Description: Depicts the location of each water right diversion point (POD) and provides basic information about the associated water right. All current and individually held water rights are shown in this data set except for those held by irrigation districts, applications, temporary transfers, instream leases, and limited licenses. Current code definitions at: http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/wr/wrisuse.aspx.Compilation procedures document at: http://tater.wrd.state.or.us/data/OWRD_WR_GIS_procedures.pdf.
Service Item Id: b8b75325b07745b88f8c025caa9d6954
Copyright Text: Oregon Water Resources Department, 2022
Description: The Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) dataset contains barriers to fish passage in Oregon watercourses. Barriers include the following types of natural or artificial structures: bridges, cascades, culverts, dams, debris jams, fords, natural falls, tide gates, and weirs. The OFPBDS dataset does not include structures which are not associated with in-stream features (such as dikes, levees or berms). Barriers are structures which do, or potentially may, impede fish movement and migration. Barriers can be known to cause complete or partial blockage to fish passage, or they can be completely passable, or they may have an unknown passage status. This dataset complies with version 1.1 of the OFBPDS data standard. New optional attributes have been added to describe fish passage barrier feature modifications, to describe supplementary information (via a comments field) and also to linear reference the barrier features to the National Hydrography Dataset. The OFPBDS dataset now contains over 40,000 barrier features from 19 separate sources including: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Water Resources (OWRD), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service, Nez Perce Tribe, Benton SWCD, Washington county, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and watershed councils representing the Rogue, Umpqua, Siuslaw, Santiam, Calapooia, Clackamas and Scapoose basins. The Data Steward obtained fish passage barrier data from multiple data originators between 2008 and 2016, collaborated with them to develop inclusion / exclusion criteria and dataset specific crosswalks for converting data from its original data structure to the structure of the OFPBDS. The data were then converted into the OFPBDS format and analyzed for duplication with existing OFPBDS barrier features. Where duplicates were identified, depending upon the scenario, one feature was either chosen over the other or in some cases attributes from different sources are combined. Source information is retained for each feature. The data were then loaded into the OFPBDS database. Barrier features were linear referenced (Framework Hydro only which is outside of the standard) and the corresponding optional attribute elements were populated. The data conversion, duplication reconciliation and linear referencing protocols are documented in the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Management Plan. A separate dataset containing fish passage barrier features that have been completely removed or replaced (e.g. dam removals and culvert replacements) is published simultaneously with the OFPBDS dataset. The OFPBDS database is the most comprehensive compilation of fish passage barrier information in Oregon however, it does NOT represent a complete and current record of every fish passage barrier within the state. Efforts to address deficiencies in data currency, completeness and accuracy are ongoing and are often limited by lack of sufficient resources. Attributes (including key attributes such as fish passage status) are often unknown or incomplete. Consistency in attribution also varies among data originators. Field verification of barrier features and their attributes will be an important component to making this dataset current, comprehensive and accurate. Fish passage status is a key attribute. Many barrier features have an unknown passage status. For other features, the passage status may have changed since it was originally documented. Note that this metadata file is best viewed in ArcCatalog. Documentation for the OFPBDS can be found online at http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/docs/bioscience/OregonFishPassageBarrierDataStandardv1dot1.pdf.
Metadata
https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdata
Download
https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdata
Service Item Id: b8b75325b07745b88f8c025caa9d6954
Copyright Text: Barrier features originate primarily from the following agencies: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Water Resources (OWRD), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service, Nez Perce Tribe, Benton SWCD, Washington county, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and watershed councils representing the Rogue, Umpqua, Siuslaw, Santiam, Calapooia, Clackamas and Scapoose basins.
fpbMltFtr
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbMltFtr, length: 7
, Coded Values:
[yes: multiple features at road - stream xing]
, [no: single feature]
, [unknown: Number of features unknown]
)
fpbFPasSta
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFPasSta, length: 8
, Coded Values:
[Blocked: Not passable]
, [Partial: Partially passable - a barrier to at least some fish at some time]
, [Passable: Completely passable]
, ...2 more...
)
fpbFySta
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFySta, length: 20
, Coded Values:
[FuncNonCrit: Functioning – does not meet current criteria]
, [NeedsMaintNonCrit: Needs repair or maintenance and does not meet current state or NMFS fish passage criteria]
, [Abandoned: Abandoned fishway - no longer needed (e.g. fishway at natural falls)]
, ...7 more...
)
fpbFtrSTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFtrSTy, length: 30
, Coded Values:
[DamPermanent: Dam - permanent throughout the year]
, [DamSeasonal: Dam - in place for only part of the year]
, [OpenArch: Culvert - open arch]
, ...14 more...
)
fpbFtrNmSr
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFtrNmSr, length: 5
, Coded Values:
[GNIS: Geographic Names Information System]
, [other: Other source than GNIS]
)
fpbModTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbModTy, length: 10
, Coded Values:
[Baffles: Baffles - feature added to a culvert to increase the hydraulic roughness]
, [StreamSim: A channel that simulates characteristics of the adjacent natural stream channel]
, [Weirs: Weirs - feature built across a stream to raise its level]
, ...2 more...
)
fpbFyTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFyTy, length: 15
, Coded Values:
[Pool: Pool style fishways have a series of distinct pools in which the energy of the flow entering each one is entirely dissipated prior to flowing to the next.]
