Administration's (Banverket) planned double track between Motala and Mjölby.

The ZIP file consist of GIS files and an Access database with information about the excavations, findings and other metadata about the archaeological survey.

Abstract: Monthly and annual average solar resource potential for the lower 48 states of the United States of America.

Purpose: Provide information on the solar resource potential for the United States of America lower 48 states. The insolation values represent the average solar energy available to a flat plate collector, such as a photovoltaic panel, oriented due south at an angle from horizontal equal to the latitude of the collector location.

Supplemental Information: This data provides monthly average and annual average daily total solar resource averaged over surface cells of approximatley 40 km by 40 km in size. This data was developed from the Climatological Solar Radiation (CSR) Model. The CSR model was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy. Specific information about this model can be found in Maxwell, George and Wilcox (1998) and George and Maxwell (1999). This model uses information on cloud cover, atmostpheric water vapor and trace gases, and the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere to calculate the monthly average daily total insolation (sun and sky) falling on a horizontal surface. The cloud cover data used as input to the CSR model are an 7-year histogram (1985-1991) of monthly average cloud fraction provided for grid cells of approximately 40km x 40km in size. Thus, the spatial resolution of the CSR model output is defined by this database. The data are obtained from the National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina, and were developed from the U.S. Air Force Real Time Nephanalysis (RTNEPH) program. Atmospheric water vapor, trace gases, and aerosols are derived from a variety of sources. The procedures for converting the collector at latitude tilt are described in Marion and Wilcox (1994). Where possible, existing ground measurement stations are used to validate the data. Nevertheless, there is uncertainty associated with the meterological input to the model, since some of the input parameters are not avalible at a 40km resolution. As a result, it is believed that the modeled values are accurate to approximately 10% of a true measured value within the grid cell. Due to terrain effects and other micoclimate influences, the local cloud cover can vary significantly even within a single grid cell. Furthermore, the uncertainty of the modeled estimates increase with distance from reliable measurement sources and with the complexity of the terrain. Units are in kilowatt hours per meter squared per day.

OtherCitation Details:

George, R, and E. Maxwell, 1999: "High-Resolution Maps of Solar Collector Performance Using A Climatological Solar Radiation Model", Proceedings of the 1999 Annual Conference, American Solar Energy Society, Portland, ME.

Maxwell, E, R. George and S. Wilcox, "A Climatological Solar Radiation Model", Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Conference, American Solar Energy Society, Albuquerque NM.

Marion, William and Stephen Wilcox, 1994: "Solar Radiation Data Manual for Flat-plate and Concentrating Collectors". NREL/TP-463-5607, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, CO 80401.

License Info

DISCLAIMER NOTICE This GIS data was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ("NREL"), which is operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE"). The user is granted the right, without any fee or cost, to use, copy, modify, alter, enhance and distribute this data for any purpose whatsoever, provided that this entire notice appears in all copies of the data. Further, the user of this data agrees to credit NREL in any publications or software that incorporate or use the data.

Access to and use of the GIS data shall further impose the following obligations on the User. The names DOE/NREL may not be used in any advertising or publicity to endorse or promote any product or commercial entity using or incorporating the GIS data unless specific written authorization is obtained from DOE/NREL. The User also understands that DOE/NREL shall not be obligated to provide updates, support, consulting, training or assistance of any kind whatsoever with regard to the use of the GIS data.

THE GIS DATA IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL DOE/NREL BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLAIMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOSS OF DATA OR PROFITS, WHICH MAY RESULT FROM AN ACTION IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS CLAIM THAT ARISES OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCESS OR USE OF THE GIS DATA.

The User acknowledges that access to the GIS data is subject to U.S. Export laws and regulations and any use or transfer of the GIS data must be authorized under those regulations. The User shall not use, distribute, transfer, or transmit GIS data or any products incorporating the GIS data except in compliance with U.S. export regulations. If requested by DOE/NREL, the User agrees to sign written assurances and other export-related documentation as may be required to comply with U.S. export regulations.

Abstract: Monthly and annual average solar resource potential for Hawaii.

Purpose: Provide information on the solar resource potential for Hawaii. The insolation values represent the average solar energy available to a flat plate collector, such as a photovoltaic panel, oriented due south at an angle from horizontal equal to the latitude of the collector location.

