Description: Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution.These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by native or non-native fish populations. The term "currently" is defined as within the past five reproductive cycles. Historical habitat includes suitable habitat that fish no longer access and will not access in the foreseeable future without human intervention. This information is based on sampling, the best professional opinion of Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife or other natural resources agency staff biologists or modeling (see the fhdBasis field). Due to natural variations in run size, water conditions, or other environmental factors, some habitats identified may not be used annually. These data now comply with the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard that was adopted by the Oregon Geographic Information Council in June 2015. The Standard document can be found at: http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/CIO/GEO/fit/bioscience/docs/OregonFishHabitatDistributionDataStandardv3.pdf. Historical habitat distribution data are within the scope of the standard and are identified via the habitat use (fhdUseType) attribute. Historical habitats are only identified outside of currently accessible habitat and are not comprehensive. Key features of the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data include: species, run, life history, habitat use, origin, production, the basis for each record, originator name, originator entity and reference. Habitat distribution data are mapped at a 1:24,000 scale statewide and are based on the National Hydrography dataset. The data are made available as GIS files in both shapefile and ESRI geodatabase format. The data were developed over an extensive time period ranging from 1996 to 2015. The data were recently migrated to USGS managed, Hydrography Event Management (HEM) tool compliant, event feature class format based on the National Hydrography Dataset.
Copyright Text: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Jon K. Bowers, Ruth Schellbach, David L. Bradford. Numerous fisheries biologists from ODFW as well as other natural resource agencies and tribes have contributed toward the development of these data. Data originator names are attributed at the feature level.
Description: Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution.These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by native or non-native fish populations. The term "currently" is defined as within the past five reproductive cycles. Historical habitat includes suitable habitat that fish no longer access and will not access in the foreseeable future without human intervention. This information is based on sampling, the best professional opinion of Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife or other natural resources agency staff biologists or modeling (see the fhdBasis field). Due to natural variations in run size, water conditions, or other environmental factors, some habitats identified may not be used annually. These data now comply with the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard that was adopted by the Oregon Geographic Information Council in June 2015. The Standard document can be found at: http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/CIO/GEO/fit/bioscience/docs/OregonFishHabitatDistributionDataStandardv3.pdf. Historical habitat distribution data are within the scope of the standard and are identified via the habitat use (fhdUseType) attribute. Historical habitats are only identified outside of currently accessible habitat and are not comprehensive. Key features of the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data include: species, run, life history, habitat use, origin, production, the basis for each record, originator name, originator entity and reference. Habitat distribution data are mapped at a 1:24,000 scale statewide and are based on the National Hydrography dataset. The data are made available as GIS files in both shapefile and ESRI geodatabase format. The data were developed over an extensive time period ranging from 1996 to 2016. The data, while now managed on the National Hydrography Dataset, are published by unique feature ID's that share a common set of attributes.
Copyright Text: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Jon K. Bowers, Ruth Schellbach, David L. Bradford. Numerous fisheries biologists from ODFW as well as other natural resource agencies and tribes have contributed toward the development of these data. Data originator names are attributed at the feature level.
Description: These data describe areas of suitable habitat believed to be used currently or historically by native or non-native fish populations. The term "currently" is defined as within the past five reproductive cycles. Historical habitat includes suitable habitat that fish no longer access and will not access in the foreseeable future without human intervention. This information is based on sampling, the best professional opinion of Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife or other natural resources agency staff biologists or modeling (see the fhdBasis field). Due to natural variations in run size, water conditions, or other environmental factors, some habitats identified may not be used annually. These data now comply with the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard that was adopted by the Oregon Geographic Information Council in June 2015. The Standard document can be found at: http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/CIO/GEO/fit/bioscience/docs/OregonFishHabitatDistributionDataStandardv3.pdf. Historical habitat distribution data are within the scope of the standard and are identified via the habitat use (fhdUseType) attribute. Historical habitats are only identified outside of currently accessible habitat and are not comprehensive. Key features of the Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data include: species, run, life history, habitat use, origin, production, the basis for each record, originator name, originator entity and reference. Habitat distribution data are mapped at a 1:24,000 scale statewide and are based on the National Hydrography dataset. The data are made available as GIS files in both shapefile and ESRI geodatabase format. The data were developed primarily in 2011 and were linear referenced to the National Hydrography Dataset in Spring of 2014.