, [BaffledChute: Chutes or flumes with roughness, designed to reduce velocity, allowing fish passage.]
, [Hybrid: Combination of multiple fishway types.]
, ...4 more...
)
fpbFySTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFySTy, length: 20
, Coded Values:
[PoolVertSlot: Vertical slot]
, [PoolAndWeir: Pool and weir]
, [PoolWeirOrifice: Weir and orifice]
, ...18 more...
)
Description: The Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) dataset contains barriers to fish passage in Oregon watercourses. Barriers include the following types of natural or artificial structures: bridges, cascades, culverts, dams, debris jams, fords, natural falls, tide gates, and weirs. The OFPBDS dataset does not include structures which are not associated with in-stream features (such as dikes, levees or berms). Barriers are structures which do, or potentially may, impede fish movement and migration. Barriers can be known to cause complete or partial blockage to fish passage, or they can be completely passable, or they may have an unknown passage status. This dataset complies with version 1.1 of the OFBPDS data standard. New optional attributes have been added to describe fish passage barrier feature modifications, to describe supplementary information (via a comments field) and also to linear reference the barrier features to the National Hydrography Dataset. The OFPBDS dataset now contains over 40,000 barrier features from 19 separate sources including: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Water Resources (OWRD), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service, Nez Perce Tribe, Benton SWCD, Washington county, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and watershed councils representing the Rogue, Umpqua, Siuslaw, Santiam, Calapooia, Clackamas and Scapoose basins. The Data Steward obtained fish passage barrier data from multiple data originators between 2008 and 2016, collaborated with them to develop inclusion / exclusion criteria and dataset specific crosswalks for converting data from its original data structure to the structure of the OFPBDS. The data were then converted into the OFPBDS format and analyzed for duplication with existing OFPBDS barrier features. Where duplicates were identified, depending upon the scenario, one feature was either chosen over the other or in some cases attributes from different sources are combined. Source information is retained for each feature. The data were then loaded into the OFPBDS database. Barrier features were linear referenced (Framework Hydro only which is outside of the standard) and the corresponding optional attribute elements were populated. The data conversion, duplication reconciliation and linear referencing protocols are documented in the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Management Plan. A separate dataset containing fish passage barrier features that have been completely removed or replaced (e.g. dam removals and culvert replacements) is published simultaneously with the OFPBDS dataset. The OFPBDS database is the most comprehensive compilation of fish passage barrier information in Oregon however, it does NOT represent a complete and current record of every fish passage barrier within the state. Efforts to address deficiencies in data currency, completeness and accuracy are ongoing and are often limited by lack of sufficient resources. Attributes (including key attributes such as fish passage status) are often unknown or incomplete. Consistency in attribution also varies among data originators. Field verification of barrier features and their attributes will be an important component to making this dataset current, comprehensive and accurate. Fish passage status is a key attribute. Many barrier features have an unknown passage status. For other features, the passage status may have changed since it was originally documented. Note that this metadata file is best viewed in ArcCatalog. Documentation for the OFPBDS can be found online at http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/docs/bioscience/OregonFishPassageBarrierDataStandardv1dot1.pdf.
Metadata
https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdata
Download
https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdata
Copyright Text: Barrier features originate primarily from the following agencies: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Water Resources (OWRD), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service, Nez Perce Tribe, Benton SWCD, Washington county, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and watershed councils representing the Rogue, Umpqua, Siuslaw, Santiam, Calapooia, Clackamas and Scapoose basins.
fpbMltFtr
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbMltFtr, length: 7
, Coded Values:
[yes: multiple features at road - stream xing]
, [no: single feature]
, [unknown: Number of features unknown]
)
fpbFPasSta
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFPasSta, length: 8
, Coded Values:
[Blocked: Not passable]
, [Partial: Partially passable - a barrier to at least some fish at some time]
, [Passable: Completely passable]
, ...2 more...
)
fpbFySta
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFySta, length: 20
, Coded Values:
[FuncNonCrit: Functioning – does not meet current criteria]
, [NeedsMaintNonCrit: Needs repair or maintenance and does not meet current state or NMFS fish passage criteria]
, [Abandoned: Abandoned fishway - no longer needed (e.g. fishway at natural falls)]
, ...7 more...
)
fpbFtrSTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFtrSTy, length: 30
, Coded Values:
[DamPermanent: Dam - permanent throughout the year]
, [DamSeasonal: Dam - in place for only part of the year]
, [OpenArch: Culvert - open arch]
, ...14 more...
)
fpbFtrNmSr
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFtrNmSr, length: 5
, Coded Values:
[GNIS: Geographic Names Information System]
, [other: Other source than GNIS]
)
fpbModTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbModTy, length: 10
, Coded Values:
[Baffles: Baffles - feature added to a culvert to increase the hydraulic roughness]
, [StreamSim: A channel that simulates characteristics of the adjacent natural stream channel]
, [Weirs: Weirs - feature built across a stream to raise its level]
, ...2 more...
)
fpbFyTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFyTy, length: 15
, Coded Values:
[Pool: Pool style fishways have a series of distinct pools in which the energy of the flow entering each one is entirely dissipated prior to flowing to the next.]
