Land use data is critically important to the work of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and other California agencies. Understanding the impacts of land use, crop location, acreage, and management practices on environmental attributes and resource management is an integral step in the ability of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to produce Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) and implement projects to attain sustainability. Land IQ was contracted by DWR to develop a comprehensive and accurate spatial land use database for the 2021 water year (WY 2021), covering over 10.7 million acres of agriculture on a field scale and additional areas of urban extent.The primary objective of this effort was to produce a spatial land use database with an accuracy exceeding 95% using remote sensing, statistical, and temporal analysis methods. This project is an extension of the land use mapping which began in the 2014 crop year, which classified over 15 million acres of land into agricultural and urban areas. Unlike the 2014 and 2016 datasets, the annual WY datasets from and including 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 include multi-cropping.Land IQ integrated crop production knowledge with detailed ground truth information and multiple satellite and aerial image resources to conduct remote sensing land use analysis at the field scale. Individual fields (boundaries of homogeneous crop types representing true cropped area, rather than legal parcel boundaries) were classified using a crop category legend and a more specific crop type legend. A supervised classification process using a random forest approach was used to classify delineated fields and was carried out county by county where training samples were available. Random forest approaches are currently some of the highest performing methods for data classification and regression. To determine frequency and seasonality of multicropped fields, peak growth dates were determined for each field of annual crops. Fields were attributed with DWR crop categories, which included citrus/subtropical, deciduous fruits and nuts, field crops, grain and hay, idle, pasture, rice, truck crops, urban, vineyards, and young perennials. These categories represent aggregated groups of specific crop types in the Land IQ dataset.Accuracy was calculated for the crop mapping using both DWR and Land IQ crop legends. The overall accuracy result for the crop mapping statewide was 97% using the Land IQ legend (Land IQ Subclass) and 98% using the DWR legend (DWR Class). Accuracy and error results varied among crop types. Some less extensive crops that have very few validation samples may have a skewed accuracy result depending on the number and nature of validation sample points. DWR revised crops and conditions from the Land IQ classification were encoded using standard DWR land use codes added to feature attributes, and each modified classification is indicated by the value 'r' in the ‘DWR_REVISE' data field. Polygons drawn by DWR, not included in Land IQ dataset receive the 'n' code for new. Boundary change (i.e. DWR changed the boundary that LIQ delivered, could be split boundary) indicated by 'b'. Each polygon classification is consistent with DWR attribute standards, however some of DWR's traditional attribute definitions are modified and extended to accommodate unavoidable constraints within remote-sensing classifications, or to make data more specific for DWR's water balance computation needs. The original Land IQ classifications reported for each polygon are preserved for comparison, and are also expressed as DWR standard attributes. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions about local conditions or revisions in the final data set should be forwarded to the appropriate Regional Office Senior Land Use Supervisor.Revisions were made if:- DWR corrected the original crop classification based on local knowledge and analysis,-PARTIALLY IRRIGATED CROPS Crops, irrigated for only part of their normal irrigation season were given the special condition of ‘X’,-In certain areas, DWR changed the irrigation status to non-irrigated. Among those areas the special condition may have been changed to 'Partially Irrigated' based on image analysis and local knowledge,- young versus mature stages of perennial orchards and vineyards were identified (DWR added ‘Young’ to Special Condition attributes),- DWR determined that a field originally classified ‘Idle’ or 'Unclassified' were actually cropped one or more times during the year,- the percent of cropped area was changed from the original acres reported by Land IQ (values indicated in DWR ‘Percent’ column),- DWR determined that the field boundary should have been changed to better reflect the cropped area of the polygon and is identified by a 'b' in the DWR_REVISED column,- DWR determined that the field boundary should have been split to better reflect separate crops within the same polygon and identified by a 'b' in the DWR_REVISED column,- The ‘Mixed’ was added to the MULTIUSE column refers to no boundary change, but percent of field is changed where more than one crop is found,- DWR identified a distinct early or late crop on the field before the main season crop (‘Double’ was added to the MULTIUSE column); if the 1st and 2nd sequential crops occupied different portions of the total field acreage, the area percentages were indicated for each crop).This dataset includes multicropped fields. If the field was determined to have more than one crop during the course of the WY (Water Year begins October 1 and ends September 30 of the following year), the order of the crops is sequential, beginning with Class 1. All single cropped fields will be placed in Class 2, so every polygon will have a crop in the Class 2 and CropType2 columns. In the case that a permanent crop was removed during the WY, the Class 2 crop will be the permanent crop followed by ‘X’ – Unclassified fallow in the Class 3 column. In the case of Intercropping, the main crop will be placed in the Class 2 column with the partial crop in the Class 3 column.A new column for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 datasets is called ‘MAIN_CROP’. This column indicates which field Land IQ identified as the main season crop for the WY representing the crop grown during the dominant growing season for each county. The column ‘MAIN_CROP_DATE’, another addition to the 2019, 2020, and 2021 datasets, indicates the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) peak date for this main season crop. The column 'EMRG_CROP' for 2019, 2020, and 2021 indicates an emerging crop at the end of the WY. Crops listed indicate that at the end of the WY, September 2021, crop activity was detected from a crop that reached peak NDVI in the following WY (2022 WY). This attribute is included to account for water use of crops that span multiple WYs and are not exclusive to a single WY. It is indicative of early crop growth and initial water use in the current WY, but a majority of crop development and water use in the following WY. Crops listed in the ‘EMRG_CROP’ attribute will also be captured as the first crop (not necessarily Crop 1) in the following WY (2022 WY). These crops are not included in the 2021 UCF_ATT code as their peak date occurred in the following WY.For the 2021 dataset new columns added are: 'YR_PLANTED' which represent the year orchard / grove was planted. 'SEN_CROP' indicates a senescing crop at the beginning of the WY. Crops listed indicate that at the beginning of the WY, October 2020, crop activity was detected from a crop that reached peak NDVI in the previous WY (2020 WY), thus was a senescing crop. This is included to account for water use of crop growth periods that span multiple WYs and are not exclusive to a WY. Crops listed in the ‘SEN_CROP’ attribute are also captured in the CROPTYP 1 through 4 sequence of the previous WY (2020 WY). These crops are not included in the 2021 UCF_ATT code as their peak NDVI occurred in the previous WY. CTYP#_NOTE: indicates a more specific land use subclassification from the DWR Standard Land Use Legend that is not included in the primary, DWR Remote Sensing Land Use Legend.DWR reviewed and revised the data in some cases. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.6, dated September 27, 2023. This data set was not produced by DWR. Data were originally developed and supplied by Land IQ, LLC, under contract to California Department of Water Resources. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Detailed compilation and reviews of Statewide Crop Mapping and metadata development were performed by DWR Land Use Unit staff, therefore you may forward your questions to Landuse@water.ca.gov.This dataset is current as of 2021.

