Reporter for MRGPThe Reporter for MRGP doesn't require you to download any apps to complete an inventory; all you need is an internet connection and web browser. The Reporter includes culverts and bridges from VTCULVERTS, town highways from Vtrans and the current status of the MRGP segments and outlets on the map.MRGP Fieldworker SolutionNotes on MRGP fieldworker solution: July 12, 2021. The MRGP map now displays the current status of road segments and outlets. Fieldworkers using the MRGP solution should remove the offline map area(s) from their device, and keep their new offline map current, by syncing their map. Enabling auto-sync will get you the current segment or outlet status automatically. See FAQ section below for more information. Road Erosion Inventory forms are available and have a new look and feel this year. The drainage ditch survey is broken out into three pages for a better user experience. The first page contains survey and segment information, the second; the inventory, and the third; barriers to implementation. You will notice the questions are outlined by section so it’s easier to follow along too. The questions have remained the same. Survey123 has a new option requiring users to update surveys on their mobile device. That option has been enabled for the two MRGP Survey123 forms. Step 1: Download the free mobile appsFor fieldworkers to collect and submit data to VT DEC, two free apps are required: ArcGIS Collector or Field Maps and Survey123. ArcGIS Collector or Field Maps is used first to locate the segment or outlet for inventory, and Survey123, for completing the Road Erosion Inventory. ArcGIS Field Maps is ESRI’s new all-in-one app for field work and will replace ArcGIS Collector. You can download ArcGIS Collector or ArcGIS Fields Maps and Survey123 from the Google Play Store.You can download ArcGIS Collector or ArcGIS Field Maps and Survey123 from Apple Store.

Step 2: Sign into the mobile appYou will need appropriate credentials to access fieldworker solution, please contact your Regional Planning Commission’s Transportation Planner or Jim Ryan (MRGP Program Lead) at (802) 490-6140.Open Collector for ArcGIS, select ‘ArcGIS Online’ as shown below, and enter the user name and password. The credential is saved unless you sign out. Step 3: Open the MRGP Mobile MapIf you’re working in an area that has a reliable data connection (e.g. LTE or 4G), open the map below by selecting it.Step 4: Select a road segment or outlet for inventoryUse your location, button circled in red below, select the segment or outlet you need to inventory, and select 'Update Road Segment Status' from the pop-up to launch Survey123.

Step 5: Complete the Road Erosion Inventory and submit inventory to DECSelecting 'Update Road Segment Status' opens Survey123, downloads the relevant survey and pre-populates the REI with important information for reporting to DEC. You will have to enter the same username and password to access the REI forms. The credential is saved unless you sign out of Survey123.Complete the survey using the appropriate supplement below and submit the assessment directly to VT DEC.Paved Roads with Catch Basin SupplementPaved and Gravel Roads with Drainage Ditches Supplement

Step 6: Repeat!Go back to the ArcGIS Collector or Field Maps and select the next segment for inventory and repeat steps 1-5.

If you have question related to inventory protocol reach out to Jim Ryan, MRGP Program Lead, at jim.ryan@vermont.gov, (802) 490-6140If you have questions about implementing the mobile data collection piece please contact Ryan Knox, ADS-ANR IT, at ryan.knox@vermont.gov, (802) 793-0297

The location where I'm doing inventory does not have a data coverage (LTE or 4G). What can I do?ArcGIS Collector allows you take map areas offline when you think there will be spotty or no data coverage. I made a video to demonstrate the steps for taking map areas offline - https://youtu.be/OEsJrCVT8BISurvey123 operates offline by default but you need to download the survey. My recommendation is to test the fieldworker solution (Steps 1-5) before you go into the field but don't submit the test survey.Where can I download the Road Erosion Scoring shown on the the Atlas? You can download the scoring for both outlets and road segments through the VT Open Geodata Portal.https://geodata.vermont.gov/maps/VTANR::mrgp-scoring-open-data/aboutHow do I use my own ArcGIS Collector map for launching the official MRGP REI survey form? You can use the following custom url for launching Survey123, open the REI and prepopulate answers in the form. More information is here. TIP: add what's below directly in the HTML view of the popup not the link as described in the post I provided.