Copyright Text: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Jon K. Bowers, Ruth Schellbach, David L. Bradford. Numerous fisheries biologists from ODFW as well as other natural resource agencies and tribes have contributed toward the development of these data. Data originator names are attributed at the feature level.
Description: The Wetland Conservancy and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided .kml files with pin points showing dam locations. The latitude and longitude of the points are saved in the properties of the file. The latitude and longitude was used to add a point (Absolute X Y) in the ArcGIS shapefile layer. Similarly, the Tualatin River Keepers provided a screen shot of Google Earth with two pin points indicating dams. The exact latitude and longitude information could not be obtained from a screenshot, but the approximate location was determined based on landmarks and streets and the points were added to the ArcGIS shapefile layer. During meetings with USDA and Tigard Public Works, beaver dam locations were either marked on hardcopy maps or verbally explained using street names and parks. After the meeting, the maps and meeting notes were referenced and points of the beaver dams were created based on their descriptions. Also during these meetings, the source would state whether there was a known conflict and what the conflict was. This information was recorded in the Conflicts column of the attribute table.USGS had two field technicians walk specific stream reaches to record the GPS coordinates of beaver dams. The field technicians recorded the latitude and longitude information, as well as some other dam characteristic information, in an Excel spreadsheet. The coordinates from the spreadsheet were used to create points (Absolute X Y) within the ArcGIS layer. Clean Water Services provided the shapefiles for the 2013 and 2014 Rapid Bio Assessment that was conducted by Steve Task of Bio-Surveys, LLC in the Tualatin Basin. During the assessment, pools were surveyed for fish abundance and species. The technicians counted each beaver dam in their survey reaches, and the number of dams was noted. Ben Protzman (CWS) estimates that accuracy of the coordinates for the pools were +/- 30 meters when there was a thick canopy. The 2014 survey mapped 1009 pools, and 86 of them had beaver dams present. The attributes (along with the x and y coordinates) that contained beaver dams were selected and were added to the Beaver Dam Inventory attribute table. For these attributes, a GPS point represents the beginning of a stream reach. The number of beaver dams in that reach (and near that GPS coordinate) was noted in the attribute table. Therefore, one GPS point may represent up to 4 beaver dams.
Description: The objective of the study was to determine the current condition of biological communities in streams throughout the Tualatin River basin and to ascertain longer-term trends in these conditions using both current and historic data.
Description: The location of these wetlands was determined by Pacific Habitat Services using 1"=200' scale aerial photographs and ground truthing as part of the Bethany Local Wetlands Inventory.
Description: In the winter of 2008, field researchers GPS'ed or digitized from aerial photos, wetlands in the West Bull Mountain Natural Resource Area.