The datasets used in the creation of the predicted Habitat Suitability models includes the CWHR range maps of Californias regularly-occurring vertebrates which were digitized as GIS layers to support the predictions of the CWHR System software. These vector datasets of CWHR range maps are one component of California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR), a comprehensive information system and predictive model for Californias wildlife. The CWHR System was developed to support habitat conservation and management, land use planning, impact assessment, education, and research involving terrestrial vertebrates in California. CWHR contains information on life history, management status, geographic distribution, and habitat relationships for wildlife species known to occur regularly in California. Range maps represent the maximum, current geographic extent of each species within California. They were originally delineated at a scale of 1:5,000,000 by species-level experts and have gradually been revised at a scale of 1:1,000,000. For more information about CWHR, visit the CWHR webpage (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR). The webpage provides links to download CWHR data and user documents such as a look up table of available range maps including species code, species name, and range map revision history; a full set of CWHR GIS data; .pdf files of each range map or species life history accounts; and a User Guide.The models also used the CALFIRE-FRAP compiled "best available" land cover data known as Fveg. This compilation dataset was created as a single data layer, to support the various analyses required for the Forest and Rangeland Assessment, a legislatively mandated function. These data are being updated to support on-going analyses and to prepare for the next FRAP assessment in 2015. An accurate depiction of the spatial distribution of habitat types within California is required for a variety of legislatively-mandated government functions. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protections CALFIRE Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), in cooperation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife VegCamp program and extensive use of USDA Forest Service Region 5 Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) data, has compiled the "best available" land cover data available for California into a single comprehensive statewide data set. The data span a period from approximately 1990 to 2014. Typically the most current, detailed and consistent data were collected for various regions of the state. Decision rules were developed that controlled which layers were given priority in areas of overlap. Cross-walks were used to compile the various sources into the common classification scheme, the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system.CWHR range data was used together with the FVEG vegetation maps and CWHR habitat suitability ranks to create Predicted Habitat Suitability maps for species. The Predicted Habitat Suitability maps show the mean habitat suitability score for the species, as defined in CWHR. CWHR defines habitat suitability as NO SUITABILITY (0), LOW (0.33), MEDIUM (0.66), or HIGH (1) for reproduction, cover, and feeding for each species in each habitat stage (habitat type, size, and density combination). The mean is the average of the reproduction, cover, and feeding scores, and can be interpreted as LOW (less than 0.34), MEDIUM (0.34-0.66), and HIGH (greater than 0.66) suitability. Note that habitat suitability ranks were developed based on habitat patch sizes >40 acres in size, and are best interpreted for habitat patches >200 acres in size. The CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability rasters are named according to the 4 digit alpha-numeric species CWHR ID code. The CWHR Species Lookup Table contains a record for each species including its CWHR ID, scientific name, common name, and range map revision history (available for download at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR).

The Cooperative Land Cover Map is a project to develop an improved statewide land cover map from existing sources and expert review of aerial photography. The project is directly tied to a goal of Florida's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) to represent Florida's diverse habitats in a spatially-explicit manner. The Cooperative Land Cover Map integrates 3 primary data types: 1) 6 million acres are derived from local or site-specific data sources, primarily on existing conservation lands. Most of these sources have a ground-truth or local knowledge component. We collected land cover and vegetation data from 37 existing sources. Each dataset was evaluated for consistency and quality and assigned a confidence category that determined how it was integrated into the final land cover map. 2) 1.4 million acres are derived from areas that FNAI ecologists reviewed with high resolution aerial photography. These areas were reviewed because other data indicated some potential for the presence of a focal community: scrub, scrubby flatwoods, sandhill, dry prairie, pine rockland, rockland hammock, upland pine or mesic flatwoods. 3) 3.2 million acres are represented by Florida Land Use Land Cover data from the FL Department of Environmental Protection and Water Management Districts (FLUCCS). The Cooperative Land Cover Map integrates data from the following years: NWFWMD: 2006 - 07 SRWMD: 2005 - 08 SJRWMD: 2004 SFWMD: 2004 SWFWMD: 2008 All data were crosswalked into the Florida Land Cover Classification System. This project was funded by a grant from FWC/Florida's Wildlife Legacy Initiative (Project 08009) to Florida Natural Areas Inventory. The current dataset is provided in 10m raster grid format.Changes from Version 1.1 to Version 2.3:CLC v2.3 includes updated Florida Land Use Land Cover for four water management districts as described above: NWFWMD, SJRWMD, SFWMD, SWFWMDCLC v2.3 incorporates major revisions to natural coastal land cover and natural communities potentially affected by sea level rise. These revisions were undertaken by FNAI as part of two projects: Re-evaluating Florida's Ecological Conservation Priorities in the Face of Sea Level Rise (funded by the Yale Mapping Framework for Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Adaptation) and Predicting and Mitigating the Effects of Sea-Level Rise and Land Use Changes on Imperiled Species and Natural communities in Florida (funded by an FWC State Wildlife Grant and The Kresge Foundation). FNAI also opportunistically revised natural communities as needed in the course of species habitat mapping work funded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. CLC v2.3 also includes several new site specific data sources: New or revised FNAI natural community maps for 13 conservation lands and 9 Florida Forever proposals; new Florida Park Service maps for 10 parks; Sarasota County Preserves Habitat Maps (with FNAI review); Sarasota County HCP Florida Scrub-Jay Habitat (with FNAI Review); Southwest Florida Scrub Working Group scrub polygons. Several corrections to the crosswalk of FLUCCS to FLCS were made, including review and reclassification of interior sand beaches that were originally crosswalked to beach dune, and reclassification of upland hardwood forest south of Lake Okeechobee to mesic hammock. Representation of state waters was expanded to include the NOAA Submerged Lands Act data for Florida.Changes from Version 2.3 to 3.0: All land classes underwent revisions to correct boundaries, mislabeled classes, and hard edges between classes. Vector data was compared against high resolution Digital Ortho Quarter Quads (DOQQ) and Google Earth imagery. Individual land cover classes were converted to .KML format for use in Google Earth. Errors identified through visual review were manually corrected. Statewide medium resolution (spatial resolution of 10 m) SPOT 5 images were available for remote sensing classification with the following spectral bands: near infrared, red, green and short wave infrared. The acquisition dates of SPOT images ranged between October, 2005 and October, 2010. Remote sensing classification was performed in Idrisi Taiga and ERDAS Imagine. Supervised and unsupervised classifications of each SPOT image were performed with the corrected polygon data as a guide. Further visual inspections of classified areas were conducted for consistency, errors, and edge matching between image footprints. CLC v3.0 now includes state wide Florida NAVTEQ transportation data. CLC v3.0 incorporates extensive revisions to scrub, scrubby flatwoods, mesic flatwoods, and upland pine classes. An additional class, scrub mangrove – 5252, was added to the crosswalk. Mangrove swamp was reviewed and reclassified to include areas of scrub mangrove. CLC v3.0 also includes additional revisions to sand beach, riverine sand bar, and beach dune previously misclassified as high intensity urban or extractive. CLC v3.0 excludes the Dry Tortugas and does not include some of the small keys between Key West and Marquesas.Changes from Version 3.0 to Version 3.1: CLC v3.1 includes several new site specific data sources: Revised FNAI natural community maps for 31 WMAs, and 6 Florida Forever areas or proposals. This data was either extracted from v2.3, or from more recent mapping efforts. Domains have been removed from the attribute table, and a class name field has been added for SITE and STATE level classes. The Dry Tortugas have been reincorporated. The geographic extent has been revised for the Coastal Upland and Dry Prairie classes. Rural Open and the Extractive classes underwent a more thorough reviewChanges from Version 3.1 to Version 3.2:CLC v3.2 includes several new site specific data sources: Revised FNAI natural community maps for 43 Florida Park Service lands, and 9 Florida Forever areas or proposals. This data is from 2014 - 2016 mapping efforts. SITE level class review: Wet Coniferous plantation (2450) from v2.3 has been included in v3.2. Non-Vegetated Wetland (2300), Urban Open Land (18211), Cropland/Pasture (18331), and High Pine and Scrub (1200) have undergone thorough review and reclassification where appropriate. Other classification errors were opportunistically corrected as found or as reported by users to landcovermap@myfwc.com. Changes from Version 3.2.5 to Version 3.3: The CLC v3.3 includes several new site specific data sources: Revised FNAI natural community maps for 14 FWC managed or co-managed lands, including 7 WMA and 7 WEA, 1 State Forest, 3 Hillsboro County managed areas, and 1 Florida Forever proposal. This data is from the 2017 – 2018 mapping efforts. Select sites and classes were included from the 2016 – 2017 NWFWMD (FLUCCS) dataset. M.C. Davis Conservation areas, 18331x agricultural classes underwent a thorough review and reclassification where appropriate. Prairie Mesic Hammock (1122) was reclassified to Prairie Hydric Hammock (22322) in the Everglades. All SITE level Tree Plantations (18333) were reclassified to Coniferous Plantations (183332). The addition of FWC Oyster Bar (5230) features. Other classification errors were opportunistically corrected as found or as reported by users to landcovermap@myfwc.com, including classification corrections to sites in T.M. Goodwin and Ocala National Forest. CLC v3.3 utilizes the updated The Florida Land Cover Classification System (2018), altering the following class names and numbers: Irrigated Row Crops (1833111), Wet Coniferous Plantations (1833321) (formerly 2450), Major Springs (4131) (formerly 3118). Mixed Hardwood-Coniferous Swamps (2240) (formerly Other Wetland Forested Mixed).Changes from Version 3.4 to Version 3.5: The CLC v3.5 includes several new site specific data sources: Revised FNAI natural community maps for 16 managed areas, and 10 Florida Forever Board of Trustees Projects (FFBOT) sites. This data is from the 2019 – 2020 mapping efforts. Other classification errors were opportunistically corrected as found or as reported by users to landcovermap@myfwc.com. This version of the CLC is also the first to include land identified as Salt Flats (5241).Changes from Version 3.5 to 3.6: The CLC v3.6 includes several new site specific data sources: Revised FNAI natural community maps for 11 managed areas, and 24 Florida Forever Board of Trustees Projects (FFBOT) sites. This data is from the 2018 – 2022 mapping efforts. Other classification errors were opportunistically corrected as found or as reported by users to landcovermap@myfwc.com. Changes from Version 3.6 to 3.7: The CLC 3.7 includes several new site specific data sources: Revised FNAI natural community maps for 5 managed areas (2022-2023). Revised Palm Beach County Natural Areas data for Pine Glades Natural Area (2023). Other classification errors were opportunistically corrected as found or as reported by users to landcovermap@myfwc.com. In this version a few SITE level classifications are reclassified for the STATE level classification system. Mesic Flatwoods and Scrubby Flatwoods are classified as Dry Flatwoods at the STATE level. Upland Glade is classified as Barren, Sinkhole, and Outcrop Communities at the STATE level. Lastly Upland Pine is classified as High Pine and Scrub at the STATE level.Changes from Version 3.7 to 4.0: CLC 4.0 represents a major update to CLC performed cooperatively by FWC and FNAI via a State Wildlife Grant to address changes on the landscape such as conversion to development and to integrate other recent high quality land cover sources. CLC v4.0 includes FWC's comprehensive delineation of solar farms, FLUCCS updates based on aerial photos from 2017-2022, ground-truthed mapping from FNAI and Florida Park Service, a statewide update of Intensive Development from Google Dynamic World land cover as of 2024, and additional FNAI review and revisions of target classes including sand beach and beach dune. A complete description of updates is available in the Cooperative Land Cover version 4.0 report, available from FNAI