Hydrologically connected segments (lines):Update Road Segment Status

Segment ID: {SegmentID}
Segment Status: {SegmentStatus}
{RoadName}, {Municipality}
Outlets: {Outlets}
Hydrologically connected outlets (points):Update Outlet Status

Outlet ID: {OutletID}
Municipality: {Municipality}
Erosion: {ErosionValue}

How do I save my name and organization information used in subsequent surveys? Watch this short video or execute the steps below:

Open Survey123 and open a blank REI form (Collect button) Note: it's important to open a blank form so you don't save the same segment id for all your surveys Fill-in your 'Name' and 'Organization' and clear the 'Date of Assessment field' (x button). Using the favorites menu in the top-right corner you can use the current state of your survey to 'Set as favorite answers.' Close survey and 'Save this survey in Drafts.' Use Collector to launch survey from selected feature (segment or outlet). Using the favorites menu again, 'Paste answers from favorite.

What if the map doesn't have the outlet or road segment I need to inventory for the MRGP? Go Directly to Survey123 and complete the appropriate Road Erosion Inventory and submit the data to DEC. The survey includes a Geopoint (location) that we can use to determine where you completed the inventory.

Where can I view the Road Erosion Inventories completed with Survey123? Using the MRGP credentials you have access to another map that shows completed REIs.Web map - Completed Road Erosion Inventories for MRGPWhere can I download the 2020-2021 data collected with Survey123?Road Segments (lines) - https://vtanr.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f8a11de8a5a0469596ef11429ab49465Outlets (points) - https://vtanr.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=ae13a925a662490184d5c5b1b9621672Where can I download the 2019 data collected with Survey123?

Road Segments (lines) - https://vtanr.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f60050c6f3c04c60b053470483acb5b1 Outlets (points) - https://vtanr.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=753006f9ecf144ccac8ce37772bb2c03 Where can I download the 2018 data collected with Survey123?Outlets (points) - https://vtanr.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=124b617d142e4a1dbcfb78a00e8b9bc5Road Segments (lines) - https://vtanr.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=8abcc0fcec0441ce8ae6cd38e3812b1b Where can I download the Hydrologically Connected Road Segments and Outlets?Vermont Open Data Geoportal - https://geodata.vermont.gov/datasets/VTANR::hydrologically-connected-road-segments-1/about

This 2019 version of the MRGP Outlets is based on professional mapping completed using DEC's Stormwater Infrastructure dataset. In catch basin systems, work was completed to match outlets to road segments that drain to them. The outlets here correspond to Outlet IDs identified in the Hydrologically connected roads segments layer. For outlets that meet standard, road segments will also meet the standard for MRGP compliance.

Stakeholder view of hosted feature layercreated from Survey123 feature service R10_FHP_GDS used by R10 (Alaska) US Forest Service Forest Health Protection for ground based Forest Health survey and monitoring observationsof tree and shrub damage. Survey information includes point data with the type of survey conducted, the tree species affected, the number of affected trees, the diameter at breast height of affected tree/s, the damage causing agent, the type of damage, and attributes describing the surrounding forest. Many records include photos of the observation to facilitate identification or verification.This is a new view created directly from the source layer.

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

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 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

Layers in this webmap include:Teme Water Quality data - collected by volunteers, managed and collated with Survey123- Electrical Conductivity- Turbidity- Phosphate- Nitrate - Temperature- Litter- Flow rate of watercourse

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) annually maintains and distributes an historical wildland fire perimeter dataset from across public and private lands in California. The GIS data is developed with the cooperation of the United States Forest Service Region 5, the Bureau of Land Management, California State Parks, National Park Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and is released in the spring with added data from the previous calendar year. Although the dataset represents the most complete digital record of fire perimeters in California, it is still incomplete, and users should be cautious when drawing conclusions based on the data.

This data should be used carefully for statistical analysis and reporting due to missing perimeters (see Use Limitation in metadata). Some fires are missing because historical records were lost or damaged, were too small for the minimum cutoffs, had inadequate documentation or have not yet been incorporated into the database. Other errors with the fire perimeter database include duplicate fires and over-generalization. Additionally, over-generalization, particularly with large old fires, may show unburned "islands" within the final perimeter as burned. Users of the fire perimeter database must exercise caution in application of the data. Careful use of the fire perimeter database will prevent users from drawing inaccurate or erroneous conclusions from the data. This data is updated annually in the spring with fire perimeters from the previous fire season. This dataset may differ in California compared to that available from the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) due to different requirements between the two datasets. The data covers fires back to 1878. As of May 2025, it represents fire24_1.

