Class I and II surface water classification boundaries. The Clean Water Act requires that the surface waters of each state be classified according to designated uses. Florida has six classes with associated designated uses, which are arranged in order of degree of protection required: Class I - Potable Water Supplies Fourteen general areas throughout the state including: impoundments and associated tributaries, certain lakes, rivers, or portions of rivers, used as a drinking water supply. Class II - Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting Generally coastal waters where shellfish harvesting occurs. For a more detailed description of classes and specific waterbody designations, see 62-302.400.

The 2014 update of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States (2014 NSHM; Petersen and others, 2014; https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1128/) included probabilistic ground motion maps for 2 percent and 10 percent probabilities of exceedance in 50 years, derived from seismic hazard curves for peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 0.2 and 1.0 second spectral accelerations (SAs) with 5 percent damping for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site class boundary B/C (time-averaged shear wave velocity in the upper 30 meters [VS30]=760 meters per second [m/s]). This data release provides 0.1 degree by 0.1 degree gridded seismic hazard curves, 0.1 degree by 0.1 degree gridded probabilistic ground motions, and seismic hazard maps calculated for additional periods and additional uniform NEHRP site classes using the 2014 NSHM. For both the central and eastern U.S. (CEUS) and western U.S. (WUS), data and maps are provided for PGA, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 second SAs with 5% damping for the NEHRP site class boundary B/C for 2, 5, and 10% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years. The WUS additionally includes data and maps for 0.75, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 SAs. The use of region-specific suites of weighted ground motion models (GMMs) in the 2014 NSHM precluded the calculation of ground motions for a uniform set of periods and site classes for the conterminous U.S. At the time of development of the 2014 NSHM, there was no consensus in the CEUS on an appropriate site-amplification model to use, therefore, we calculated hazard curves and maps for NEHRP Site Class A (VS30 = 2000 m/s), for which most stable continental GMMs were original developed, based on simulations for hard rock conditions. In the WUS, however, the GMMs allow amplification based on site class (defined by VS30), so we calculated hazard curves and maps for NEHRP site classes B (VS30 = 1080 m/s), C (VS30 = 530 m/s), D (VS30 = 260 m/s), and E (VS30 = 150 m/s) and site class boundaries A/B (VS30 = 1500 m/s), B/C (VS30 = 760 m/s), C/D (VS30 = 365 m/s), and D/E (VS30 = 185 m/s). Further explanation about how the data and maps were generated can be found in the accompanying U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018-1111 (https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181111). First Posted - July 18, 2018 Revised - February 20, 2019 (ver. 1.1)

Class I and II surface water classification. The Clean Water Act requires that the surface waters of each state be classified according to designated uses. Florida has six classes with associated designated uses, which are arranged in order of degree of protection required: Class I - Potable Water Supplies Fourteen general areas throughout the state including: impoundments and associated tributaries, certain lakes, rivers, or portions of rivers, used as a drinking water supply. Class II - Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting Generally coastal waters where shellfish harvesting occurs. For a more detailed description of classes and specific waterbody designations, see 62-302.400.

A feature class describing the spatial location of the administrative boundary of the lands managed by the Forest Supervisor's office. An area encompassing all the National Forest System lands administered by an administrative unit. The area encompasses private lands, other governmental agency lands, and may contain National Forest System lands within the proclaimed boundaries of another administrative unit. All National Forest System lands fall within one and only one Administrative Forest Area. This dataset is derived from the USFS Southwestern Region ALP (Automated Lands Program) data Project. This is one of six layers derived from ALP for the purpose of supplying data layers for recourse GIS analysis and data needs within the Forest Service. The six layers are Surface Ownership, Administrative Forest Boundary, District Boundary, Townships, Sections, and Wilderness. There were some gapes in the ALP data so a small portion of this dataset comes from CCF (Cartographic Feature Files) datasets and the USFS Southwestern Region Core Data Project. ALP data is developed from data sources of differing accuracy, scales, and reliability. Where available it is developed from GCDB (Geographic Coordinate Data Base) data. GCDB data is maintained by the Bureau of Land Management in their State Offices. GCDB data is mostly corner data. Not all corners and not all boundaries are available in GCDB so ALP also utilizes many other data sources like CFF data to derive its boundaries. GCDB data is in a constant state of change because land corners are always getting resurveyed. The GCDB data used in this dataset represents a snapshot in time at the time the GCDB dataset was published by the BLM and may not reflect the most current GCDB dataset available. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of these data. These data are intended to be used for planning and analyses purposes only and are not legally binding with regards to title or location of National Forest System lands.