This map features land cover data represent a descriptive thematic surface for characteristics of the land's surface such as densities or types of developed areas, agricultural lands, and natural vegetation regimes. Land cover data are the result of a model, so a good way to think of the values in each cell are as the predominating value rather than the only characteristic in that cell.Land use and land cover data are critical and fundamental for environmental monitoring, planning, and assessment.This web map uses Terrain with Labels vector layers as its basemap.Dataset SummaryBaseVue 2013 is a commercial global, land use / land cover (LULC) product developed by MDA. BaseVue covers the Earth’s entire land area, excluding Antarctica. BaseVue is independently derived from roughly 9,200 Landsat 8 images and is the highest spatial resolution (30m), most current LULC product available. The capture dates for the Landsat 8 imagery range from April 11, 2013 to June 29, 2014. The following 16 classes of land use / land cover are listed by their cell value in this layer: Deciduous Forest: Trees > 3 meters in height, canopy closure >35% (<25% inter-mixture with evergreen species) that seasonally lose their leaves, except Larch.Evergreen Forest: Trees >3 meters in height, canopy closure >35% (<25% inter-mixture with deciduous species), of species that do not lose leaves. (will include coniferous Larch regardless of deciduous nature).Shrub/Scrub: Woody vegetation <3 meters in height, > 10% ground cover. Only collect >30% ground cover.Grassland: Herbaceous grasses, > 10% cover, including pasture lands. Only collect >30% cover.Barren or Minimal Vegetation: Land with minimal vegetation (<10%) including rock, sand, clay, beaches, quarries, strip mines, and gravel pits. Salt flats, playas, and non-tidal mud flats are also included when not inundated with water.Not Used (in other MDA products 6 represents urban areas or built up areas, which have been split here in into values 20 and 21).Agriculture, General: Cultivated crop landsAgriculture, Paddy: Crop lands characterized by inundation for a substantial portion of the growing seasonWetland: Areas where the water table is at or near the surface for a substantial portion of the growing season, including herbaceous and woody species (except mangrove species)Mangrove: Coastal (tropical wetlands) dominated by Mangrove speciesWater: All water bodies greater than 0.08 hectares (1 LS pixel) including oceans, lakes, ponds, rivers, and streamsIce / Snow: Land areas covered permanently or nearly permanent with ice or snowClouds: Areas where no land cover interpretation is possible due to obstruction from clouds, cloud shadows, smoke, haze, or satellite malfunctionWoody Wetlands: Areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for greater than 20% of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate periodically is saturated with, or covered by water. Only used within the continental U.S.Mixed Forest: Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species are greater than 75% of total tree cover. Only used within the continental U.S.Not UsedNot UsedNot UsedNot UsedHigh Density Urban: Areas with over 70% of constructed materials that are a minimum of 60 meters wide (asphalt, concrete, buildings, etc.). Includes residential areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation where constructed materials account for >60%. Commercial, industrial, and transportation i.e., Train stations, airports, etc.Medium-Low Density Urban: Areas with 30%-70% of constructed materials that are a minimum of 60 meters wide (asphalt, concrete, buildings, etc.). Includes residential areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation, where constructed materials account for greater than 40%. Commercial, industrial, and transportation i.e., Train stations, airports, etc.What can you do with this layer?This layer has query, identify, and export image services available. The layer is restricted to an 16,000 x 16,000 pixel limit, which represents an area of nearly 300 miles on a side. This layer is part of a larger collection of landscape layers that you can use to perform a wide variety of mapping and analysis tasks.\For more information, see the Landscape Layers group on ArcGIS Online.

Ecological site classification has emerged as a highly effective land management framework, but its utility at a regional scale has been limited due to the spatial ambiguity of ecological site locations in the U.S. or the absence of ecological site maps in other regions of the world. In response to these shortcomings, this study evaluated the use of hyper-temporal remote sensing (i.e., hundreds of images) for high spatial resolution mapping of ecological sites. We posit that hyper-temporal remote sensing can provide novel insights into the spatial variability of ecological sites by quantifying the temporal response of land surface spectral properties. This temporal response provides a spectral ‘fingerprint’ of the soil-vegetation-climate relationship which is central to the concept of ecological sites. Consequently, the main objective of this study was to predict the spatial distribution of ecological sites in a semi-arid rangeland using a 28-year time series of normalized difference vegetation index from Landsat TM 5 data and modeled using support vector machine classification. Results from this study show that support vector machine classification using hyper-temporal remote sensing imagery was effective in modeling ecological site classes, with a 62% correct classification. These results were compared to Gridded Soil Survey Geographic database and expert delineated maps of ecological sites which had a 51 and 89% correct classification, respectively. An analysis of the effects of ecological state on ecological site misclassifications revealed that sites in degraded states (e.g., shrub-dominated/shrubland and bare/annuals) had a higher rate of misclassification due to their close spectral similarity with other ecological sites. This study identified three important factors that need to be addressed to improve future model predictions: 1) sampling designs need to fully represent the range of both within class (i.e., states) and between class (i.e., ecological sites) spectral variability through time, 2) field sampling protocols that accurately characterize key soil properties (e.g., texture, depth) need to be adopted, and 3) additional environmental covariates (e.g. terrain attributes) need to be evaluated that may help further differentiate sites with similar spectral signals. Finally, the proposed hyper-temporal remote sensing framework may provide a standardized approach to evaluate and test our ecological site concepts through examining differences in vegetation dynamics in response to climatic variability and other drivers of land-use change. Results from this study demonstrate the efficacy of the hyper-temporal remote sensing approach for high resolution mapping of ecological sites, and highlights its utility in terms of reduced cost and time investment relative to traditional manual mapping approaches.