Please help improve this dataset by filling out this survey with feedback:

Historic Fire Perimeter Dataset Feedback (arcgis.com)

Current criteria for data collection are as follows:

CAL FIRE (including contract counties) submit perimeters ≥10 acres in timber, ≥50 acres in brush, or ≥300 acres in grass, and/or ≥3 impacted residential or commercial structures, and/or caused ≥1 fatality.

All cooperating agencies submit perimeters ≥10 acres.

Version update:

Firep24_1 was released in April 2025. Five hundred forty-eight fires from the 2024 fire season were added to the database (2 from BIA, 56 from BLM, 197 from CAL FIRE, 193 from Contract Counties, 27 from LRA, 8 from NPS, 55 from USFS and 8 from USFW). Six perimeters were added from the 2025 fire season (as a special case due to an unusual January fire siege). Five duplicate fires were removed, and the 2023 Sage was replaced with a more accurate perimeter. There were 900 perimeters that received updated attribution (705 removed “FIRE” from the end of Fire Name field and 148 replaced Complex IRWIN ID with Complex local incident number for COMPLEX_ID field). The following fires were identified as meeting our collection criteria but are not included in this version and will hopefully be added in a future update: Addie (2024-CACND-002119), Alpaugh (2024-CACND-001715), South (2024-CATIA-001375). One perimeter is missing containment date that will be updated in the next release.

Cross checking CALFIRS reporting for new CAL FIRE submissions to ensure accuracy with cause class was added to the compilation process. The cause class domain description for “Powerline” was updated to “Electrical Power” to be more inclusive of cause reports.

Includes separate layers filtered by criteria as follows:

California Fire Perimeters (All): Unfiltered. The entire collection of wildfire perimeters in the database. It is scale dependent and starts displaying at the country level scale.

Recent Large Fire Perimeters (≥5000 acres): Filtered for wildfires greater or equal to 5,000 acres for the last 5 years of fires (2020-January 2025), symbolized with color by year and is scale dependent and starts displaying at the country level scale. Year-only labels for recent large fires.

California Fire Perimeters (1950+): Filtered for wildfires that started in 1950-January 2025. Symbolized by decade, and display starting at country level scale.

Detailed metadata is included in the following documents:

Wildland Fire Perimeters (Firep24_1) Metadata

For any questions, please contact the data steward:

Kim Wallin, GIS Specialist

CAL FIRE, Fire & Resource Assessment Program (FRAP)

kimberly.wallin@fire.ca.gov

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 summer¸ which is a surrogate for habitat conditions during the sage-grouse brood-rearing 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 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). Summer included telemetry locations (n = 11,743) from July to mid-October. 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 summer 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 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) annually maintains and distributes an historical wildland fire perimeter dataset from across public and private lands in California. The GIS data is developed with the cooperation of the United States Forest Service Region 5, the Bureau of Land Management, California State Parks, National Park Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and is released in the spring with added data from the previous calendar year. Although the dataset represents the most complete digital record of fire perimeters in California, it is still incomplete, and users should be cautious when drawing conclusions based on the data.

This data should be used carefully for statistical analysis and reporting due to missing perimeters (see Use Limitation in metadata). Some fires are missing because historical records were lost or damaged, were too small for the minimum cutoffs, had inadequate documentation or have not yet been incorporated into the database. Other errors with the fire perimeter database include duplicate fires and over-generalization. Additionally, over-generalization, particularly with large old fires, may show unburned "islands" within the final perimeter as burned. Users of the fire perimeter database must exercise caution in application of the data. Careful use of the fire perimeter database will prevent users from drawing inaccurate or erroneous conclusions from the data. This data is updated annually in the spring with fire perimeters from the previous fire season. This dataset may differ in California compared to that available from the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) due to different requirements between the two datasets. The data covers fires back to 1878. As of May 2025, it represents fire24_1.

Please help improve this dataset by filling out this survey with feedback:

Historic Fire Perimeter Dataset Feedback (arcgis.com)

Current criteria for data collection are as follows:

CAL FIRE (including contract counties) submit perimeters ≥10 acres in timber, ≥50 acres in brush, or ≥300 acres in grass, and/or ≥3 impacted residential or commercial structures, and/or caused ≥1 fatality.

All cooperating agencies submit perimeters ≥10 acres.