(Link to Metadata) The BNDHASH dataset depicts Vermont villages, towns, counties, Regional Planning Commissions (RPC), and LEPC (Local Emergency Planning Committee) boundaries. It is a composite of generally 'best available' boundaries from various data sources (refer to ARC_SRC and SRC_NOTES attributes). However, this dataset DOES NOT attempt to provide a legally definitive boundary. The layer was originally developed from TBHASH, which was the master VGIS town boundary layer prior to the development and release of BNDHASH. By integrating village, town, county, RPC, and state boundaries into a single layer, VCGI has assured vertical integration of these boundaries and simplified maintenance. BNDHASH also includes annotation text for town, county, and RPC names. BNDHASH includes the following feature classes: 1) VILLAGES = Vermont villages 2) TOWNS = Vermont towns 3) COUNTIES = Vermont counties 4) RPCS = Vermont's Regional Planning Commissions 5) LEPC = Local Emergency Planning Committee boundaries 6) VTBND = Vermont's state boundary The master BNDHASH layer is managed as ESRI geodatabase feature dataset by VCGI. The dataset stores villages, towns, counties, and RPC boundaries as seperate feature classes with a set of topology rules which binds the features. This arrangement assures vertical integration of the various boundaries. VCGI will update this layer on an annual basis by reviewing records housed in the VT State Archives - Secretary of State's Office. VCGI also welcomes documented information from VGIS users which identify boundary errors. NOTE - VCGI has NOT attempted to create a legally definitive boundary layer. Instead the idea is to maintain an integrated village/town/county/rpc boundary layer which provides for a reasonably accurate representation of these boundaries (refer to ARC_SRC and SRC_NOTES). BNDHASH includes all counties, towns, and villages listed in "Population and Local Government - State of Vermont - 2000" published by the Secretary of State. BNDHASH may include changes endorsed by the Legislature since the publication of this document in 2000 (eg: villages merged with towns). Utlimately the Vermont Secratary of State's Office and the VT Legislature are responsible for maintaining information which accurately describes the location of these boundaries. BNDHASH should be used for general mapping purposes only. * Users who wish to determine which boundaries are different from the original TBHASH boundaries should refer to the ORIG_ARC field in the BOUNDARY_BNDHASH_LINE (line featue with attributes). Also, updates to BNDHASH are tracked by version number (ex: 2003A). The UPDACT field is used to track changes between versions. The UPDACT field is flushed between versions.

The VA_TOWN dataset is a feature class component of the Virginia Administrative Boundaries dataset from the Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN). VA_TOWN represents the best available town boundary information to VGIN.VGIN initially sought to develop an improved locality and town boundary dataset in late 2013, spurred by response of the Virginia Administrative Boundaries Workgroup community. The feature class initially started from an extraction of town features from the Census TIGER dataset for Virginia. VGIN solicited input from localities in Virginia through the Road Centerlines data submission process as well as through public forums such as the Virginia Administrative Boundaries Workgroup and VGIN listservs. Data received were analyzed and incorporated into the VA_TOWN feature class where locality data were a superior representation of town boundaries.

© Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN), and the Census and Localities and Towns submitting data to the project This layer is a component of Feature classes representing locality (county, city, and town) boundaries in the Commonwealth of Virginia..

Data represents the best available city, county, and town boundary information provided to VGIN. VGIN initially sought to develop an improved locality and town boundary dataset in late 2013, spurred by response of the Virginia Administrative Boundaries Workgroup community. The feature class initially started from the locality boundaries from the Census TIGER dataset for Virginia. VGIN solicited input from localities in Virginia through the Road Centerlines data submission process as well as through public forums such as the Virginia Administrative Boundaries Workgroup and VGIN listservs. Data received were analyzed and incorporated into the included feature classes where locality data were a superior representation of the city or county boundary.

© Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN)

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

An area encompassing all the National Forest System lands administered by an administrative unit. The area encompasses private lands, other governmental agency lands, and may contain National Forest System lands within the proclaimed boundaries of another administrative unit. All National Forest System lands fall within one and only one Administrative Forest Area. This data is intended for read-only use. These data were prepared to describe Forest Service administrative area boundaries. The purpose of the data is to provide display, identification, and analysis tools for determining current boundary information for Forest Service managers, GIS Specialists, and others. The Forest Service has multiple types of boundaries represented by different feature classes (layers): Administrative, Ownership and Proclaimed. 1) ADMINISTRATIVE boundaries (e.g. AdministrativeForest and RangerDistrict feature classes) encompass National Forest System lands managed by an administrative unit. These are dynamic layers that should not be considered "legal" boundaries as they are simply intended to identify the specific organizational units that administer areas. As lands are acquired and disposed, the administrative boundaries are adjusted to expand or shrink accordingly. Please note that ranger districts are sub units of National Forests. An administrative forest boundary can contain one or more Proclaimed National Forests, National Grasslands, Purchase Units, Research and Experimental Areas, Land Utilization Projects and various "Other" Areas. If needed, OWNERSHIP boundaries (e.g. BasicOwnership and SurfaceOwnership feature classes) should be reviewed along with these datasets to determine parcels that are federally managed within the administrative boundaries. 2) OWNERSHIP boundaries (e.g. BasicOwnership and SurfaceOwnership feature classes) represent parcels that are tied to legal transactions of ownership. These are parcels of Federal land managed by the USDA Forest Service. Please note that the BasicOwnership layer is simply a dissolved version of the SurfaceOwnership layer. 3) PROCLAIMED boundaries (e.g. ProclaimedForest and ProclaimedForest_Grassland) encompass areas of National Forest System land that is set aside and reserved from public domain by executive order or proclamation. Please note that the ProclaimedForest layer contains only proclaimed forests while ProclaimedForest_Grassland layer contains both proclaimed forests and proclaimed grasslands. For boundaries that reflect current National Forest System lands managed by an administrative unit, see the ADMINISTRATIVE boundaries (AdministrativeForest and RangerDistrict feature classes). For a visual comparison of the different kinds of USFS boundary datasets maintained by the USFS, see the Forest Service Boundary Comparison map at https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/CompareAnalysis/index.html?appid=fe7b9f56217949a291356f08cfccb119. USFS boundaries are often referenced in national datasets maintained by other federal agencies. Please note that variations may be found between USFS data and other boundary datasets due to differing update frequencies. PAD-US (Protected Areas Database of the United States), maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey, is a "best available" inventory of protected areas including data provided by managing agencies and organizations including the Forest Service. For more information see https://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/metadata/. SMA (Surface Management Agency), maintained by the Bureau of Land Management, depicts Federal land for the United States and classifies this land by its active Federal surface managing agency. It uses data provided by the Forest Service and other agencies, combined with National Regional Offices collection efforts. For more information see https://landscape.blm.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B2A8B8906-7711-4AF7-9510-C6C7FD991177%7D.

The Semantic Boundaries Dataset (SBD) is a dataset for predicting pixels on the boundary of the object (as opposed to the inside of the object with semantic segmentation). The dataset consists of 11318 images from the trainval set of the PASCAL VOC2011 challenge, divided into 8498 training and 2820 test images. This dataset has object instance boundaries with accurate figure/ground masks that are also labeled with one of 20 Pascal VOC classes.