Summary

This repository contains spatial datasets with metadata on land cover, tree canopy change, and estimated tree points and crown polygons for New York City (NYC; New York, USA) as of 2021, made available by The Nature Conservancy, New York Cities Program and developed under contract by the University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Lab. The datasets are provided herein with high-level background and information; additional analysis, particularly on tree canopy change and distribution across NYC considering various geogrpahic units are planned for release in a forthcoming report by The Nature Conservancy. For questions about these data, contact Michael Treglia, Lead Scientist with The Nature Conservancy, New York Cities Program, at michael.treglia@tnc.org.

Datasets included here are as follows (file names in italics):

Land cover as of 2021 (landcover_nyc_2021_6in.tif):

Raster dataset with six-inch (15.24 centimeter) pixel resolution, delineating land covers as: 1) tree canopy (with crowns greater than eight feet [2.44 meters] tall; 2) grass/shrub (including vegetation less than or equal to eight feet [2.44 feet] tall; 3) bare ground; 4) open water; 5) building; 6) road; 7) other impervious; and 8) railroad. This is intended to serve as an update to high-resolution land cover data for 2010 and 2017 made available by the City of New York.

Tree canopy change during 2017-2021 (treecanopychange_nyc_2017_2021_6in.tif):

Raster dataset with six-inch (15.24 centimeter) pixel resolution, with pixels that were estimated tree canopy in 2017 (based on 2017 land cover data) or 2021 delineated as: 1) canopy that did not change (“no change”); 2) canopy that was gained (“gain”); 3) canopy that was lost (“loss”). This is intended to be an updated tree canopy change dataset, analogous to a canopy change dataset for 2010-2017 made available by the City of New York.

Estimated tree points, crown polygons, and objects as of 2021 (Trees_Centroids_Crown_Objects_2021.gdb.zip):

The approximated locations (centroids) and approximated tree crowns as circles (shapes), and tree objects themselves based on canopy data (objects) for individual trees with crowns taller than eight feet (2.44 meters); in cases where there are trees with overlapping crowns, only the top trees are captured. These data are based on automated processing of the tree canopy class from the land cover data; additional methodological details are included in the metadata for this dataset. Given the height cutoff, that this dataset only captures the trees seen from above, and the large number of understory trees in some areas (e.g., forested natural areas), and limits in the automated processing this is not intended to be a robust census of trees in NYC, but may serve as useful for some purposes. Unlike the land cover and tree canopy change datasets, no directly comparable datasets for NYC from past years that we are aware of.

These datasets were based on object-based image analysis of a combination of 2021 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR; data available from the State of New York) for tree canopy and tree location/crown data in particular) along with high-resolution aerial imagery (from 2021 via the USDA National Agriculture Inventory Program and from 2022 via the New York State GIS Clearinghouse), followed by manual corrections. The general methods used to develop the land cover and tree canopy datasets are described in MacFaden et al. (2012). A per-pixel accuracy assessment of the land cover data with 1,999 points estimated an overall accuracy of 95.52% across all land cover classes, and 99.06% for tree canopy specifically (a critical focal area for this project). Iterative review of the data and subject matter expertise were contributed by from The Nature Conservancy and the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation.

While analyses of tree canopy and tree canopy change across NYC are pending, those interested can review a report that includes analyses of the most recent data (2010-2017) and a broad consideration of the NYC urban forest, The State of the Urban Forest in New York City (Treglia et al 2021).

References

MacFaden, S. W., J. P. M. O’Neil-Dunne, A. R. Royar, J. W. T. Lu, and A. G. Rundle. 2012. High-resolution tree canopy mapping for New York City using LIDAR and object-based image analysis. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing 6(1):063567.

Treglia, M.L., Acosta-Morel, M., Crabtree, D., Galbo, K., Lin-Moges, T., Van Slooten, A., & Maxwell, E.N. (2021). The State of the Urban Forest in New York City. The Nature Conservancy. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5532876

Terms of Use

© The Nature Conservancy. This material is provided as-is, without warranty under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International 4.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) oversaw development of these data and reserves all rights in the data provided.

TNC makes no guarantee of accuracy or completeness.

Data are for informational purposes and are not suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Data do not represent an on-the-ground survey and represent only the approximate relative location of feature boundaries.

TNC is not obligated to update/maintain the data to reflect changing conditions.

Commercial use is not allowed.

Redistribution (sublicensing) is allowed, provided all accompanying metadata as well as these Terms of Use are provided, unaltered, alongside the data.

TNC should be credited as the data source in derivative works, following the recommended citation provided herein.

Users are advised to pay attention to the contents of this metadata document.

Recommended Citation

If using any of these datasets, please cite the work according to the following recommended citation:

The Nature Conservancy. 2024. New York City Land Cover (2021), Tree Canopy Change (2017-2021), and Estimated Tree Location and Crown Data (2021). Developed under contract by the University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Laboratory. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14053441.

Technical Notes about the Spatial Data

All spatial data are provided in the New York State Plan Long Island Zone (US survey foot) coordinate reference system, EPSG 2263. The land cover and tree canopy change datasets are made available as raster data in Cloud Optimized GeoTIFF format (.tif), with associated metadata files as .xml files. The vector data of estimated tree locations and crown objects and shapes are made available in a zipped Esri File Geodatabase, with metadata stored within the File Geodatabase.

The present dataset is part of the published scientific paper entitled “The role of spatial planning in land change: An assessment of urban planning and nature conservation efficiency at the southeastern coast of Brazil” (Pierri Daunt, Inostroza and Hersperger, 2021). In this work, we evaluated the conformance of stated spatial planning goals and the outcomes in terms of urban compactness, basic services and housing provision, and nature conservation for different land-use strategies. We evaluate the 2005 Ecological-Economic Zoning (EEZ) and two municipal master plans from 2006 in a coastal region in São Paulo State, Brazil. We used Partial Least Squares Path Modelling (PLS-PM) to explain the relationship between the plan strategies and land-use change ten years after implementation in terms of urban compactness, basic services and housing increase, and nature conservation. We acquired the data for the explanatory variables from different sources listed on Table 1. Since the model is spatially explicit, all input data were transformed to a 30 m resolution raster. Regarding the evaluated spatial plans, we acquired the zones limits from the São Paulo State Environmental Planning Division (CPLA-SP), Ilhabela and Ubatuba municipality. 1) Land use and cover data: Urban persistence, Urban axial, Urban infill, Urban Isolates, Forest cover persistence, Forest cover gain, NDVI increase We acquired two Landsat Collection 1 Higher-Level Surface Reflectance images distributed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), covering the entire study area (paths 76 and 77, row 220, WRS-2 reference system, https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/). We classified one image acquired by the Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper (TM) sensor on 2005-05-150, and one image from the Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) sensor from 2015-08-15. We collected 100 samples for forest cover, 100 samples for built-up cover and 100 samples for other classes. We then classified these three classes of land cover at each image date using the Support Vector Machine (SVM) supervised algorithm (Hsu et al., 2003), using ENVI 5.0 software. Land-use and land-cover changes from 2005 to 2015 were quantified using map algebra, by mathematically adding them together in pairs (10*LULC2015 + LULC2005). We reclassified the LULC data into forest gain (conversion of any 2005 LULC to forest cover in 2015); forest persistence (2005 forested pixels that remained forested in 2015); new built-up area (conversion of any 2005 LULC to built-up in 2015); and urban maintenance (2005 built-up pixels that remained built-up in 2015). To describe the spatial configuration of the urban expansion, we classified the new built-up areas into axial, infill and isolated, following Inostroza et al. (2013) (For details, please refer to Supplementary Material I at the original publication). The NDVI was obtained from the same source used for the LULC data. With the Google Engine platform, we used an annual average for the best pixels (without clouds) for 2005 and 2015, and we calculated the changes between dates. We used increases of - 0.2 NDVI to represent an improvement in forest quality. 2) Federal Census data organization: Urban Basic Services and Housing indicator, socioeconomic and population: The data used to infer the values of basic services provision, socioeconomic and population drivers was derived from the Brazilian National Census data (IBGE, 2000 and 2010). Population density, permanent housing unit density, mean income, basic education, and the percentage of houses receiving waste collection, sanitation and water provision services, called basic services in the context of this study, were calculated per 30 m pixel. The Human Development Index is only available at the municipality level. We attributed the HDI for the vector file with the municipality border, and we rasterized (30 m resolution) this file in QGIS. Annual rates of change were then calculated to allow comparability between LULC periods. To infer the BSH, we used only areas with an increase in permanent housing density and basic services provision (See Supplementary Material I at the original publication). 3) Topographic drivers To infer the values of the topographic driver, we used the slope data and the Topographic Index Position (TPI) based on the digital elevation model from SRTM (30 m resolution) produced by ALOS (freely available at eorc.jaxa.jp/ALOS/en/about/about_index.htm), and both variables were considered constant from 2005 to 2015 (See Supplementary Material I at the original publication).