Version update:

Firep24_1 was released in April 2025. Five hundred forty-eight fires from the 2024 fire season were added to the database (2 from BIA, 56 from BLM, 197 from CAL FIRE, 193 from Contract Counties, 27 from LRA, 8 from NPS, 55 from USFS and 8 from USFW). Six perimeters were added from the 2025 fire season (as a special case due to an unusual January fire siege). Five duplicate fires were removed, and the 2023 Sage was replaced with a more accurate perimeter. There were 900 perimeters that received updated attribution (705 removed “FIRE” from the end of Fire Name field and 148 replaced Complex IRWIN ID with Complex local incident number for COMPLEX_ID field). The following fires were identified as meeting our collection criteria but are not included in this version and will hopefully be added in a future update: Addie (2024-CACND-002119), Alpaugh (2024-CACND-001715), South (2024-CATIA-001375). One perimeter is missing containment date that will be updated in the next release.

Cross checking CALFIRS reporting for new CAL FIRE submissions to ensure accuracy with cause class was added to the compilation process. The cause class domain description for “Powerline” was updated to “Electrical Power” to be more inclusive of cause reports.

Includes separate layers filtered by criteria as follows:

California Fire Perimeters (All): Unfiltered. The entire collection of wildfire perimeters in the database. It is scale dependent and starts displaying at the country level scale.

Recent Large Fire Perimeters (≥5000 acres): Filtered for wildfires greater or equal to 5,000 acres for the last 5 years of fires (2020-January 2025), symbolized with color by year and is scale dependent and starts displaying at the country level scale. Year-only labels for recent large fires.

California Fire Perimeters (1950+): Filtered for wildfires that started in 1950-January 2025. Symbolized by decade, and display starting at country level scale.

Detailed metadata is included in the following documents:

Wildland Fire Perimeters (Firep24_1) Metadata

For any questions, please contact the data steward:

Kim Wallin, GIS Specialist

CAL FIRE, Fire & Resource Assessment Program (FRAP)

kimberly.wallin@fire.ca.gov

About the Newark Public Art Inventory and GIS Story Map Project Public art is free, accessible to all people, and has the potential to visually connect civic spaces, promote walkable communities, and create a sense of place. Art in public spaces can allow for the discovery and a celebration of artists. It has the potential to enhance cultural identity by chronicling the historical roots of a community. Both Newark and the University of Delaware (UD) campus boast an impressive display of art. Prominent exhibits include a series of downtown murals commissioned as part of a City of Newark beautification project, a collection of sculptures by beloved local artist Charles C. Parks, and the symbolic "Wings of Thought" sculpture that serves as the focal point of UD's Mentors' Circle. Yet, in many instances, public art blends into the environment and goes virtually unnoticed. Research through Community Engagement To identify and map locations of existing art, UD's Institute for Public Administration (IPA) conducted an inventory of public art in Newark and UD campus art. The project is supported by small grants from UD’s Partnership for Arts & Culture (PAC). For the purpose of the project, public art is defined as a "permanent installation of artwork that is located indoors or outdoors and is visually, physically, and freely accessible to the public at least eight hours per day. “Newark and UD community members were invited to discover, pinpoint locations, and photograph art by using a web-based survey application (app), Survey123 for ArcGIS. Using a QR code or link to access the survey, participants could snap a picture, "geo-tag" the location, describe the art, and submit the entry. UD IPA public administration fellows Allison Michalowski and Jillian Cullen were instrumental in collecting the bulk of data and photos throughout the City of Newark and UD’s campus. A Geographic Exploration of Public Art This interactive Newark Public Art GIS Story Map was created by UD IPA public administration fellow Allison Michalowski using data using generated from the web-based survey app. It enables residents, visitors, and the UD community to virtually discover the murals, sculptures, paintings, and other art that commemorate Newark's heritage and cultural roots. Viewers can navigate individual tabs to view a combination of campus art and public art in the “All Newark Art” tab, public art within the City's corporate limits in the "City of Newark Public Art" tab, and art on the University of Delaware campus in the "UD Campus Art" tab. The “museum” symbol on the map represents on-campus locations of art galleries overseen by UD’s Special Collections and Museums. Class visits and tours are available by appointment for UD faculty, staff, students, and members of the public. In addition, Data will be uploaded to FirstMap, Delaware's centralized repository for geospatial data layers will support sharing of the dataset.