, [BaffledChute: Chutes or flumes with roughness, designed to reduce velocity, allowing fish passage.]
, [Hybrid: Combination of multiple fishway types.]
, ...4 more...
)
fpbFySTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFySTy, length: 20
, Coded Values:
[PoolVertSlot: Vertical slot]
, [PoolAndWeir: Pool and weir]
, [PoolWeirOrifice: Weir and orifice]
, ...18 more...
)
Description: The Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) dataset contains barriers to fish passage in Oregon watercourses. Barriers include the following types of natural or artificial structures: bridges, cascades, culverts, dams, debris jams, fords, natural falls, tide gates, and weirs. The OFPBDS dataset does not include structures which are not associated with in-stream features (such as dikes, levees or berms). Barriers are structures which do, or potentially may, impede fish movement and migration. Barriers can be known to cause complete or partial blockage to fish passage, or they can be completely passable, or they may have an unknown passage status. This dataset complies with version 1.1 of the OFBPDS data standard. New optional attributes have been added to describe fish passage barrier feature modifications, to describe supplementary information (via a comments field) and also to linear reference the barrier features to the National Hydrography Dataset. The OFPBDS dataset now contains over 40,000 barrier features from 19 separate sources including: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Water Resources (OWRD), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service, Nez Perce Tribe, Benton SWCD, Washington county, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and watershed councils representing the Rogue, Umpqua, Siuslaw, Santiam, Calapooia, Clackamas and Scapoose basins. The Data Steward obtained fish passage barrier data from multiple data originators between 2008 and 2016, collaborated with them to develop inclusion / exclusion criteria and dataset specific crosswalks for converting data from its original data structure to the structure of the OFPBDS. The data were then converted into the OFPBDS format and analyzed for duplication with existing OFPBDS barrier features. Where duplicates were identified, depending upon the scenario, one feature was either chosen over the other or in some cases attributes from different sources are combined. Source information is retained for each feature. The data were then loaded into the OFPBDS database. Barrier features were linear referenced (Framework Hydro only which is outside of the standard) and the corresponding optional attribute elements were populated. The data conversion, duplication reconciliation and linear referencing protocols are documented in the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Management Plan. A separate dataset containing fish passage barrier features that have been completely removed or replaced (e.g. dam removals and culvert replacements) is published simultaneously with the OFPBDS dataset. The OFPBDS database is the most comprehensive compilation of fish passage barrier information in Oregon however, it does NOT represent a complete and current record of every fish passage barrier within the state. Efforts to address deficiencies in data currency, completeness and accuracy are ongoing and are often limited by lack of sufficient resources. Attributes (including key attributes such as fish passage status) are often unknown or incomplete. Consistency in attribution also varies among data originators. Field verification of barrier features and their attributes will be an important component to making this dataset current, comprehensive and accurate. Fish passage status is a key attribute. Many barrier features have an unknown passage status. For other features, the passage status may have changed since it was originally documented. Note that this metadata file is best viewed in ArcCatalog. Documentation for the OFPBDS can be found online at http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/docs/bioscience/OregonFishPassageBarrierDataStandardv1dot1.pdf.
Metadata
https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdata
Download
https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdata
Copyright Text: Barrier features originate primarily from the following agencies: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Water Resources (OWRD), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service, Nez Perce Tribe, Benton SWCD, Washington county, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and watershed councils representing the Rogue, Umpqua, Siuslaw, Santiam, Calapooia, Clackamas and Scapoose basins.
fpbMltFtr
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbMltFtr, length: 7
, Coded Values:
[yes: multiple features at road - stream xing]
, [no: single feature]
, [unknown: Number of features unknown]
)
fpbFPasSta
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFPasSta, length: 8
, Coded Values:
[Blocked: Not passable]
, [Partial: Partially passable - a barrier to at least some fish at some time]
, [Passable: Completely passable]
, ...2 more...
)
fpbFySta
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFySta, length: 20
, Coded Values:
[FuncNonCrit: Functioning – does not meet current criteria]
, [NeedsMaintNonCrit: Needs repair or maintenance and does not meet current state or NMFS fish passage criteria]
, [Abandoned: Abandoned fishway - no longer needed (e.g. fishway at natural falls)]
, ...7 more...
)
fpbFtrSTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFtrSTy, length: 30
, Coded Values:
[DamPermanent: Dam - permanent throughout the year]
, [DamSeasonal: Dam - in place for only part of the year]
, [OpenArch: Culvert - open arch]
, ...14 more...
)
fpbFtrNmSr
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFtrNmSr, length: 5
, Coded Values:
[GNIS: Geographic Names Information System]
, [other: Other source than GNIS]
)
fpbModTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbModTy, length: 10
, Coded Values:
[Baffles: Baffles - feature added to a culvert to increase the hydraulic roughness]
, [StreamSim: A channel that simulates characteristics of the adjacent natural stream channel]
, [Weirs: Weirs - feature built across a stream to raise its level]
, ...2 more...
)
fpbFyTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFyTy, length: 15
, Coded Values:
[Pool: Pool style fishways have a series of distinct pools in which the energy of the flow entering each one is entirely dissipated prior to flowing to the next.]