Every published digital survey is designated as either ‘Final’, or ‘Provisional’, depending upon its status in a peer review process.Final surveys are peer reviewed with extensive quality control methods to confirm that field attributes reflect the most detailed and specific land-use classification available, following the standard DWR Land Use Legendspecific to the survey year. Data sets are considered ‘final’ following the reconciliation of peer review comments and confirmation by the originating Regional Office. During final review, individual polygons are evaluated using a combination of aerial photointerpretation, satellite image multi-spectral data and time series analysis, comparison with other sources of land use data, and general knowledge of land use patterns at the local level.Provisional data sets have been reviewed for conformance with DWR’s published data record format, and for general agreement with other sources of land use trends. Comments based on peer review findings may not be reconciled, and no significant edits or changes are made to the original survey data.The 2005 Shasta County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). DPLA was later reorganized into the Division of Statewide Integrated Water Management and the Division of Integrated Regional Water Management. The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures. Land use polygons in agricultural areas were mapped in greater detail than areas of urban or native vegetation. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DSIWM headquarters and Northern Region, under the supervision of Tito Cervantes. The finalized countywide land use vector data is in a single, polygon, shapefile format. This data was developed to aid DWR’s ongoing efforts to monitor land use for the main purpose of determining current and projected water uses. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standards version 2.1, dated March 9, 2016. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov. This data represents a land use survey of Shasta County conducted by DWR, Northern District Office staff(ND), currently known as Northern Region Office, under the leadership of Tito Cervantes, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. The field work for this survey was conducted during the summer of 2005. ND staff physically visited each delineated field, noting the crops grown at each location. Field survey boundary date was developed using: 1. Linework developed for DWR’s 1995 survey of Shasta County was used as the starting point for the digital field boundaries developed for this survey. Where needed, Northern Region staff made corrections to the field boundaries using the 1993 Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle (DOQQ) images. After field visits had been completed, 2005 National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP), one-meter resolution imagery from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Services Agency was used to locate boundary changes that had occurred since the 1993 imagery was taken. Field boundaries for this survey follow the actual borders of fields, not road center lines. Line work for the Redding area was downloaded from the City of Redding website and modified to be compatible with DWR land use categories and linework. 2. For field data collection, digital images and land use boundaries were copied onto laptop computers. The staff took these laptops into the field and virtually all agricultural fields were visited to positively identify agricultural land uses. Site visits occurred from July through September 2005. Using a standardized process, land use codes were digitized directly into the laptop computers using ArcMap. For most areas of urban land use, attributes were based upon aerial photo interpretation rather than fieldwork. 3. The digital land use map was reviewed using the 2005 NAIP four-band imagery and 2005 Landsat 5 images to identify fields that may have been misidentified. The survey data was also reviewed by summarizing land use categories and checking the results for unusual attributes or acreages. 4. After quality control procedures were completed, the data was finalized by staff in both ND and Sacramento's DPLA. Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were drawn on-screen using orthorectified imagery. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. Double cropping and mixed land use must be taken into account when calculating the acreage of each crop or other land use mapped in this survey. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. For double cropped fields, a “D” will be entered in the “MULTIUSE” field of the DBF file of the shapefile. To calculate the crop acreage for that field, 40 acres should be allocated to the grain category and then 40 acres should also be allocated to corn. For polygons mapped as “mixed land use”, an “M” will be entered in the “MULTIUSE” field. To calculate the appropriate acreages for each land use within this polygon, multiply the percent (as a decimal fraction) associated with each land use by the acres represented by the polygon. 4. All Land Use Codes are respresentative of the current 2016 Legend unless otherwise noted. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey. The primary focus of this land use survey is mapping agricultural fields. Urban residences and other urban areas were delineated using aerial photo interpretation. Some urban areas may have been missed, especially in forested areas. Before final processing, standard quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR's Northern District, and at DPLA headquarters under the leadership of Jean Woods, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. After quality control procedures were completed, the data was finalized. The positional accuracy of the digital line work, which is based upon the 9' x 9' color photos, is approximately 23 meters. The land use attribute accuracy for agricultural fields is high, because almost every delineated field was visited by a surveyor. The accuracy is 95 percent because some errors may have occurred. Possible sources of attribute errors are: a) Human error in the identification of crop types, b) Data entry errors.