This polygon feature class represents the spatial extent of historical BLM Administrative Unit Boundaries (at the State, District, and Field Office levels).This state dataset may have published a dataset that is more current than the National dataset; there may be geometry variations between the state and national dataset which may have different results. The national dataset is updated following the data standard schedule

In late 1996, the Dept of Conservation (DOC) surveyed state and federal agencies about the county boundary coverage they used. As a result, DOC adopted the 1:24,000 (24K) scale U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) data set (USGS source) for their Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) but with several modifications. Detailed documentation of these changes is provided by FMMP and included in the Process Step section of the Feature Class metadata. A data set named cnty24k97_1 was made available (approximately 2004) through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CDF - FRAP) and the California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL). In late 2006, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) reviewed cnty24k97_1. Comparisons were made to a high-quality 100K dataset (co100a/county100k from the former Teale Data Center GIS Solutions Group) and legal boundary descriptions from ( http://www.leginfo.ca.gov ). The cnty24k97_1 data set was missing Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands. DFG added the missing islands using previously-digitized coastline data (coastn27 of State Lands Commission origin), corrected a few county boundaries, built region topology, added additional attributes, and renamed the data set to county24k. In 2007, the California Mapping Coordinating Committee (CMCC) requested that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) resume stewardship of the statewide county boundaries data. CAL FIRE adopted the changes made by DFG and collected additional suggestions for the county data from DFG, DOC, and local government agencies. CAL FIRE incorporated these suggestions into the latest revision, which has been renamed cnty24k09_1. Detailed documentation of changes is included in the Process Step section of the Feature Class metadata. This Geo database contains 3 feature classes representing California county boundaries (arc, polygon, and multipart-polygon feature classes) and also contains a polygon feature class representing the state boundary: 1. Line - can be useful for cartographic purposes, especially when different line symbology is needed for different boundaries (e.g. Coastline, Mexico, Nevada, etc). 2. Multipart - features from a common county are combined into a single record (equivalent to a region feature class in a coverage). May be useful for selections and overlays when all parts of a county are needed. 3. Poly - all county features are represented as individual polygons. 4. State Poly - state boundary polygon to be used for cartography or overlay analysis that requires a state polygon.

This dataset represents the international boundary between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico.This feature class is a digital representation of the international boundary between the United States and Mexico in accordance with the 1970 Treaty (Treaty to Resolve Pending Boundary Differences and Maintain the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the International Boundary). It has been generated from a combination of recent surveys and datum conversions. It is intended for mapping purposes only.

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

The dataset is an update of a feature class representing four different Pinelands boundaries in Southern New Jersey. It represents the Pinelands Preservation Area District and the Pinelands Protection Area as per the New Jersey Pinelands Protection Act of 1979 (P.L. 1979, Chapter 111, approved June 28, 1979), the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan area (N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 et. seq.), and the Pinelands National Reserve boundary as per the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625, Sec. 502). Originally the dataset was created manually by interpreting text documents which described the boundary lines and drafting this information onto mylar using USGS photo quads as a base. In 1994, the coverage was digitized and converted to New Jersey State Plane NAD 83 Feet. In 2002, the boundaries were adjusted to a seamless parcel layer. In 2014/15 the boundaries were adjusted to The State of New Jersey Composite of Parcels Data layer developed by the New Jersey Office of Information Technology and an updated Pinelands Management Area layer to make the lines coincidental where applicable. The composite parcel layer is "In work", so changes made in the composite parcel layer after the release of this data set will not be reflected in this version. The boundaries are intended to provide reasonable representation of the boundaries for planning purposes. They are not survey grade. The current geometry is not static and is prone to change. Downloaded March 2020

An area encompassing all the National Forest System lands administered by an administrative unit. The area encompasses private lands, other governmental agency lands, and may contain National Forest System lands within the proclaimed boundaries of another administrative unit. All National Forest System lands fall within one and only one Administrative Forest Area.

This data is intended for read-only use. These data were prepared to describe Forest Service administrative area boundaries. The purpose of the data is to provide display, identification, and analysis tools for determining current boundary information for Forest Service managers, GIS Specialists, and others.