, [BaffledChute: Chutes or flumes with roughness, designed to reduce velocity, allowing fish passage.]
, [Hybrid: Combination of multiple fishway types.]
, ...4 more...
)
fpbFySTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFySTy, length: 20
, Coded Values:
[PoolVertSlot: Vertical slot]
, [PoolAndWeir: Pool and weir]
, [PoolWeirOrifice: Weir and orifice]
, ...18 more...
)
Description: The Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) dataset contains barriers to fish passage in Oregon watercourses. Barriers include the following types of natural or artificial structures: bridges, cascades, culverts, dams, debris jams, fords, natural falls, tide gates, and weirs. The OFPBDS dataset does not include structures which are not associated with in-stream features (such as dikes, levees or berms). Barriers are structures which do, or potentially may, impede fish movement and migration. Barriers can be known to cause complete or partial blockage to fish passage, or they can be completely passable, or they may have an unknown passage status. This dataset complies with version 1.1 of the OFBPDS data standard. New optional attributes have been added to describe fish passage barrier feature modifications, to describe supplementary information (via a comments field) and also to linear reference the barrier features to the National Hydrography Dataset. The OFPBDS dataset now contains over 40,000 barrier features from 19 separate sources including: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Water Resources (OWRD), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service, Nez Perce Tribe, Benton SWCD, Washington county, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and watershed councils representing the Rogue, Umpqua, Siuslaw, Santiam, Calapooia, Clackamas and Scapoose basins. The Data Steward obtained fish passage barrier data from multiple data originators between 2008 and 2016, collaborated with them to develop inclusion / exclusion criteria and dataset specific crosswalks for converting data from its original data structure to the structure of the OFPBDS. The data were then converted into the OFPBDS format and analyzed for duplication with existing OFPBDS barrier features. Where duplicates were identified, depending upon the scenario, one feature was either chosen over the other or in some cases attributes from different sources are combined. Source information is retained for each feature. The data were then loaded into the OFPBDS database. Barrier features were linear referenced (Framework Hydro only which is outside of the standard) and the corresponding optional attribute elements were populated. The data conversion, duplication reconciliation and linear referencing protocols are documented in the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Management Plan. A separate dataset containing fish passage barrier features that have been completely removed or replaced (e.g. dam removals and culvert replacements) is published simultaneously with the OFPBDS dataset. The OFPBDS database is the most comprehensive compilation of fish passage barrier information in Oregon however, it does NOT represent a complete and current record of every fish passage barrier within the state. Efforts to address deficiencies in data currency, completeness and accuracy are ongoing and are often limited by lack of sufficient resources. Attributes (including key attributes such as fish passage status) are often unknown or incomplete. Consistency in attribution also varies among data originators. Field verification of barrier features and their attributes will be an important component to making this dataset current, comprehensive and accurate. Fish passage status is a key attribute. Many barrier features have an unknown passage status. For other features, the passage status may have changed since it was originally documented. Note that this metadata file is best viewed in ArcCatalog. Documentation for the OFPBDS can be found online at http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/docs/bioscience/OregonFishPassageBarrierDataStandardv1dot1.pdf.
Metadata
https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdata
Download
https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdata
Service Item Id: b8b75325b07745b88f8c025caa9d6954
Copyright Text: Barrier features originate primarily from the following agencies: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Water Resources (OWRD), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service, Nez Perce Tribe, Benton SWCD, Washington county, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and watershed councils representing the Rogue, Umpqua, Siuslaw, Santiam, Calapooia, Clackamas and Scapoose basins.
fpbMltFtr
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbMltFtr, length: 7
, Coded Values:
[yes: multiple features at road - stream xing]
, [no: single feature]
, [unknown: Number of features unknown]
)
fpbFPasSta
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFPasSta, length: 8
, Coded Values:
[Blocked: Not passable]
, [Partial: Partially passable - a barrier to at least some fish at some time]
, [Passable: Completely passable]
, ...2 more...
)
fpbFySta
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFySta, length: 20
, Coded Values:
[FuncNonCrit: Functioning – does not meet current criteria]
, [NeedsMaintNonCrit: Needs repair or maintenance and does not meet current state or NMFS fish passage criteria]
, [Abandoned: Abandoned fishway - no longer needed (e.g. fishway at natural falls)]
, ...7 more...
)
fpbFtrSTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFtrSTy, length: 30
, Coded Values:
[DamPermanent: Dam - permanent throughout the year]
, [DamSeasonal: Dam - in place for only part of the year]
, [OpenArch: Culvert - open arch]
, ...14 more...
)
fpbFtrNmSr
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFtrNmSr, length: 5
, Coded Values:
[GNIS: Geographic Names Information System]
, [other: Other source than GNIS]
)
fpbModTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbModTy, length: 10
, Coded Values:
[Baffles: Baffles - feature added to a culvert to increase the hydraulic roughness]
, [StreamSim: A channel that simulates characteristics of the adjacent natural stream channel]
, [Weirs: Weirs - feature built across a stream to raise its level]
, ...2 more...
)
fpbFyTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFyTy, length: 15
, Coded Values:
[Pool: Pool style fishways have a series of distinct pools in which the energy of the flow entering each one is entirely dissipated prior to flowing to the next.]