2022 STATEWIDE CROP MAPPING - PROVISIONALLand use data is critically important to the work of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and other California agencies. Understanding the impacts of land use, crop location, acreage, and management practices on environmental attributes and resource management is an integral step in the ability of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to produce Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) and implement projects to attain sustainability. Land IQ was contracted by DWR to develop a comprehensive and accurate spatial land use database for the 2022 water year (WY 2022). The primary objective of this effort was to produce a spatial land use database with accuracies exceeding 95% using remote sensing, statistical, and temporal analysis methods. This project is an extension of the 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 land use mapping, which classified over 14 million acres of land into irrigated agriculture and urban area. Unlike the 2014 and 2016 datasets, the WY 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 datasets include multi-cropping and incorporates DWR ground-truth data from Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen and Shasta counties. Land IQ integrated crop production knowledge with detailed ground truth information and multiple satellite and aerial image resources to conduct remote sensing land use analysis at the field scale. Individual fields (boundaries of homogeneous crop types representing cropped area, rather than legal parcel boundaries) were classified using a crop category legend and a more specific crop type legend. A supervised classification method using a random forest approach was used to classify delineated fields and was carried out county by county where training samples were available. Random forest approaches are currently some of the highest performing methods for data classification and regression. To determine frequency and seasonality of multiple-cropped fields, peak growth dates were determined for annual crops. Fields were attributed with DWR crop categories and included citrus/subtropical, deciduous fruits and nuts, field crops, grain and hay, idle, pasture, rice, truck crops, urban, vineyards, and young perennials. These categories represent aggregated groups of specific crop types in the Land IQ dataset. Accuracy was calculated for the crop mapping using both DWR and Land IQ crop legends. The overall accuracy result for the crop mapping statewide was 98.1% at the DWR Class level and 96.7% at the DWR Subclass level. Accuracy and error results varied among crop types. In particular, some less extensive crops that have very few validation samples may have a skewed accuracy result depending on the number and nature of validation sample points. DWR revised crops and conditions from the Land IQ classification were encoded using standard DWR land use codes added to feature attributes, and each modified classification is indicated by the value 'r' in the ‘DWR_REVISE' data field. Polygons drawn by DWR, not included in Land IQ dataset receive the 'n' code for new. Boundary change (i.e. DWR changed the boundary that LIQ delivered could be split boundary) indicated by 'b'. Each polygon classification is consistent with DWR attribute standards, however some of DWR's traditional attribute definitions are modified and extended to accommodate unavoidable constraints within remote-sensing classifications, or to make data more specific for DWR's water balance computation needs. The original Land IQ classifications reported for each polygon are preserved for comparison, and are also expressed as DWR standard attributes. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions about local conditions or revisions in the final data set should be forwarded to the appropriate Regional Office Senior Land Use Supervisor. Revisions were made if: - DWR corrected the original crop classification based on local knowledge and analysis, -PARTIALLY IRRIGATED CROPS Crops irrigated for only part of their normal irrigation season were given the special condition of ‘X’, -In certain areas, DWR changed the irrigation status to irrigated or non-irrigated. Among those areas the special condition may have been changed to 'Partially Irrigated' based on image analysis and local knowledge, - young versus mature stages of perennial orchards and vineyards were identified (DWR added ‘Young’ to Special Condition attributes), - DWR determined that a field originally classified ‘Idle’ was actually cropped one or more times during the year, - the percent of cropped area was changed from the original acres reported by Land IQ (values indicated in DWR ‘Percent’ column), - DWR determined that the field boundary should have been split to better reflect separate crops within the same polygon and identified by a 'b' in the DWR_REVISED column, - The ‘Mixed’ was added to the MULTIUSE column refers to no boundary change, but percent of field is changed where more than one crop is found, - DWR identified a distinct early or late crop on the field before the main season crop (‘Double’ was added to the MULTIUSE column); if the 1st and 2nd sequential crops occupied different portions of the total field acreage, the area percentages were indicated for each crop). This dataset includes multicropped fields. If the field was determined to have more than one crop during the course of the water year, the order of the crops is sequential, beginning with Class 1. All single cropped fields will be placed in Class 2, so every polygon will have a crop in the Class 2 and CropType2 columns. In the case that a permanent crop was removed during the water year, the Class 2 crop will be the permanent crop followed by ‘X’ – Unclassified fallow in the Class 3 column. In the case of Intercropping, the main crop will be placed in the Class 2 column with the partial crop in the Class 3 column. The column 'MAIN_CROP' was added in 2019 and has been continued through the 2022 dataset. This column indicates which field Land IQ identified as the main season crop for the water year representing the crop grown during the dominant growing season for each county. The column ‘MAIN_CROP_DATE’, continued in the 2022 dataset, indicates the NDVI peak date for this main season crop. Asterisks (* or **) in attribute table indicates no data have been collected for that specific attribute.This provisional metadata does not contain the full metadata per the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Spatial Data Standards. DWR reviewed and revised the data in some cases. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.5, dated March 22, 2023. This dataset was not produced by DWR. Data were originally developed and supplied by Land IQ, LLC, under contract to California Department of Water Resources. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to LandUse@water.ca.gov.Prior to WY 2021 final mapping release, pasture areas that where mechanically harvested during a water year were classified as P6-Miscellaneous Grasses. Starting with the WY 2021 final mapping release and moving forward these harvested pasture areas are classified as P3-Mixed Pasture.

Reason for Selection Protected natural areas in urban environments provide urban residents a nearby place to connect with nature and offer refugia for some species. They help foster a conservation ethic by providing opportunities for people to connect with nature, and also support ecosystem services like offsetting heat island effects (Greene and Millward 2017, Simpson 1998), water filtration, stormwater retention, and more (Hoover and Hopton 2019). In addition, parks, greenspace, and greenways can help improve physical and psychological health in communities (Gies 2006). Urban park size complements the equitable access to potential parks indicator by capturing the value of existing parks.Input DataSoutheast Blueprint 2024 extentFWS National Realty Tracts, accessed 12-13-2023Protected Areas Database of the United States(PAD-US):PAD-US 3.0 national geodatabase -Combined Proclamation Marine Fee Designation Easement, accessed 12-6-20232020 Census Urban Areas from the Census Bureau’s urban-rural classification; download the data, read more about how urban areas were redefined following the 2020 censusOpenStreetMap data “multipolygons” layer, accessed 12-5-2023A polygon from this dataset is considered a beach if the value in the “natural” tag attribute is “beach”. Data for coastal states (VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX) were downloaded in .pbf format and translated to an ESRI shapefile using R code. OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under theOpen Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by theOpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). Additional credit to OSM contributors. Read more onthe OSM copyright page.2021 National Land Cover Database (NLCD): Percentdevelopedimperviousness2023NOAA coastal relief model: volumes 2 (Southeast Atlantic), 3 (Florida and East Gulf of America), 4 (Central Gulf of America), and 5 (Western Gulf of America), accessed 3-27-2024Mapping StepsCreate a seamless vector layer to constrain the extent of the urban park size indicator to inland and nearshore marine areas <10 m in depth. The deep offshore areas of marine parks do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture nearby opportunities for urban residents to connect with nature. Shallow areas are more accessible for recreational activities like snorkeling, which typically has a maximum recommended depth of 12-15 meters. This step mirrors the approach taken in the Caribbean version of this indicator.Merge all coastal relief model rasters (.nc format) together using QGIS “create virtual raster”.Save merged raster to .tif and import into ArcPro.Reclassify the NOAA coastal relief model data to assign areas with an elevation of land to -10 m a value of 1. Assign all other areas (deep marine) a value of 0.Convert the raster produced above to vector using the “RasterToPolygon” tool.Clip to 2024 subregions using “Pairwise Clip” tool.Break apart multipart polygons using “Multipart to single parts” tool.Hand-edit to remove deep marine polygon.Dissolve the resulting data layer.This produces a seamless polygon defining land and shallow marine areas.Clip the Census urban area layer to the bounding box of NoData surrounding the extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Clip PAD-US 3.0 to the bounding box of NoData surrounding the extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Remove the following areas from PAD-US 3.0, which are outside the scope of this indicator to represent parks:All School Trust Lands in Oklahoma and Mississippi (Loc Des = “School Lands” or “School Trust Lands”). These extensive lands are leased out and are not open to the public.All tribal and military lands (“Des_Tp” = "TRIBL" or “Des_Tp” = "MIL"). Generally, these lands are not intended for public recreational use.All BOEM marine lease blocks (“Own_Name” = "BOEM"). These Outer Continental Shelf lease blocks do not represent actively protected marine parks, but serve as the “legal definition for BOEM offshore boundary coordinates...for leasing and administrative purposes” (BOEM).All lands designated as “proclamation” (“Des_Tp” = "PROC"). These typically represent the approved boundary of public lands, within which land protection is authorized to occur, but not all lands within the proclamation boundary are necessarily currently in a conserved status.Retain only selected attribute fields from PAD-US to get rid of irrelevant attributes.Merged the filtered PAD-US layer produced above with the OSM beaches and FWS National Realty Tracts to produce a combined protected areas dataset.The resulting merged data layer contains overlapping polygons. To remove overlapping polygons, use the Dissolve function.Clip the resulting data layer to the inland and nearshore extent.Process all multipart polygons (e.g., separate parcels within a National Wildlife Refuge) to single parts (referred to in Arc software as an “explode”).Select all polygons that intersect the Census urban extent within 0.5 miles. We chose 0.5 miles to represent a reasonable walking distance based on input and feedback from park access experts. Assuming a moderate intensity walking pace of 3 miles per hour, as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s physical activity guidelines, the 0.5 mi distance also corresponds to the 10-minute walk threshold used in the equitable access to potential parks indicator.Dissolve all the park polygons that were selected in the previous step.Process all multipart polygons to single parts (“explode”) again.Add a unique ID to the selected parks. This value will be used in a later step to join the parks to their buffers.Create a 0.5 mi (805 m) buffer ring around each park using the multiring plugin in QGIS. Ensure that “dissolve buffers” is disabled so that a single 0.5 mi buffer is created for each park.Assess the amount of overlap between the buffered park and the Census urban area using “overlap analysis”. This step is necessary to identify parks that do not intersect the urban area, but which lie within an urban matrix (e.g., Umstead Park in Raleigh, NC and Davidson-Arabia Mountain Nature Preserve in Atlanta, GA). This step creates a table that is joined back to the park polygons using the UniqueID.Remove parks that had ≤10% overlap with the urban areas when buffered. This excludes mostly non-urban parks that do not meet the intent of this indicator to capture parks that provide nearby access for urban residents. Note: The 10% threshold is a judgement call based on testing which known urban parks and urban National Wildlife Refuges are captured at different overlap cutoffs and is intended to be as inclusive as possible.Calculate the GIS acres of each remaining park unit using the Add Geometry Attributes function.Buffer the selected parks by 15 m. Buffering prevents very small and narrow parks from being left out of the indicator when the polygons are converted to raster.Reclassify the parks based on their area into the 7 classes seen in the final indicator values below. These thresholds were informed by park classification guidelines from the National Recreation and Park Association, which classify neighborhood parks as 5-10 acres, community parks as 30-50 acres, and large urban parks as optimally 75+ acres (Mertes and Hall 1995).Assess the impervious surface composition of each park using the NLCD 2021 impervious layer and the Zonal Statistics “MEAN” function. Retain only the mean percent impervious value for each park.Extract only parks with a mean impervious pixel value <80%. This step excludes parks that do not meet the intent of the indicator to capture opportunities to connect with nature and offer refugia for species (e.g., the Superdome in New Orleans, LA, the Astrodome in Houston, TX, and City Plaza in Raleigh, NC).Extract again to the inland and nearshore extent.Export the final vector file to a shapefile and import to ArcGIS Pro.Convert the resulting polygons to raster using the ArcPy Feature to Raster function and the area class field.Assign a value of 0 to all other pixels in the Southeast Blueprint 2024 extent not already identified as an urban park in the mapping steps above. Zero values are intended to help users better understand the extent of this indicator and make it perform better in online tools.Use the land and shallow marine layer and “extract by mask” tool to save the final version of this indicator.Add color and legend to raster attribute table.As a final step, clip to the spatial extent of Southeast Blueprint 2024.Note: For more details on the mapping steps, code used to create this layer is available in theSoutheast Blueprint Data Downloadunder > 6_Code. Final indicator valuesIndicator values are assigned as follows:6= 75+ acre urban park5= 50 to <75 acre urban park4= 30 to <50 acre urban park3= 10 to <30 acre urban park2=5 to <10acreurbanpark1 = <5 acre urban park0 = Not identified as an urban parkKnown IssuesThis indicator does not include park amenities that influence how well the park serves people and should not be the only tool used for parks and recreation planning. Park standards should be determined at a local level to account for various community issues, values, needs, and available resources.This indicator includes some protected areas that are not open to the public and not typically thought of as “parks”, like mitigation lands, private easements, and private golf courses. While we experimented with excluding them using the public access attribute in PAD, due to numerous inaccuracies, this inadvertently removed protected lands that are known to be publicly accessible. As a result, we erred on the side of including the non-publicly accessible lands.The NLCD percent impervious layer contains classification inaccuracies. As a result, this indicator may exclude parks that are mostly natural because they are misclassified as mostly impervious. Conversely, this indicator may include parks that are mostly impervious because they are misclassified as mostly