The Forest Service has multiple types of boundaries represented by different feature classes (layers): Administrative, Ownership and Proclaimed. 1) ADMINISTRATIVE boundaries (e.g. AdministrativeForest and RangerDistrict feature classes) encompass National Forest System lands managed by an administrative unit. These are dynamic layers that should not be considered "legal" boundaries as they are simply intended to identify the specific organizational units that administer areas. As lands are acquired and disposed, the administrative boundaries are adjusted to expand or shrink accordingly. Please note that ranger districts are sub units of National Forests. An administrative forest boundary can contain one or more Proclaimed National Forests, National Grasslands, Purchase Units, Research and Experimental Areas, Land Utilization Projects and various "Other" Areas. If needed, OWNERSHIP boundaries (e.g. BasicOwnership and SurfaceOwnership feature classes) should be reviewed along with these datasets to determine parcels that are federally managed within the administrative boundaries. 2) OWNERSHIP boundaries (e.g. BasicOwnership and SurfaceOwnership feature classes) represent parcels that are tied to legal transactions of ownership. These are parcels of Federal land managed by the USDA Forest Service. Please note that the BasicOwnership layer is simply a dissolved version of the SurfaceOwnership layer. 3) PROCLAIMED boundaries (e.g. ProclaimedForest and ProclaimedForest_Grassland) encompass areas of National Forest System land that is set aside and reserved from public domain by executive order or proclamation. Please note that the ProclaimedForest layer contains only proclaimed forests while ProclaimedForest_Grassland layer contains both proclaimed forests and proclaimed grasslands. For boundaries that reflect current National Forest System lands managed by an administrative unit, see the ADMINISTRATIVE boundaries (AdministrativeForest and RangerDistrict feature classes). For a visual comparison of the different kinds of USFS boundary datasets maintained by the USFS, see the Forest Service Boundary Comparison map at https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/CompareAnalysis/index.html?appid=fe7b9f56217949a291356f08cfccb119. USFS boundaries are often referenced in national datasets maintained by other federal agencies. Please note that variations may be found between USFS data and other boundary datasets due to differing update frequencies. PAD-US (Protected Areas Database of the United States), maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey, is a "best available" inventory of protected areas including data provided by managing agencies and organizations including the Forest Service. For more information see https://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/metadata/. SMA (Surface Management Agency), maintained by the Bureau of Land Management, depicts Federal land for the United States and classifies this land by its active Federal surface managing agency. It uses data provided by the Forest Service and other agencies, combined with National Regional Offices collection efforts. For more information see https://landscape.blm.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B2A8B8906-7711-4AF7-9510-C6C7FD991177%7D.

The dataset is a feature class showing the boundaries of 515 groundwater basins and subbasins as defined by the California Department of Water Resources as last modified by the Basin Boundary Emergency Regulation adopted on October 21, 2015 and subsequent modifications requested through the Basin Boundary Modification Request Process. This data is current as of December 9, 2022. The file is in ESRI geodatabase format and is intended for use with compatible GIS software. Groundwater basins are represented as polygon features and designated on the basis of geological and hydrological conditions - usually the occurrence of alluvial or unconsolidated deposits. When practical, large basins are also subdivided by political boundaries, as in the Central Valley. Basins are named and numbered per the convention of the Department of Water Resources.

WBDHU6: This geospatial dataset represents the 3rd level (6-digit) hydrologic unit boundaries of the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) layer for Washington. It was created by dissolving boundaries from the finer resolution hydrologic units to create these broader boundaries. See metadata for the wbd_wa_poly feature class for a more complete description of the WBD. USGS Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) located here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/11/a3/pdf/tm11-a3.pdf