Supplemental Information: This data provides monthly average and annual average daily total solar resource averaged over surface cells of approximately 40 km by 40 km in size. This data was developed from the Climatological Solar Radiation (CSR) Model. The CSR model was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy. Specific information about this model can be found in Maxwell, George and Wilcox (1998) and George and Maxwell (1999). This model uses information on cloud cover, atmostpheric water vapor and trace gases, and the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere to calculate the monthly average daily total insolation (sun and sky) falling on a horizontal surface. The cloud cover data used as input to the CSR model are an 7-year histogram (1985-1991) of monthly average cloud fraction provided for grid cells of approximately 40km x 40km in size. Thus, the spatial resolution of the CSR model output is defined by this database. The data are obtained from the National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina, and were developed from the U.S. Air Force Real Time Nephanalysis (RTNEPH) program. Atmospheric water vapor, trace gases, and aerosols are derived from a variety of sources. The procedures for converting the collector at latitude tilt are described in Marion and Wilcox (1994). Where possible, existing ground measurement stations are used to validate the data. Nevertheless, there is uncertainty associated with the meterological input to the model, since some of the input parameters are not avalible at a 40km resolution. As a result, it is believed that the modeled values are accurate to approximately 10% of a true measured value within the grid cell. Due to terrain effects and other micoclimate influences, the local cloud cover can vary significantly even within a single grid cell. Furthermore, the uncertainty of the modeled estimates increase with distance from reliable measurement sources and with the complexity of the terrain. Units are in watt hours.

Other Citation Details:

George, R, and E. Maxwell, 1999: "High-Resolution Maps of Solar Collector Performance Using A Climatological Solar Radiation Model", Proceedings of the 1999 Annual Conference, American Solar Energy Society, Portland, ME.

Maxwell, E, R. George and S. Wilcox, "A Climatological Solar Radiation Model", Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Conference, American Solar Energy Society, Albuquerque NM.

License Info

DISCLAIMER NOTICE This GIS data was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ("NREL"), which is operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE"). The user is granted the right, without any fee or cost, to use, copy, modify, alter, enhance and distribute this data for any purpose whatsoever, provided that this entire notice appears in all copies of the data. Further, the user of this data agrees to credit NREL in any publications or software that incorporate or use the data.

Access to and use of the GIS data shall further impose the following obligations on the User. The names DOE/NREL may not be used in any advertising or publicity to endorse or promote any product or commercial entity using or incorporating the GIS data unless specific written authorization is obtained from DOE/NREL. The User also understands that DOE/NREL shall not be obligated to provide updates, support, consulting, training or assistance of any kind whatsoever with regard to the use of the GIS data.

THE GIS DATA IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL DOE/NREL BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLAIMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOSS OF DATA OR PROFITS, WHICH MAY RESULT FROM AN ACTION IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS CLAIM THAT ARISES OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCESS OR USE OF THE GIS DATA.

The User acknowledges that access to the GIS data is subject to U.S. Export laws and regulations and any use or transfer of the GIS data must be authorized under those regulations. The User shall not use, distribute, transfer, or transmit GIS data or any products incorporating the GIS data except in compliance with U.S. export regulations. If requested by DOE/NREL, the User agrees to sign written assurances and other export-related documentation as may be required to comply with U.S. export regulations.