, [BaffledChute: Chutes or flumes with roughness, designed to reduce velocity, allowing fish passage.]
, [Hybrid: Combination of multiple fishway types.]
, ...4 more...
)
fpbFySTy
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: fpbFySTy, length: 20
, Coded Values:
[PoolVertSlot: Vertical slot]
, [PoolAndWeir: Pool and weir]
, [PoolWeirOrifice: Weir and orifice]
, ...18 more...
)
Description: The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) is a feature-based database that interconnects and uniquely identifies the stream segments or reaches that make up the nation's surface water drainage system. NHD data was originally developed at 1:100,000-scale and exists at that scale for the whole country. This high-resolution NHD, generally developed at 1:24,000/1:12,000 scale, adds detail to the original 1:100,000-scale NHD. (Data for Alaska, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands was developed at high-resolution, not 1:100,000 scale.) Local resolution NHD is being developed where partners and data exist. The NHD contains reach codes for networked features, flow direction, names, and centerline representations for areal water bodies. Reaches are also defined on waterbodies and the approximate shorelines of the Great Lakes, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. The NHD also incorporates the National Spatial Data Infrastructure framework criteria established by the Federal Geographic Data Committee.
Metadata
https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-hydrography/national-hydrography-dataset?qt-science_support_page_related_con=0#qt-science_support_page_related_con
Download
https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-hydrography/access-national-hydrography-products
Description: The dataset was modified from a GNIS dataset by PSU-CSAR for inclusion in the OR-IRIS geodatabase. The GNIS source data were filtered to include only named springs that do not also appear in the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) NHDPoint feature class.The Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) actively seeks data from and partnerships with Government agencies at all levels and other interested organizations. The GNIS is the Federal standard for geographic nomenclature. The U.S. Geological Survey developed the GNIS for the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, a Federal inter-agency body chartered by public law to maintain uniform feature name usage throughout the Government and to promulgate standard names to the public. The GNIS is the official repository of domestic geographic names data; the official vehicle for geographic names use by all departments of the Federal Government; and the source for applying geographic names to Federal electronic and printed products of all types.
Description: The Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory database (OWRI) contains information about completed restoration projects that were implemented in Oregon beginning in 1995. The complete dataset consists of point, line, and polygon features. Data for projects not funded by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) are acquired through a voluntary "Annual Call for Data"; while reporting is required for projects funded by OWEB and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife R & E grant programs. Restoration practitioners submit a standardized reporting form and attach project location maps. Once acquired, data sheets and maps are each assigned a unique project identification number. This number links spatial project data with tabular project data that are stored in a relational database using Microsoft SQL software.
Service Item Id: b8b75325b07745b88f8c025caa9d6954
Copyright Text: Paula Wills
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: left Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 10 Font Family: Tahoma Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: Landowners and land managers throughout Oregon can contribute to conserving fish and wildlife by maintaining, restoring, and improving habitats. These conservation actions benefit Strategy Species and Strategy Habitats, and are important regardless of location. However, focusing investments in prioritized areas, or Conservation Opportunity Areas (COAs), can increase the likelihood of long-term success, maximize effectiveness over larger landscapes, improve funding efficiency, and promote cooperative efforts across ownership boundaries. COAs are places where broad fish and wildlife conservation goals would best be met, and have been designated for all ecoregions within the Conservation Strategy, except the Nearshore ecoregion. COAs were delineated through a spatial modeling analysis, incorporating datasets focusing on Oregon Conservation Strategy components (Strategy Species, Strategy Habitats, and Key Conservation Issues), and expert biologist review. More information on COA methodolofy can be found here: http://oregonconservationstrategy.org/conservation-opportunity-areas/methodology/.COAs include supporting information in an associated COA profile, including details about the area’s Conservation Strategy priorities, recommended actions consistent with local priorities, and ongoing conservation efforts. Links to COA profiles are provided as an attribute in the COA dataset, and can also be found here - http://oregonconservationstrategy.org/conservation-opportunity-areas/.
Service Item Id: b8b75325b07745b88f8c025caa9d6954
Copyright Text: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Conservation Strategy, Salem, OR.
Support for the 2016 COA analysis was provided by: The Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR; US Fish and WIldlife Service, Portland, OR; and the Oregon Biodfiversity Information Center, Institute of Natural Resources, Portland State University, Portland, OR.
Description: Oregon's Greatest Wetlands (2015) refined the OGW 2005 database. Geometries were improved to better identify the targets. Attributes were added, including a succinct narrative describing the wetland's significance. Several wetlands were removed and several were added based on information gained since 2005.Oregon's Greatest Wetlands were iidentified in a top-down manner, with wetland experts from throughout Oregon identifying the most significant wetlands.
Metadata
http://spatialdata.oregonexplorer.info/geoportal/rest/document?id=%7B1D70E066-8A80-4B5F-A4A4-C5492A05168A%7D Download
http://oe.oregonexplorer.info/ExternalContent/SpatialDataForDownload/Oregons_Greatest_Wetlands2015.zip
Service Item Id: b8b75325b07745b88f8c025caa9d6954
Copyright Text: The Wetlands Conservancy, Portland, Oregon
Institute for Natural Resources, Portland, Oregon
Description: This layer includes Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Oregon Health Authority (OHA) Drinking Water Program Source Water Assessment drinking water source area results for community (C), non-transient non-community (NTNC), transient non-community (TNC), and some state-regulated (SP) public water systems (PWS) for groundwater public water systems that were active in June 1999 (when Oregon's Source Water Assessment Plan was approved by EPA). Data is updated and modified as needed.