(Link to Metadata) The BNDHASH dataset depicts Vermont village, town, county, and Regional Planning Commission (RPC) boundaries. It is a composite of generally 'best available' boundaries from various data sources (refer to ARC_SRC and SRC_NOTES attributes). However, this dataset DOES NOT attempt to provide a legally definitive boundary. The layer was originally developed from TBHASH, which was the master VGIS town boundary layer prior to the development and release of BNDHASH. By integrating village, town, county, RPC, and state boundaries into a single layer, VCGI has assured vertical integration of these boundaries and simplified maintenance. BNDHASH also includes annotation text for town, county, and RPC names. BNDHASH includes the following feature classes: 1) BNDHASH_POLY_VILLAGES = Vermont villages 2) BNDHASH_POLY_TOWNS = Vermont towns 3) BNDHASH_POLY_COUNTIES = Vermont counties 4) BNDHASH_POLY_RPCS = Vermont's Regional Planning Commissions 5) BNDHASH_POLY_VTBND = Vermont's state boundary 6) BNDHASH_LINE = Lines on which all POLY feature classes are built The master BNDHASH data is managed as an ESRI geodatabase feature dataset by VCGI. The dataset stores village, town, county, RPC, and state boundaries as seperate feature classes with a set of topology rules which binds the features. This arrangement assures vertical integration of the various boundaries. VCGI will update this layer on an annual basis by reviewing records housed in the VT State Archives - Secretary of State's Office. VCGI also welcomes documented information from VGIS users which identify boundary errors. NOTE - VCGI has NOT attempted to create a legally definitive boundary layer. Instead the idea is to maintain an integrated village/town/county/RPC/state boundary layer which provides for a reasonably accurate representation of these boundaries (refer to ARC_SRC and SRC_NOTES). BNDHASH includes all counties, towns, and villages listed in "Population and Local Government - State of Vermont - 2000" published by the Secretary of State. BNDHASH may include changes endorsed by the Legislature since the publication of this document in 2000 (eg: villages merged with towns). Utlimately the Vermont Secratary of State's Office and the VT Legislature are responsible for maintaining information which accurately describes the locations of these boundaries. BNDHASH should be used for general mapping purposes only. * Users who wish to determine which boundaries are different from the original TBHASH boundaries should refer to the ORIG_ARC field in the BOUNDARY_BNDHASH_LINE (line feature with attributes). Also, updates to BNDHASH are tracked by version number (ex: 2003A). The UPDACT field is used to track changes between versions. The UPDACT field is flushed between versions.