We conducted a Southern Ocean seabird data synthesis using previously collected Antarctic-wide cruise data to determine seabird species assemblages and quantitative relationships to fronts as a way to provide context to the long-term Palmer Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) program and the winter Southern Ocean Global Oceans Ecosystems Dynamics (GLOBEC) studies in the eastern Bellingshausen Sea. We combined 9 cruises conducted in areas around the Antarctic continent during the summer (October-March) for an Antarctic-wide summer data set with 2348 transects and 63 species seen at least once. We combined seven cruises conducted in areas around the Antarctic continent during the winter (April-September) for an Antarctic-wide winter data set with 1591 transects and 56 species seen at least once. We used 6 Palmer LTER cruises which, combined, had 1446 transects and 29 species seen at least once. The 4 winter Southern Ocean GLOBEC cruises combined had 652 transects and 16 species seen at least once. Fronts investigated during both winter (April–September) and summer (October–March) were the southern boundary of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), which separates the High Antarctic from the Low Antarctic water mass, and within which are embedded the marginal ice zone and Antarctic Shelf Break Front; and the Antarctic Polar Front, which separates the Low Antarctic and the Subantarctic water masses. Using GIS, distances to the different fronts were measured for all transects and water mass determined; these variables were added to the seabird density files for 4 combined density-environmental files (Antarctic-wide-summer, Antarctic-wide-winter, PALTER-summer, SOGLOBEC-winter). Methods The Southern Ocean GLOBEC cruises will be referred to as the Bellingshausen winter cruises and the Palmer LTER cruises as the Bellingshausen summer cruises. Field and Analysis Methods All cruises used strip transects to collect data on species occurring along the cruise track. In general, two observers carried out surveys from one side of the ship, usually from the flying bridge. Strip width was 300 m wide. On all cruises, observers noted time of sighting, species identity, whether the bird was stationary (e.g., standing on ice, sitting on water) or flying, and, if flying, direction of the flying bird in relation to the ship. Species sightings were made continuously on all but 3 cruises (winter Aurora Australis cruises) where 10-minute intervals were used. Survey effort was partitioned into 30-minute bins, sequentially, for surveys with continuous counts. All counts were adjusted for bird flux (movement of birds relative to that of the ship) using ship speed, wind speed and direction, and direction of flying birds in relation to the ship following Spear et al. (1992). Species densities by transect were the adjusted number of birds by species/area surveyed (square kilometers). Transect area varied due to differences in transect length, which depends on ship speed (which, in turn, reflects environmental conditions), and transect time interval. GIS files defining land, the Antarctic coast, and the fronts (southern boundary of the ACC and Antarctic Polar Front) were obtained from the Australian Antarctic Data Centre. The 1000 m isobath was obtained by creating a bathymetric lattice contour GIS file using gridded ETOPO1 data from NOAA’s National Geospatial Data Center, then edited to produce one continuous line defining the position of the shelf break. Using GIS, we measured the following set of environmental variables for every transect: distance to the ice edge defined by 15% ice cover (km)distance to the ice edge defined by 50% ice cover (km)distance to the Antarctic Polar Front (km)distance to the southern boundary of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) (km)distance to the 1000 m isobath (km) (which represents the Shelf Break Front)distance to the Antarctic coast (km)distance to nearest land (nearest mainland or island) (km) All transects were placed into one of three water masses (Subantarctic, Low Antarctic, High Antarctic). The water masses are separated by the Antarctic Polar Front and the southern boundary of the ACC. The Subantarctic water mass is north of the Antarctic Polar Front, the Low Antarctic water mass is south of the Antarctic Polar Front but north of the southern boundary of the ACC, and the High Antarctic water mass is south of southern boundary of the ACC. Transects with a positive distance to the Antarctic Polar Front (i.e., north of the polar front) were placed in the Subantarctic water mass, transects with a negative distance to the Antarctic Polar Front (i.e., south of the polar front) but a positive distance to the Southern Boundary of the ACC (i.e., north of the southern boundary) were placed in the Low Antarctic water mass, and transects with a negative distance to the southern boundary of the ACC (i.e., south of the southern boundary) were placed in the high Antarctic water mass. See Ribic et al. (2011) for maps of the cruise tracks and fronts by season. Cruises were divided seasonally between winter (April–September) and summer (October–March). For each season, Antarctic-wide cruises were combined into one data set, resulting in 2348 transects in summer (Antarctic-wide-summer-dens-env-final-021025.xlsx) and 1591 transects in winter (Antarctic-wide-winter-dens-env-final-021025.xlsx). Species listed in the combined data sets are all species seen at least once over all the cruises for the specific season. If a species was not seen on a specific cruise, a zero was entered for the species density value. In the Antarctic-wide-summer file, there are 63 species seen at least once. In the Antarctic-wide-winter file, there are 56 species seen at least once. Note Ribic et al. (2011) removed 17 transects from Antarctic-wide summer cruises that overlapped the Bellingshausen summer cruise grid, resulting in 2331 transects for analysis in the paper. The removed transects have Summer.Cruise.IDs 2332-2348 in the Antarctic-wide-summer-dens-env-final-021025.xlsx file. No transects in the Antarctic-wide winter cruises overlapped the Bellingshausen winter cruise grid. While the Bellingshausen summer cruises were analyzed separately, they were combined into a single file for publishing, resulting in a file with 1446 transects (PALTER-summer-dens-env-final-021025.xlsx). While the Bellingshausen winter cruises were analyzed separately, they were combined into a single file for publishing, resulting in a file with 652 transects (SOGLOBEC-winter-dens-env-final-021025.xlsx). Similar to the Antarctic-wide seasonal data files, species listed in the PALTER-summer file are all species seen at least once over the 6 Palmer LTER cruises and species listed in the SOGLOBEC-winter file are all species seen at least once over the 4 Southern Ocean Globec cruises. If a species was not seen on a specific cruise, a zero was entered for the species density value. In the PALTER-summer file, there are 29 species seen at least once. In the SOGLOBEC-winter file, there are 16 species seen at least once. References: Ribic, C. A., D. G. Ainley, R. G. Ford, W. R. Fraser, C. T. Tynan, and E. J. Woehler. 2011. Water masses, ocean fronts, and the structure of Antarctic seabird communities: putting the eastern Bellingshausen Sea in perspective. Deep-Sea Research II 58:1695-1709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2009.09.017 Spear, L. B., N. Nur, and D. G. Ainley. 1992. Estimating absolute densities of flying seabirds using analyses of relative movement. Auk 109:385–389.