Map created from a view of hosted feature layer created from Survey123 feature service R10_FHP_GDS used by R10 (Alaska) US Forest Service Forest Health Protection for ground based Forest Health survey and monitoring observations of tree and shrub damage. Survey information includes point data with the type of survey conducted, the tree species affected, the number of affected trees, the diameter at breast height of affected tree/s, the damage causing agent, the type of damage, and attributes describing the surrounding forest. Many records include photos of the observation to facilitate identification or verification.Short URL:https://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/gds

Learn state-of-the-art skills to build compelling, useful, and fun Web GIS apps easily, with no programming experience required.Building on the foundation of the previous three editions, Getting to Know Web GIS, fourth edition,features the latest advances in Esri’s entire Web GIS platform, from the cloud server side to the client side.Discover and apply what’s new in ArcGIS Online, ArcGIS Enterprise, Map Viewer, Esri StoryMaps, Web AppBuilder, ArcGIS Survey123, and more.Learn about recent Web GIS products such as ArcGIS Experience Builder, ArcGIS Indoors, and ArcGIS QuickCapture. Understand updates in mobile GIS such as ArcGIS Collector and AuGeo, and then build your own web apps.Further your knowledge and skills with detailed sections and chapters on ArcGIS Dashboards, ArcGIS Analytics for the Internet of Things, online spatial analysis, image services, 3D web scenes, ArcGIS API for JavaScript, and best practices in Web GIS.Each chapter is written for immediate productivity with a good balance of principles and hands-on exercises and includes:A conceptual discussion section to give you the big picture and principles,A detailed tutorial section with step-by-step instructions,A Q/A section to answer common questions,An assignment section to reinforce your comprehension, andA list of resources with more information.Ideal for classroom lab work and on-the-job training for GIS students, instructors, GIS analysts, managers, web developers, and other professionals, Getting to Know Web GIS, fourth edition, uses a holistic approach to systematically teach the breadth of the Esri Geospatial Cloud.AUDIENCEProfessional and scholarly. College/higher education. General/trade.AUTHOR BIOPinde Fu leads the ArcGIS Platform Engineering team at Esri Professional Services and teaches at universities including Harvard University Extension School. His specialties include web and mobile GIS technologies and applications in various industries. Several of his projects have won specialachievement awards. Fu is the lead author of Web GIS: Principles and Applications (Esri Press, 2010).Pub Date: Print: 7/21/2020 Digital: 6/16/2020 Format: Trade paperISBN: Print: 9781589485921 Digital: 9781589485938 Trim: 7.5 x 9 in.Price: Print: $94.99 USD Digital: $94.99 USD Pages: 490TABLE OF CONTENTSPrefaceForeword1 Get started with Web GIS2 Hosted feature layers and storytelling with GIS3 Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS and ArcGIS Experience Builder4 Mobile GIS5 Tile layers and on-premises Web GIS6 Spatial temporal data and real-time GIS7 3D web scenes8 Spatial analysis and geoprocessing9 Image service and online raster analysis10 Web GIS programming with ArcGIS API for JavaScriptPinde Fu | Interview with Esri Press | 2020-07-10 | 15:56 | Link.

This Story Map presents 2019 Alaska Forest Health Highlights from the Forest Health Protection Program of the US Forest Service and its partners. Additional relevant forest health information can be found with more detail in our annual Forest Health Conditions in Alaska report and on the Alaska Forest Health Protection homepage. Key features of this Story Map include interactive web maps displaying georeferenced forest insect and disease ground observations made by our group across years, and the 2019 aerial detection survey data for the Alaska Region.Aerial surveys are conducted annually in July and August, and cover about 15% of Alaska's forests. Mobile tablets are used to record aerial observations. The tablets display the plane's location over a topographic base map with other GIS layers to improve mapping accuracy. Surveyors draw polygons on the screen to depict the damage observed, noting the host tree affected, damage type and damage severity. Whenever possible, mapped damage is evaluated and confirmed on the ground during or soon after the survey. Surveyors depend on known 'damage signatures', the unique appearance of tree hosts affected by specific types of damage.Over the past few years, we have begun to collect ground observations systematically using a survey that we designed in the Survey123 application for mobile devices. For each ground observation, we record the location with GPS, the host tree or shrub species and size affected, the damage causing agent, the damage severity, and other information about the observation site. The survey allows for up to three photos to accompany each record.Interactive maps allows users to zoom to areas of interest to view mapped damage, and to select which damage agents are displayed. The aerial detection survey map provides a summary tool to calculate mapped damage acreage for all agents or individual of agents of interest within the window view. Maps can be printed or viewed in another window outside the Story Map. The goal of the web maps is to allow diverse stakeholders to interact with our data to meet their individual needs.