The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public land and voluntarily provided private protected areas, identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastre Theme ( https://communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-cadastre/ ). The PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database including areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural (including extraction), recreational, or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The database was originally designed to support biodiversity assessments; however, its scope expanded in recent years to include all open space public and nonprofit lands and waters. Most are public lands owned in fee (the owner of the property has full and irrevocable ownership of the land); however, permanent and long-term easements, leases, agreements, Congressional (e.g. 'Wilderness Area'), Executive (e.g. 'National Monument'), and administrative designations (e.g. 'Area of Critical Environmental Concern') documented in agency management plans are also included. The PAD-US strives to be a complete inventory of U.S. public land and other protected areas, compiling “best available” data provided by managing agencies and organizations. The PAD-US geodatabase maps and describes areas using thirty-six attributes and five separate feature classes representing the U.S. protected areas network: Fee (ownership parcels), Designation, Easement, Marine, Proclamation and Other Planning Boundaries. An additional Combined feature class includes the full PAD-US inventory to support data management, queries, web mapping services, and analyses. The Feature Class (FeatClass) field in the Combined layer allows users to extract data types as needed. A Federal Data Reference file geodatabase lookup table (PADUS3_0Combined_Federal_Data_References) facilitates the extraction of authoritative federal data provided or recommended by managing agencies from the Combined PAD-US inventory. This PAD-US Version 3.0 dataset includes a variety of updates from the previous Version 2.1 dataset (USGS, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5066/P92QM3NT ), achieving goals to: 1) Annually update and improve spatial data representing the federal estate for PAD-US applications; 2) Update state and local lands data as state data-steward and PAD-US Team resources allow; and 3) Automate data translation efforts to increase PAD-US update efficiency. The following list summarizes the integration of "best available" spatial data to ensure public lands and other protected areas from all jurisdictions are represented in the PAD-US (other data were transferred from PAD-US 2.1). Federal updates - The USGS remains committed to updating federal fee owned lands data and major designation changes in annual PAD-US updates, where authoritative data provided directly by managing agencies are available or alternative data sources are recommended. The following is a list of updates or revisions associated with the federal estate: 1) Major update of the Federal estate (fee ownership parcels, easement interest, and management designations where available), including authoritative data from 8 agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau), Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The federal theme in PAD-US is developed in close collaboration with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Federal Lands Working Group (FLWG, https://communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-govunits/federal-lands-workgroup/ ). 2) Improved the representation (boundaries and attributes) of the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands, in collaboration with agency data-stewards, in response to feedback from the PAD-US Team and stakeholders. 3) Added a Federal Data Reference file geodatabase lookup table (PADUS3_0Combined_Federal_Data_References) to the PAD-US 3.0 geodatabase to facilitate the extraction (by Data Provider, Dataset Name, and/or Aggregator Source) of authoritative data provided directly (or recommended) by federal managing agencies from the full PAD-US inventory. A summary of the number of records (Frequency) and calculated GIS Acres (vs Documented Acres) associated with features provided by each Aggregator Source is included; however, the number of records may vary from source data as the "State Name" standard is applied to national files. The Feature Class (FeatClass) field in the table and geodatabase describe the data type to highlight overlapping features in the full inventory (e.g. Designation features often overlap Fee features) and to assist users in building queries for applications as needed. 4) Scripted the translation of the Department of Defense, Census Bureau, and Natural Resource Conservation Service source data into the PAD-US format to increase update efficiency. 5) Revised conservation measures (GAP Status Code, IUCN Category) to more accurately represent protected and conserved areas. For example, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Waterfowl Production Area Wetland Easements changed from GAP Status Code 2 to 4 as spatial data currently represents the complete parcel (about 10.54 million acres primarily in North Dakota and South Dakota). Only aliquot parts of these parcels are documented under wetland easement (1.64 million acres). These acreages are provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are referenced in the PAD-US geodatabase Easement feature class 'Comments' field. State updates - The USGS is committed to building capacity in the state data-steward network and the PAD-US Team to increase the frequency of state land updates, as resources allow. The USGS supported efforts to significantly increase state inventory completeness with the integration of local parks data in the PAD-US 2.1, and developed a state-to-PAD-US data translation script during PAD-US 3.0 development to pilot in future updates. Additional efforts are in progress to support the technical and organizational strategies needed to increase the frequency of state updates. The PAD-US 3.0 included major updates to the following three states: 1) California - added or updated state, regional, local, and nonprofit lands data from the California Protected Areas Database (CPAD), managed by GreenInfo Network, and integrated conservation and recreation measure changes following review coordinated by the data-steward with state managing agencies. Developed a data translation Python script (see Process Step 2 Source Data Documentation) in collaboration with the data-steward to increase the accuracy and efficiency of future PAD-US updates from CPAD. 2) Virginia - added or updated state, local, and nonprofit protected areas data (and removed legacy data) from the Virginia Conservation Lands Database, provided by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Natural Heritage Program, and integrated conservation and recreation measure changes following review by the data-steward. 3) West Virginia - added or updated state, local, and nonprofit protected areas data provided by the West Virginia University, GIS Technical Center. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, https://www.usgs.gov/gapanalysis/PAD-US/. For more information about data aggregation please review the PAD-US Data Manual available at https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/pad-us-data-manual . A version history of PAD-US updates is summarized below (See https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/pad-us-data-history for more information): 1) First posted - April 2009 (Version 1.0 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 2) Revised - May 2010 (Version 1.1 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 3) Revised - April 2011 (Version 1.2 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 4) Revised - November 2012 (Version 1.3) https://doi.org/10.5066/F79Z92XD 5) Revised - May 2016 (Version 1.4) https://doi.org/10.5066/F7G73BSZ 6) Revised - September 2018 (Version 2.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P955KPLE 7) Revised - September 2020 (Version 2.1) https://doi.org/10.5066/P92QM3NT 8) Revised - January 2022 (Version 3.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B Comparing protected area trends between PAD-US versions is not recommended without consultation with USGS as many changes reflect improvements to agency and organization GIS systems, or conservation and recreation measure classification, rather than actual changes in protected area acquisition on the ground.