RHESSys (Regional Hydro-Ecological Simulation System) is a GIS-based, terrestrial ecohydrologic modeling framework designed to simulate carbon, water and nutrient fluxes at the watershed scale. RHESSys models the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem processes and interactions at a daily time step over multiple years by combining a set of physically based process models and a methodology for partitioning and parameterizing the landscape. Detailed model algorithms are available in Tague and Band (2004).

This notebook demonstrates how to configure an ensemble RHESSys simulation with pyRHESSys, submit it to a supported HPC resource (XSEDE COMET or UIUC Virtual Roger) for execution through CyberGIS Computing Service, visualize model outputs with various tooks integrated in the CyberGIS-Jupyter for Water (CJW).

The model used here is based off of a pre-built RHESSys model for the Coweeta Subbasin 18 (0.124 𝑘𝑚2 ), a subbasins in Coweeta watershed (16 𝑘𝑚2 ), from the Coweeta Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Program.

How to run the notebook: 1) Click on the OpenWith button in the upper-right corner; 2) Select "CyberGIS-Jupyter for Water"; 3) Open the notebook and follow instructions;

This dataset contains all data and code necessary to reproduce the analysis presented in the manuscript: Winzeler, H.E., Owens, P.R., Read Q.D.., Libohova, Z., Ashworth, A., Sauer, T. 2022. 2022. Topographic wetness index as a proxy for soil moisture in a hillslope catena: flow algorithms and map generalization. Land 11:2018. DOI: 10.3390/land11112018. There are several steps to this analysis. The relevant scripts for each are listed below. The first step is to use the raw digital elevation data (DEM) to produce different versions of the topographic wetness index (TWI) for the study region (Calculating TWI). Then, these TWI output files are processed, along with soil moisture (volumetric water content or VWC) time series data from a number of sensors located within the study region, to create analysis-ready data objects (Processing TWI and VWC). Next, models are fit relating TWI to soil moisture (Model fitting) and results are plotted (Visualizing main results). A number of additional analyses were also done (Additional analyses). Input data The DEM of the study region is archived in this dataset as SourceDem.zip. This contains the DEM of the study region (DEM1.sgrd) and associated auxiliary files all called DEM1.* with different extensions. In addition, the DEM is provided as a .tif file called USGS_one_meter_x39y400_AR_R6_WashingtonCO_2015.tif. The remaining data and code files are archived in the repository created with a GitHub release on 2022-10-11, twi-moisture-0.1.zip. The data are found in a subfolder called data. 2017_LoggerData_HEW.csv through 2021_HEW.csv: Soil moisture (VWC) logger data for each year 2017-2021 (5 files total). 2882174.csv: weather data from a nearby station. DryPeriods2017-2021.csv: starting and ending days for dry periods 2017-2021. LoggerLocations.csv: Geographic locations and metadata for each VWC logger. Logger_Locations_TWI_2017-2021.xlsx: 546 topographic wetness indexes calculated at each VWC logger location. note: This is intermediate input created in the first step of the pipeline. Code pipeline To reproduce the analysis in the manuscript run these scripts in the following order. The scripts are all found in the root directory of the repository. See the manuscript for more details on the methods. Calculating TWI TerrainAnalysis.R: Taking the DEM file as input, calculates 546 different topgraphic wetness indexes using a variety of different algorithms. Each algorithm is run multiple times with different input parameters, as described in more detail in the manuscript. After performing this step, it is necessary to use the SAGA-GIS GUI to extract the TWI values for each of the sensor locations. The output generated in this way is included in this repository as Logger_Locations_TWI_2017-2021.xlsx. Therefore it is not necessary to rerun this step of the analysis but the code is provided for completeness. Processing TWI and VWC read_process_data.R: Takes raw TWI and moisture data files and processes them into analysis-ready format, saving the results as CSV. qc_avg_moisture.R: Does additional quality control on the moisture data and averages it across different time periods. Model fitting Models were fit regressing soil moisture (average VWC for a certain time period) against a TWI index, with and without soil depth as a covariate. In each case, for both the model without depth and the model with depth, prediction performance was calculated with and without spatially-blocked cross-validation. Where cross validation wasn't used, we simply used the predictions from the model fit to all the data. fit_combos.R: Models were fit to each combination of soil moisture averaged over 57 months (all months from April 2017-December 2021) and 546 TWI indexes. In addition models were fit to soil moisture averaged over years, and to the grand mean across the full study period. fit_dryperiods.R: Models were fit to soil moisture averaged over previously identified dry periods within the study period (each 1 or 2 weeks in length), again for each of the 546 indexes. fit_summer.R: Models were fit to the soil moisture average for the months of June-September for each of the five years, again for each of the 546 indexes. Visualizing main results Preliminary visualization of results was done in a series of RMarkdown notebooks. All the notebooks follow the same general format, plotting model performance (observed-predicted correlation) across different combinations of time period and characteristics of the TWI indexes being compared. The indexes are grouped by SWI versus TWI, DEM filter used, flow algorithm, and any other parameters that varied. The notebooks show the model performance metrics with and without the soil depth covariate, and with and without spatially-blocked cross-validation. Crossing those two factors, there are four values for model performance for each combination of time period and TWI index presented. performance_plots_bymonth.Rmd: Using the results from the models fit to each month of data separately, prediction performance was averaged by month across the five years of data to show within-year trends. performance_plots_byyear.Rmd: Using the results from the models fit to each month of data separately, prediction performance was averaged by year to show trends across multiple years. performance_plots_dry_periods.Rmd: Prediction performance was presented for the models fit to the previously identified dry periods. performance_plots_summer.Rmd: Prediction performance was presented for the models fit to the June-September moisture averages. Additional analyses Some additional analyses were done that may not be published in the final manuscript but which are included here for completeness. 2019dryperiod.Rmd: analysis, done separately for each day, of a specific dry period in 2019. alldryperiodsbyday.Rmd: analysis, done separately for each day, of the same dry periods discussed above. best_indices.R: after fitting models, this script was used to quickly identify some of the best-performing indexes for closer scrutiny. wateryearfigs.R: exploratory figures showing median and quantile interval of VWC for sensors in low and high TWI locations for each water year. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Digital elevation model of study region. File Name: SourceDEM.zipResource Description: .zip archive containing digital elevation model files for the study region. See dataset description for more details.Resource Title: twi-moisture-0.1: Archived git repository containing all other necessary data and code . File Name: twi-moisture-0.1.zipResource Description: .zip archive containing all data and code, other than the digital elevation model archived as a separate file. This file was generated by a GitHub release made on 2022-10-11 of the git repository hosted at https://github.com/qdread/twi-moisture (private repository). See dataset description and README file contained within this archive for more details.

Analysis condicted by ABR Inc.–Environmental Research & Services.Data from ADFG/BLM/NSB and ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc.For Brownian Bridge Movement Models - Conducted dynamic Brownian Bridge Movement Models (dBBMM) to delineate movmeents on seasonal herd ranges. dBBMM models were run using the move package for r using the following methods.1. Locations within 30 days of first collaring were removed from the analysis. 2. Selected females from PTT and GPS collars during the date range July 1 2012–June 30 2017 and individuals having more than 30 locations per season.3. ran a dBBMMM model for each individual during each season using 1 km pixels. 4. Calculate the 95% isopleth for each individual.5. Overlap all 95% isopleths and calculate the proportion of animals using (as defined by 95% isopleth) each pixel. Value shown is proportion times 1000. Seasons used: Winter (Dec 1-Apr 15); Spring (Apr 16-May 31); Calving (June 1-15); postcalving (June 16-30); Mosquito (July 1-15); Oestrid Fly (July 16-Aug 7); late summer (August 8-Sept 15); Fall Migration (Sept 16-Nov 30). For Kernel Density Estimates - Conducted Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) to delineate seasonal herd ranges. Kernels were run using the ks package for r and the plugin bandwidth estimator. 1. Locations within 30 days of first collaring were removed from the analysis. 2. The mean latitiude and longitude for each animal was calculated for each day.3. A KDE utilization distribution was calculated for Julian day of the season (all years combined). 4. The daily KDE uds were averaged across the season. This method accounts for individual's movements during the seasons without the overfitting that results from using autocorrelated lcoations from individuals.Seasons used: Winter (Dec 1-Apr 15); Spring (Apr 16-May 31); Calving (June 1-15); postcalving (June 16-30); Mosquito (July 1-15); Oestrid Fly (July 16-Aug 7); late summer (August 8-Sept 15); Fall Migration (Sept 16-Nov 30).