Description: This is the final wetland mapping results for the South Cooper Mountain LWI showing all mapped wetlands and other waters features (e.g. ponds) mapped as polygons within the LWI study area. The data was compiled by David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) based on a combination of field investigations by DEA where property access was granted, information from property owner consultant representatives (formal wetland delineations approved by DSL and reconnaisance level documentation not formally reviewed by DSL), aerial photo review, and review of NWI and Soils survey mapping. Typical mapping accuracy is 15 feet or better. Wetland features formally delineated by others and concurred by DSL are assumed to have accuracy of 3 feet or better. DEA recieved the electronic linework from the associated consultants and incorporated it directly into this wetland GIS layer. Additional methods are provided in the South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area LWI Report prepared by DEA (Feb 2016).Field Descriptions:DEA_type: feature type as determined by DEA (e.g. wetland, open water, probable wetland, or detention pond)DEA_ID: feature ID as assigned by DEA. W-# refers to wetland features; PW-# refers to probable wetland features; OW-# refers to open water features (i.e. ponds); DP-# refers to stormwater detention pondsDEA_LSW = Mapped wetlands determined to be Locally Significant Wetlands (Y = yes, significant; N = not significant)DEA_ID = feature ID assigned by DEA.SiteAccess: yes = site access was granted, no = site access was not grantedVisualConfirm: na = not applicable since site access was granted; yes = feature presence and approximate boundaries could be confirmed from off-site location (e.g. adjacent property or public right of way); Others = direct visual confirmation not possible, but landowner consultant had provided field recon documentation, or property had an approved wetland delineation.DSL_WDs: = wetland boundary was at least partially delineated by an approved wetland delineation. Some wetlands extend onto adjacent properties with no approved delineation.Artificial: provides a label description for artificially created features. Note that artificial pond features are likely still regulated since they are in line with natural features that provide their hydrology source. Stormwater detention ponds are not typically regulated by DSL or the USACE.DEA_Cowrdn and DEA_HGM: these are the Cowardin and Hydrogeomorphic classes as assigned to wetland and water features by DEA. Not applicable (na) is assigned to the stormwater detention ponds.
Copyright Text: David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA)
Supporting documentation provided by:
• AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC. Dyches Property Wetland and Waters Delineation Report,
Beaverton, Oregon (2014)(DSL WD#2015-0063)
• Anchor QEA, LLC. Wetland Delineation Report, West Hills Development: Crescent Grove
Property (2015)(DSL WD#2015-0105)
• Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. Wetland Delineation for Beaverton School District in Beaverton,
Washington County, Oregon (2014)(DSL WD#2014-0497)
• Environmental Science and Assessment (2013)Fox Hollow Wetland/Goal 5 Natural Resource Determination (18200 SW Horse Tale Drive
Washington County, Oregon, Tax Map 1S131000, lot 1602) Technical Memorandum
• Environmental Science and Assessment (2013), Oregon Goal 5 and Metro Title 13 Natural Resources Determination –Scholls Ferry Road
Properties (Tax Map 2S10600, lots 301, 302, and 700) Technical Memorandum
Description: Data were collected in order to prepare a Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) pursuant to Oregon Revised Statues (ORS) and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), and to comply with Goal 5 of the State of Oregon Statewide Planning Goals.
Copyright Text: Data collected by Fishman Environmental Services, LLC on behalf of the City of Hillsboro
Description: Wetland boundaries were identified using differentially corrected GPS data were accessible and digitized from 6" aerial imagery were no access was granted.
Description: Created to prepare a Local Wetland Inventory pursuant to Oregon Revised Statues (ORS) and the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) and to comply with Goal 5 of the State of Oregon Statewide Planning Goals.
Copyright Text: Published by Pacific Habitat Services
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). 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.
Description: The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) is a comprehensive aggregated collection of hydrologic unit data consistent with the national criteria for delineation and resolution. It defines the areal extent of surface water drainage to a point except in coastal or lake front areas where there could be multiple outlets as stated by the "Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)" “Standard” (http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/11/a3/). Watershed boundaries are determined solely upon science-based hydrologic principles, not favoring any administrative boundaries or special projects, nor particular program or agency. This dataset represents the hydrologic unit boundaries to the 12-digit (6th level) for the entire United States. Some areas may also include additional subdivisions representing the 14- and 16-digit hydrologic unit (HU). At a minimum, the HUs are delineated at 1:24,000-scale in the conterminous United States, 1:25,000-scale in Hawaii, Pacific basin and the Caribbean, and 1:63,360-scale in Alaska, meeting the National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS). Higher resolution boundaries are being developed where partners and data exist and will be incorporated back into the WBD. WBD data are delivered as a dataset of polygons and corresponding lines that define the boundary of the polygon. WBD polygon attributes include hydrologic unit codes (HUC), size (in the form of acres and square kilometers), name, downstream hydrologic unit code, type of watershed, non-contributing areas, and flow modifications. The HUC describes where the unit is in the country and the level of the unit. WBD line attributes contain the highest level of hydrologic unit for each boundary, line source information and flow modifications.