DescriptionThis is a vector tile layer built from the same data as the Jurisdictional Units Public feature service located here: https://nifc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=4107b5d1debf4305ba00e929b7e5971a. This service can be used alone as a fast-drawing background layer, or used in combination with the feature service when Identify and Copy Feature capabilities are needed. At fine zoom levels, the feature service will be needed.OverviewThe Jurisdictional Units dataset outlines wildland fire jurisdictional boundaries for federal, state, and local government entities on a national scale and is used within multiple wildland fire systems including the Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS), the Interior Fuels and Post-Fire Reporting System (IFPRS), the Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System (IFTDSS), the Interagency Fire Occurrence Reporting Modules (InFORM), the Interagency Reporting of Wildland Fire Information System (IRWIN), and the Wildland Computer-Aided Dispatch Enterprise System (WildCAD-E).In this dataset, agency and unit names are an indication of the primary manager’s name and unit name, respectively, recognizing that:There may be multiple owner names.Jurisdiction may be held jointly by agencies at different levels of government (ie State and Local), especially on private lands, Some owner names may be blocked for security reasons.Some jurisdictions may not allow the distribution of owner names. Private ownerships are shown in this layer with JurisdictionalUnitIID=null, JurisdictionalKind=null, and LandownerKind="Private", LandownerCategory="Private". All land inside the US country boundary is covered by a polygon.Jurisdiction for privately owned land varies widely depending on state, county, or local laws and ordinances, fire workload, and other factors, and is not available in a national dataset in most cases.For publicly held lands the agency name is the surface managing agency, such as Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, etc. The unit name refers to the descriptive name of the polygon (i.e. Northern California District, Boise National Forest, etc.).AttributesField NameDefinitionGeometryIDPrimary key for linking geospatial objects with other database systems. Required for every feature. Not populated for Census Block Groups.JurisdictionalUnitIDWhere it could be determined, this is the NWCG Unit Identifier (Unit ID). Where it is unknown, the value is ‘Null’. Null Unit IDs can occur because a unit may not have a Unit ID, or because one could not be reliably determined from the source data. Not every land ownership has an NWCG Unit ID. Unit ID assignment rules are available in the Unit ID standard.JurisdictionalUnitID_sansUSNWCG Unit ID with the "US" characters removed from the beginning. Provided for backwards compatibility.JurisdictionalUnitNameThe name of the Jurisdictional Unit. Where an NWCG Unit ID exists for a polygon, this is the name used in the Name field from the NWCG Unit ID database. Where no NWCG Unit ID exists, this is the “Unit Name” or other specific, descriptive unit name field from the source dataset. A value is populated for all polygons except for Census Blocks Group and for PAD-US polygons that did not have an associated name.LocalNameLocal name for the polygon provided from agency authoritative data, PAD-US, or other source.JurisdictionalKindDescribes the type of unit jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Kind data standard. There are two valid values: Federal, Other, and Private. A value is not populated for Census Block Groups.JurisdictionalCategoryDescribes the type of unit jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Category data standard. Valid values include: BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, State, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), Private, and ANCSA. A value is not populated for Census Block Groups.LandownerKindThe landowner kind value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. Legal values align with the NWCG Landowner Kind data standard. A value is populated for all polygons.LandownerCategoryThe landowner category value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. Legal values align with the NWCG Landowner Category data standard. A value is populated for all polygons.LandownerDepartmentFederal department information that aligns with a unit’s landownerCategory information. Legal values include: Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Defense, and Department of Energy. A value is not populated for all polygons.DataSourceThe database from which the polygon originated. An effort is made to be as specific as possible (i.e. identify the geodatabase name and feature class in which the polygon originated).SecondaryDataSourceIf the DataSource field is an aggregation from other sources, use this field to specify the source that supplied data to the aggregation. For example, if DataSource is "PAD-US 4.0", then for a TNC polygon, the SecondaryDataSource would be " TNC_PADUS2_0_SA2015_Public_gdb ".SourceUniqueIDIdentifier (GUID or ObjectID) in the data source. Used to trace the polygon back to its authoritative source.DataSourceYearYear that the source data for the polygon were acquired.MapMethodControlled vocabulary to define how the geospatial feature was derived. MapMethod will be Mixed Methods by default for this layer as the data are from mixed sources. Valid Values include: GPS-Driven; GPS-Flight; GPS-Walked; GPS-Walked/Driven; GPS-Unknown Travel Method; Hand Sketch; Digitized-Image; DigitizedTopo; Digitized-Other; Image Interpretation; Infrared Image; Modeled; Mixed Methods; Remote Sensing Derived; Survey/GCDB/Cadastral; Vector; Phone/Tablet; Other.DateCurrentThe last edit, update, of this GIS record. Date should follow the assigned NWCG Date Time data standard, using the 24-hour clock, YYYY-MM-DDhh.mm.ssZ, ISO8601 Standard.CommentsAdditional information describing the feature.JoinMethodAdditional information on how the polygon was matched to information in the NWCG Unit ID database.LegendJurisdictionalCategoryJurisdictionalCategory values grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table. Census Block Groups are classified as “No Unit”.LegendLandownerCategoryLandownerCategory values grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.Other Relevant NWCG Definition StandardsUnitA generic term that represents an organizational entity that only has meaning when it is contextualized by a descriptor, e.g. jurisdictional.Definition Extension: When referring to an organizational entity, a unit refers to the smallest area or lowest level. Higher levels of an organization (region, agency, department, etc.) can be derived from a unit based on organization hierarchy.Unit, JurisdictionalThe governmental entity having overall land and resource management responsibility for a specific geographical area as provided by law.Definition Extension: 1) Ultimately responsible for the fire report to account for statistical fire occurrence; 2) Responsible for setting fire management objectives; 3) Jurisdiction cannot be re-assigned by agreement; 4) The nature and extent of the incident determines jurisdiction (for example, Wildfire vs. All Hazard); 5) Responsible for signing a Delegation of Authority to the Incident Commander.See also: Protecting Unit; LandownerData SourcesThis dataset is an aggregation of multiple spatial data sources: • Authoritative land ownership records from BIA, BLM, NPS, USFS, USFWS, and the Alaska Fire Service/State of Alaska• The Protected Areas Database US (PAD-US 4.0)• Census Block-Group Geometry BIA and Tribal Data:BIA and Tribal land management data were aggregated from BIA regional offices. These data date from 2012 and were reviewed/updated in 2024. Indian Trust Land affiliated with Tribes, Reservations, or BIA Agencies: These data are not considered the system of record and are not intended to be used as such. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Branch of Wildland Fire Management (BWFM) is not the originator of these data. The spatial data coverage is a consolidation of the best available records/data received from each of the 12 BIA Regional Offices. The data are no better than the original sources from which they were derived. Care was taken when consolidating these files. However, BWFM cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy in the original digital data. The information contained in these data is dynamic and is continually changing. Updates to these data will be made whenever such data are received from a Regional Office. The BWFM gives no guarantee, expressed, written, or implied, regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data.Alaska:The state of Alaska and Alaska Fire Service (BLM) co-manage a process to aggregate authoritative land ownership, management, and jurisdictional boundary data, based on Master Title Plats. Data ProcessingTo compile this dataset, the authoritative land ownership records and the PAD-US data mentioned above were crosswalked into the Jurisdictional Unit Polygon schema and aggregated through a series of python scripts and FME models. Once aggregated, steps were taken to reduce overlaps within the data. All overlap areas larger than 300 acres were manually examined and removed with the assistance of fire management SMEs. Once overlaps were removed, Census Block Group geometry were crosswalked to the Jurisdictional Unit Polygon schema and appended in areas in which no jurisdictional boundaries were recorded within the authoritative land ownership records and the PAD-US data. Census Block Group geometries represent areas of unknown Landowner Kind/Category and Jurisdictional Kind/Category and were assigned LandownerKind and LandownerCategory values of "Private".Update