DescriptionPotential fens within a 500-m buffer of Colorado highways were identified in ArcGIS 10.3/10.4 using true color aerial photography taken by the National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) in 2004, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015, as well as color-infrared imagery from 2013 and 2015. High (but variable) resolution World Imagery from Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) was also used. Using all available imagery and data, potential fen polygons were hand-drawn based on the best estimation of fen boundaries. Each potential fen polygon was attributed with a confidence value of 1 (low confidence), 3 (possible fen), or 5 (likely fen). In addition to the confidence rating, any justifications of the rating or interesting observations were noted, including iron fens, beaver influence, floating mats, and springs. Once all potential fens were mapped, each polygon was assigned a code for tracking throughout the verification process. The code was a combination of the closest highway segment and a running sequential four-digit number (e.g., 082A-0278).After field verification, additional confidence values of 7 (confirmed fen) and 0 (confirmed non-fen) were added.

    Last Update
    2018


    Update FrequencyAs needed


    Data Owner
    Division of Transportation Development


    Data Contact
    Wetland Program Manager


    Collection Method



    Projection
    NAD83 / UTM zone 13N


    Coverage Area
    Statewide


    Temporal



    Disclaimer/Limitations
    There are no restrictions and legal prerequisites for using the data set. The State of Colorado assumes no liability relating to the completeness, correctness, or fitness for use of this data.

Napa County has used a 2004 edition vegetation map produced using the Manual of California Vegetation classification system (Thorne et al. 2004) as one of the input layers for land use decision and policy. The county decided to update the map because of its utility. A University of California, Davis (UCD) group was engaged to produce the map. The earlier map used black and white digital orthophoto quadrangles from 1993, with a pixel resolution of 3 meters. This image was delineated using a heads up digitization technique produced by ASI (Aerial Services Incorporated). The resulting polygons were the provided vegetation and landcover attributes following the classification system used by California State Department of Fish and Wildlife mappers in the Manual of California Vegetation. That effort included a brief field campaign in which surveyors drove accessible roads and verified or corrected the dominant vegetation of polygons adjacent to roadways or visible using binoculars. There were no field relevé or rapid assessment plots conducted. This update version uses a 2016 edition of 1 meter color aerial imagery taken by the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) as the base imagery. In consultation with the county we decided to use similar methods to the previous mapping effort, in order to preserve the capacity to assess change in the county over time. This meant forgoing recent data and innovations in remote sensing such as the use LiDAR and Ecognition’s segmentation of imagery to delineate stands, which have been recently used in a concurrent project mapping of Sonoma County. The use of such technologies would have made it more difficult to track changes in landcover, because differences between publication dates would not be definitively attributable to either actual land cover change or to change in methodology. The overall cost of updating the map in the way was approximately 20% of the cost of the Sonoma vegetation mapping program.Therefore, we started with the original map, and on-screen inspections of the 2004 polygons to determine if change had occurred. If so, the boundaries and attributes were modified in this new edition of the map. We also used the time series of imagery available on Google Earth, to further inspect many edited polygons. While funding was not available to do field assessments, we incorporated field expertise and other map data from four projects that overlap with parts of Napa Count: the Angwin Experimental Forest; a 2014 vegetation map of the Knoxville area; agricultural rock piles were identified by Amber Manfree; and parts of a Sonoma Vegetation Map that used 2013 imagery.The Angwin Experimental Forest was mapped by Peter Lecourt from Pacific Union College. He identified several polygons of redwoods in what are potentially the eastern-most extent of that species. We reviewed those polygons with him and incorporated some of the data from his area into this map.The 2014 Knoxville Vegetation map was developed by California Department of Fish and Wildlife. It was made public in February of 2019, close to the end of this project. We reviewed the map, which covers part of the northeast portion of Napa County. We incorporated polygons and vegetation types for 18 vegetation types including the rare ones, we reviewed and incorporated some data for another 6 types, and we noted in comments the presence of another 5 types. There is a separate report specifically addressing the incorporation of this map to our map.Dr Amber Manfree has been conducting research on fire return intervals for parts of Napa County. In her research she identified that large piles of rocks are created when vineyards are put in. These are mapable features. She shared the locations of rock piles she identified, which we incorporated into the map. The Sonoma Vegetation Map mapped some distance into the western side of Napa County. We reviewed that map’s polygons for coast redwood. We then examined our imagery and the Google imagery to see if we could discern the whorled pattern of tree branches. Where we could, we amended or expanded redwood polygons in our map.The Vegetation classification systems used here follows California’s Manual of California Vegetation and the National Vegetation Classification System (MCV and NVCS). We started with the vegetation types listed in the 2004 map. We predominantly use the same set of species names, with modifications/additions particularly from the Knoxville map. The NVCS uses Alliance and Association as the two most taxonomically detailed levels. This map uses those levels. It also refers to vegetation types that have not been sampled in the field and that has 3-6 species and a site descriptor as Groups, which is the next more general level in the NVCS classification. We conducted 3 rounds of quality assessment/quality control exercises.