Metadata
https://oe.oregonexplorer.info/externalcontent/metadata/GWDWSAs_2019.xml
Download
https://www.oregon.gov/deq/Data-and-Reports/Pages/GIS.aspx
Service Item Id: b8b75325b07745b88f8c025caa9d6954
Copyright Text: Most original groundwater well, infiltration gallery, and spring drinking water source areas were established by the Oregon Health Authority ((OHA); formerly OR Dept. of Human Service), Drinking Water Program-Springfield Office under the direction of the Drinking Water Protection Groundwater Coordinator. Data includes "community", "nontransient noncommunity", and "transient noncommunity" public water supply sources. Limited "state-regulated" sources are also included. The combined GIS spatial data file of all wells, infiltration galleries, and springs was developed by Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division/Drinking Water Protection.
Description: This map includes Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Oregon Health Authority’ (OHA) Drinking Water Program Source Water Assessment results for community and non-transient non-community public water systems (PWS) for surface water systems that were active in June 1999 (when Oregon's Source Water Assessment Plan was approved by EPA). Subsequently, post-1999 systems have been added including some non-community systems.
Metadata
https://oe.oregonexplorer.info/externalcontent/metadata/SWDWSAs_2019.xml
Download
https://www.oregon.gov/deq/Data-and-Reports/Pages/GIS.aspx
Service Item Id: b8b75325b07745b88f8c025caa9d6954
Copyright Text: All original surface water source area files and combined GIS spatial data files were developed or established by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division/Drinking Water Protection Program.
Description: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2022, Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 3.0: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B
Copyright Text: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2022, Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 3.0: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B
Own_Name
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: Owner Name, length: 70
, Coded Values:
[TVA: Tennessee Valley Authority]
, [BLM: Bureau of Land Management]
, [BOEM: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management]
, ...41 more...
)
Loc_Own
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: Local Owner, length: 250
)
Mang_Name
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: Manager Name, length: 70
, Coded Values:
[TVA: Tennessee Valley Authority]
, [BLM: Bureau of Land Management]
, [BOEM: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management]
, ...41 more...
)
Loc_Mang
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: Local Manager, length: 250
)
Description: The Water Resources Department and the Department of Fish and Wildlife jointly identified priority areas for streamflow restoration in basins throughout the state. These priority areas represent watersheds in which there is a combination of need and opportunity for flow restoration to support fish recovery efforts under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. WRD is focusing its efforts under the Oregon Plan on these priority areas.
Metadata: https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=streamflowmaps
Download: http://oregonexplorer.info/ExternalContent/SpatialDataForDownload/iw_or_streamflowrestoration.zip
Description: Probable Wetlands as mapped in original Department of State Lands’ approved Local Wetlands Inventories. "Probable Wetland" or “PW” means an area noted during the LWI development that appeared to meet wetland criteria but was less than one half of an acre in size or was small and of undetermined size. Wetlands that were less than one half of an acre were mapped as polygons or as probable wetlands. Probable wetlands represented as polygons on the appropriate parcel(s) and were labeled as "PW” on the maps. No further characterization or assessment was required for probable wetlands in the LWI. These probable wetlands trigger cities and counties to submit a wetland land use notice to the Department for proposed land use activities affecting mapped wetlands and other waters (ORS 215.418 and 227.350).
Copyright Text: The Local Wetland Inventory Subset was taken from the Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI) geodatabase developed in 2019 by the Department of State Lands (DSL), Institute for Natural Resources (INR), and Oregon State University Libraries and Press.
Description: Wetlands as mapped in Department of State Lands’ approved Local Wetlands Inventories. All wetlands greater than or equal to one-half of an acre and all wetlands identified in a Department of State Lands’ approved wetland delineation report were identified and mapped as polygons with a goal accuracy of +/- 25 feet (prior to 2009) or +/- 5 meters (2009 rules). These wetlands trigger cities and counties to submit a wetland land use notice to the Department for proposed land use activities affecting mapped wetlands and other waters (ORS 215.418 and 227.350).To acquire the complete GIS dataset for the West Eugene Wetland Conservation Plan Inventory please contact the City of Eugene at euggis@ci.eugene.or.us. The dataset is also available at Eugene’s “Mapping Hub” at https://mapping.eugene-or.gov/.
Service Item Id: b8b75325b07745b88f8c025caa9d6954
Copyright Text: The Local Wetland Inventory Subset was taken from the Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI) geodatabase developed in 2019 by the Department of State Lands (DSL), Institute for Natural Resources (INR), and Oregon State University Libraries and Press.