This map is designated as Final.Land-Use Data Quality ControlEvery published digital survey is designated as either ‘Final’, or ‘Provisional’, depending upon its status in a peer review process.Final surveys are peer reviewed with extensive quality control methods to confirm that field attributes reflect the most detailed and specific land-use classification available, following the standard DWR Land Use Legendspecific to the survey year. Data sets are considered ‘final’ following the reconciliation of peer review comments and confirmation by the originating Regional Office. During final review, individual polygons are evaluated using a combination of aerial photointerpretation, satellite image multi-spectral data and time series analysis, comparison with other sources of land use data, and general knowledge of land use patterns at the local level.Provisional data sets have been reviewed for conformance with DWR’s published data record format, and for general agreement with other sources of land use trends. Comments based on peer review findings may not be reconciled, and no significant edits or changes are made to the original survey data.The 2005 Shasta County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). DPLA was later reorganized into the Division of Statewide Integrated Water Management and the Division of Integrated Regional Water Management. The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures. Land use polygons in agricultural areas were mapped in greater detail than areas of urban or native vegetation. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DSIWM headquarters and Northern Region, under the supervision of Tito Cervantes. The finalized countywide land use vector data is in a single, polygon, shapefile format. This data was developed to aid DWR’s ongoing efforts to monitor land use for the main purpose of determining current and projected water uses. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standards version 2.1, dated March 9, 2016. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov. This data represents a land use survey of Shasta County conducted by DWR, Northern District Office staff(ND), currently known as Northern Region Office, under the leadership of Tito Cervantes, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. The field work for this survey was conducted during the summer of 2005. ND staff physically visited each delineated field, noting the crops grown at each location. Field survey boundary date was developed using: 1. Linework developed for DWR’s 1995 survey of Shasta County was used as the starting point for the digital field boundaries developed for this survey. Where needed, Northern Region staff made corrections to the field boundaries using the 1993 Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle (DOQQ) images. After field visits had been completed, 2005 National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP), one-meter resolution imagery from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Services Agency was used to locate boundary changes that had occurred since the 1993 imagery was taken. Field boundaries for this survey follow the actual borders of fields, not road center lines. Line work for the Redding area was downloaded from the City of Redding website and modified to be compatible with DWR land use categories and linework. 2. For field data collection, digital images and land use boundaries were copied onto laptop computers. The staff took these laptops into the field and virtually all agricultural fields were visited to positively identify agricultural land uses. Site visits occurred from July through September 2005. Using a standardized process, land use codes were digitized directly into the laptop computers using ArcMap. For most areas of urban land use, attributes were based upon aerial photo interpretation rather than fieldwork. 3. The digital land use map was reviewed using the 2005 NAIP four-band imagery and 2005 Landsat 5 images to identify fields that may have been misidentified. The survey data was also reviewed by summarizing land use categories and checking the results for unusual attributes or acreages. 4. After quality control procedures were completed, the data was finalized by staff in both ND and Sacramento's DPLA. Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were drawn on-screen using orthorectified imagery. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. Double cropping and mixed land use must be taken into account when calculating the acreage of each crop or other land use mapped in this survey. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. For double cropped fields, a “D” will be entered in the “MULTIUSE” field of the DBF file of the shapefile. To calculate the crop acreage for that field, 40 acres should be allocated to the grain category and then 40 acres should also be allocated to corn. For polygons mapped as “mixed land use”, an “M” will be entered in the “MULTIUSE” field. To calculate the appropriate acreages for each land use within this polygon, multiply the percent (as a decimal fraction) associated with each land use by the acres represented by the polygon. 4. All Land Use Codes are respresentative of the current 2016 Legend unless otherwise noted. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey. The primary focus of this land use survey is mapping agricultural fields. Urban residences and other urban areas were delineated using aerial photo interpretation. Some urban areas may have been missed, especially in forested areas. Before final processing, standard quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR's Northern District, and at DPLA headquarters under the leadership of Jean Woods, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. After quality control procedures were completed, the data was finalized. The positional accuracy of the digital line work, which is based upon the 9' x 9' color photos, is approximately 23 meters. The land use attribute accuracy for agricultural fields is high, because almost every delineated field was visited by a surveyor. The accuracy is 95 percent because some errors may have occurred. Possible sources of attribute errors are: a) Human error in the identification of crop types, b) Data entry errors.