Feature Classes are loaded onto tablet PCs and Field crews are sent to label the crop or land cover type and irrigation method for a subset of select fields or polygons. Each tablet PC is attached to a GPS unit for real-time tracking to continuously update the field crew’s location during the field labeling process.Digitizing is done as Geodatabase feature classes using ArcPro 3.1.0 with Sentinel imagery as a background with other layers added for reference. Updates to existing field boundaries of individual agricultural fields, urban areas and more are precisely digitized. Changes in irrigation type and land use are noted during this process.Cropland Data Layer (CDL) rasters from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) are downloaded for the appropriate year. https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/Zonal Statistics geoprocessing tools are used to attribute the polygons with updated crop types from the CDL. The data is then run through several stages of comparison to historical inventories and quality checking in order to determine and produce the final attributes.LUID - Unique ID number for each polygon in the final dataset, not consistent between yearly datasets.Landuse - A general land cover classification differentiating how the land is used.Agriculture: Land managed for crop or livestock purposes.Other: A broad classification of wildland.Riparian/Wetland: Wildland influenced by a high water table, often close to surface water.Urban: Developed areas, includes urban greenspace such as parks.Water: Surface water such as wet flats, streams, and lakes.CropGroup - Groupings of broader crop categories to allow easy access to or query of all orchard or grain types etc.Description - Attribute that describes/indicates the various crop types and land use types determined by the GIS process.IRR_Method - Crop Irrigation Method carried over from statewide field surveys ending in 2015 and updated based on imagery and yearly field checks.Drip: Water is applied through lines that slowly release water onto the surface or subsurface of the crop.Dry Crop: No irrigation method is applied to this agricultural land, the crop is irrigated via natural processes.Flood: Water is diverted from ditches or pipes upland from the crop in sufficient quantities to flood the irrigated plot.None: Associated with non-agricultural landSprinkler: Water is applied above the crop via sprinklers that generally move across the field.Sub-irrigated: This land does not have irrigation water applied, but due to a high water table receives more water, and is generally closely associated with a riparian area.Acres - Calculated acreage of the polygon.State - State where the polygons are found.Basin - The hydrologic basin where the polygons are found, closely related to HUC 6. These basin boundaries were created by DWRe to include portions of other basins that have inter-basin flows for management purposes.SubArea - The subarea where the polygons are found, closely related to the HUC 8. Subareas are subdivisions of the larger hydrologic basins created by DWRe.Label_Class - Combination of Label and Class_Name fields created during processing that indicates the specific crop, irrigation, and whether the CDL classified the land as a similar crop or an “Other” crop.LABEL - A shorthand descriptive label for each crop description and irrigation type.Class_Name - The majority pixel value from the USDA CDL Cropscape raster layer within the polygon, may differ from final crop determination (Description).OldLanduse - Similar to Landuse, but splits the agricultural land further depending on irrigation. Pre-2017 datasets defined this as Landuse.LU_Group - These codes represent some in-house groupings that are useful for symbology and other summarizing.Field_Check - Indicates the year the polygon was last field checked. *New for 2019SURV_YEAR - Indicates which year/growing season the data represents.