OWMS_FIELD_OBS
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: OWMS_FIELD_OBS, length: 10
, Coded Values:
[Y: Visually confirmed but date not available]
, [N: Not visually confirmed]
, [U: Unknown or information not provided]
)
Description: This data set represents the extent, approximate location and type of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the United States and its Territories. These data delineate the areal extent of wetlands and surface waters as defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). The National Wetlands Inventory - Version 2, Surface Waters and Wetlands Inventory was derived by retaining the wetland and deepwater polygons that compose the NWI digital wetlands spatial data layer and reintroducing any linear wetland or surface water features that were orphaned from the original NWI hard copy maps by converting them to narrow polygonal features. Additionally, the data are supplemented with hydrography data, buffered to become polygonal features, as a secondary source for any single-line stream features not mapped by the NWI and to complete segmented connections. Wetland mapping conducted in WA, OR, CA, NV and ID after 2012 and most other projects mapped after 2015 were mapped to include all surface water features and are not derived data. The linear hydrography dataset used to derive Version 2 was the U.S. Geological Survey's National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Specific information on the NHD version used to derive Version 2 and where Version 2 was mapped can be found in the 'comments' field of the Wetlands_Project_Metadata feature class. Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and near shore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. By policy, the Service also excludes certain types of "farmed wetlands" as may be defined by the Food Security Act or that do not coincide with the Cowardin et al. definition. Contact the Service's Regional Wetland Coordinator for additional information on what types of farmed wetlands are included on wetland maps. This dataset should be used in conjunction with the Wetlands_Project_Metadata layer, which contains project specific wetlands mapping procedures and information on dates, scales and emulsion of imagery used to map the wetlands within specific project boundaries. Publication Date: 10/20/2020
Metadata
https://oe.oregonexplorer.info/externalcontent/metadata/NWI_2020.xml
Description: More Oregon Wetlands (MOW) consists of an edited subset of records from the Oregon Wetlands Cover (2009), including those wetland polygons that were not part of a finalized National Wetlands Inventory project, nor generated as part of a Local Wetland Inventory (as indicated by attribute information in the Data_S_Year and Data_S_Type fields). Overlap between MOW polygons and NWI and LWI polygons may exist.The MOW dataset includes mapping of individual wetland sites by a variety of federal, state, academic, and nonprofit sources. Because MOW is based on the NWI framework, it represents all wetland categories in the Cowardin classification (Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. ) that are known to be present and mappable in Oregon. It includes perennially inundated "open water" aquatic habitats such as lacustrine limnetic, riverine (all subsystems), and marine and estuarine intertidal and subtidal. Man-made water features such as industrial detention ponds, log ponds, municipal sewage treatment lagoons, and flooded gravel pits are also included because they are often habitat for wetland biota. Portions of upland riparian areas may also be included where they are intermixed with riverine or palustrine wetlands and cannot be separated at the scale used in original mapping.Metadata for the MOW feature dataset was imported from the Oregon Wetlands Cover (2009) and edited as needed.
Service Item Id: b8b75325b07745b88f8c025caa9d6954
Copyright Text: Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources, Portland. 2019.
Description: This data layer is an element of the Oregon GIS Framework. This theme delineates urban growth boundaries (UGBs) in the state of Oregon. The line work was created by various sources including the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Metro Regional Council of Governments (Metro), county and city GIS departments, and the Oregon Department of Administrative Services - Geospatial Enterprise Office (DAS-GEO). UGB areas consist of unincorporated lands surrounding a city that show where the city plans to grow over the next 20 years. When a city needs to develop more residential, commercial, industrial, or public land, it annexes the needed area from its UGB. If a city runs out of needed land within the UGB, it can expand its UGB. Original UGBs were established under the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals in 1973 by the Oregon State Legislature (Senate Bill 100). Goal 14 of the statewide planning program is, "To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities." The process and requirements for designating and amending UGBs are in Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 24 (OAR 660-024). Designating or amending a UGB requires a public process, as required by Planning Goal 1, followed by approval by both the city and county elected officials and acknowledgement by the DLCD. This process includes the city submitting a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) to DLCD to review for consistency with Goal 14. The PAPA submittal includes GIS files that delineate the changes to the UGB. DLCD aggregates the local GIS layers into the statewide UGB layer. UGB line work and attributes are verified with the city PAPA submittals entered in DLCD’s tabular database to ensure that all UGB updates reported to DLCD have been included in this dataset. UGBs that are currently in the appeal process at the time of publication of this layer are not included. The effDate attribute indicates the year in which the UGB amendment was acknowledged by DLCD. In 2022, DLCD acknowledged amendments to the following UGBs: Central Point, Dayton, Phoenix, and Turner. Corrections were also made to the Astoria and Condon UGBs to reflect the current acknowledged boundary.
Service Item Id: b8b75325b07745b88f8c025caa9d6954
Copyright Text: This dataset was originally created in 2004 at the Oregon Department of Employment under a grant from the Oregon Geographic Information Council (OGIC). In 2006, DLCD partnered with the University of Oregon's Infographics Lab and ODOT for another comprehensive update to the data following as closely as possible the methodology followed in the 2004 project. In 2008 DLCD took stewardship of the data and began a refined methodology necessary to bring the UGB data in line with other statewide framework elements through the OGIC data standards process. UGBs were optimized with reliance on cadastral tax lot data acquired through the Oregon Department of Revenue ORMAP project. Every jurisdiction's entire UGB was reviewed against County records, City records and DLCD records. Discrepancies were verified against acknowledged plan amendments and/or City Ordinances.
Description: Defines the boundaries of the watershed council jurisdictions within the state of Oregon effective May 2014.
Metadata
http://spatialdata.oregonexplorer.info/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B8091C70C-2E73-47D4-BA0F-8D8D0C5647C0%7D
Download
http://oe.oregonexplorer.info/ExternalContent/SpatialDataforDownload/Oregon_Watershed_Councils_2014.zip
Description: Land Management derived from BLM Ownership_poly: This theme portrays information representing fee land title and land manager of lands located in Oregon.
Metadata
http://spatialdata.oregonexplorer.info/geoportal/rest/document?id={9B644E0F-7A7D-4124-A50F-6B35C05626AE}
Download
http://www.odf.state.or.us/gis/data/Ownership/2015_LandManagementDraft.gdb.zip
Service Item Id: b8b75325b07745b88f8c025caa9d6954
Copyright Text: Oregon Bureau of Land Management USDI edited by the Oregon Department of Forestry
Description: This dataset updates the Wigington et al. (2013) hydrologic landscape (HL) approach for Oregon to make it more broadly applicable and applies the revised approach to the Pacific Northwest (PNW; i.e., Oregon, Washington, and Idaho). Specific changes incorporated are the use of assessment units based on National Hydrography Dataset Plus V2 catchments, a modified snowmelt model validated over a broader area, an aquifer permeability index that does not require preexisting aquifer permeability maps, and aquifer and soil permeability classes based on uniform criteria. Polygon features in this dataset were created by aggregating (dissolving boundaries between) adjacent, similarly-coded hydrologic assessment units.
Service Item Id: b8b75325b07745b88f8c025caa9d6954
Copyright Text: AUTHORS: Scott G. Leibowitz, Randy L. Comeleo, Parker J. Wigington, Jr., Marc H. Weber, Eric A. Sproles, and Keith A. Sawicz
MAP DATA: USGS National Elevation Dataset; The Climate Source Inc.; USDA STATSGO Soil Permeability Map, Penn State Center for Environmental Informatics
Name: A Dualistic Stream Classification System for Oregon
Display Field: TYPE
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: To meet the goals of the U.S. federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Oregon’s Removal-Fill (R-F) Law, unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters, including streams and rivers, must be compensated for through compensatory mitigation under the CWA Section 404 and R-F permitting programs. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to the stream resource is not routinely required, as it generally is for wetlands, and that which does occur is often opportunistic or out-of-kind restoration (e.g. different stream type, wetlands) which does not provide functional replacement for impacts. As part of the effort to improve compensatory mitigation outcomes in Oregon, a stream classification system was needed to inform a more function-based, site level assessment of streams. To meet this need, we have developed a stream/watershed classification system for streams and rivers of various sizes (Nadeau et al. 2012), based in part on a hydrologic landscape classification system, addressing local assessment units, previously developed for Oregon (Wigington et al. 2013). The current stream classification system (Nadeau et al., in prep) reflects recent modifications to the hydrologic landscape classification system (Comeleo et al. 2014) that informs several of the included parameters. The system is hierarchical, expandable, and dualistic—providing information at both the local (reach) and watershed (integrative) scales. It recognizes the hydrologic and geologic drivers of stream functions, and meets several a prioricriteria established to assure statewide applicability: (1) the same variables are applied regardless of geography to assure consistency across regions, (2) classification is accomplished through an automated GIS process, (3) classes do not require field verification, and (4) data used are at appropriate resolution.Each stream type is defined by basic hydrologic and physical characteristics and determinants of flow regime, and reflects broad functional expectations. Because stream processes are highly influenced by watershed scale parameters, we developed watershed scale data layers to address such questions as annual water surplus availability, seasonality of surplus release, and floodplain influence. Adding a watershed component to the classification promotes consideration of watershed processes in developing and implementing an effective stream mitigation program, and informing implementation of other water-related programs.
Metadata: http://oe.oregonexplorer.info/ExternalContent/epa/StreamClassification_4_2015.xml
Copyright Text: Nadeau T-L., P.J. Wigington Jr., R.L. Comeleo, S.G. Leibowitz, R.J. Brooks, S. Patil, D.J. Sobota. 2012. A dualistic stream classification system for Oregon: in support of a stream compensatory mitigation framework. American Geophysical Union, Winter Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Wigington, P.J., Jr., S.G. Leibowitz, R.L. Comeleo, J.L. Ebersole. 2013. Oregon hydrologic landscapes: a classification framework. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 49:163-182.
Comeleo, R.L., P.J. Wigington Jr., S.G. Leibowitz. 2014. Creation of a digital aquifer permeability map for the Pacific Northwest. EPA/600/R-14/431, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas. The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the analysis of patterns of biotic and abiotic phenomena, including geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels for ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 50 regions (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997). At Level III, the continental United States contains 105 regions whereas the conterminous United States has 85 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). Level IV ecoregions are further subdivisions of Level III ecoregions. Methods used to define the ecoregions are explained in Omernik (1995, 2004), Omernik and others (2000), and Gallant and others (1989).
Metadata: http://oe.oregonexplorer.info/externalcontent/metadata/Ecoregions_L3_2013.xml
Download: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/EPADataCommons/ORD/Ecoregions/us/
Copyright Text: US Environmental Protection Agency