Copyright Text: Funding for the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) was provided by the USDA-NRCS, USGS and EPA along with other federal, state and local agenciesies. Representatives from many agencies contributed a substantial amount of time and salary towards quality review and updating of the dataset in order to meet the WBD Standards. Acknowledgment of the originating agencies would be appreciated in products derived from these data. See dataset specific metadata for further information
Description: The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) is a comprehensive aggregated collection of hydrologic unit data consistent with the national criteria for delineation and resolution. It defines the areal extent of surface water drainage to a point except in coastal or lake front areas where there could be multiple outlets as stated by the "Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)" “Standard” (http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/11/a3/). Watershed boundaries are determined solely upon science-based hydrologic principles, not favoring any administrative boundaries or special projects, nor particular program or agency. This dataset represents the hydrologic unit boundaries to the 12-digit (6th level) for the entire United States. Some areas may also include additional subdivisions representing the 14- and 16-digit hydrologic unit (HU). At a minimum, the HUs are delineated at 1:24,000-scale in the conterminous United States, 1:25,000-scale in Hawaii, Pacific basin and the Caribbean, and 1:63,360-scale in Alaska, meeting the National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS). Higher resolution boundaries are being developed where partners and data exist and will be incorporated back into the WBD. WBD data are delivered as a dataset of polygons and corresponding lines that define the boundary of the polygon. WBD polygon attributes include hydrologic unit codes (HUC), size (in the form of acres and square kilometers), name, downstream hydrologic unit code, type of watershed, non-contributing areas, and flow modifications. The HUC describes where the unit is in the country and the level of the unit. WBD line attributes contain the highest level of hydrologic unit for each boundary, line source information and flow modifications.
Copyright Text: Funding for the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) was provided by the USDA-NRCS, USGS and EPA along with other federal, state and local agenciesies. Representatives from many agencies contributed a substantial amount of time and salary towards quality review and updating of the dataset in order to meet the WBD Standards. Acknowledgment of the originating agencies would be appreciated in products derived from these data. See dataset specific metadata for further information
Description: This data represents mature canopy cover, or vegetation taller than 20 feet, in the Tualatin River Watershed. The data was created using LiDAR data captured in 2014, combined with a Green-Blue Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (GBNDVI) to isolate vegetation from other features taller than 20 feet.This dataset contains two values,1 and 0, with 1 representing mature canopy cover and 0 representing everything else.
Description: This layer only displays the Highest values of those areas evaluated. The Riparian Habitat Model describes riparian habitat value for conservation purposes. Over 400,000 acres were evaluated, though this data only shows the highest values. We decided to display these values in a continues ramp from High - Highest values. The Riparian Habitat Model is calculated:Riparian = FEMA floodplains + NHD stream buffers + Other stream buffers + Wetland buffers Executive SummaryPrior to November 2010, when The Intertwine Alliance launched the Regional Conservation Strategy (RCS) and Biodiversity Guide (RBG) efforts for the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan region, conservation priorities in the metropolitan region were identified at a broad regional scale that generally excluded urban areas (e.g., state conservation strategies and Willamette Synthesis); were regional but based solely on expert opinion (e.g., Natural Features); and consisted of localized priorities that abruptly ended at jurisdiction boundaries. The goal of the RCS was to fill in the gaps between broad and local scales of information related to conservation priorities. RCS members envisioned a data-driven approach that could add a regional perspective to local efforts and facilitate cross-scale cooperation toward protecting remaining valuable habitat in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan region. Also, RCS members expected that the product would complement rather than replace local knowledge, by validating what is known and expanding to areas that are less well known.The RCS Technical Working Group hired the Institute for Natural Resources to develop a land cover layer at a spatial resolution appropriate for highly fragmented areas (5m versus the typical 30m), then to develop a conservation priority model that addressed both aquatic and terrestrial conservation needs. Several key products resulted from the project: the High-value Habitat Model describing high-value terrestrial habitat within the metropolitan region, the Riparian Habitat Model describing high-value habitat adjacent to streams and rivers, and the high spatial resolution land cover data set describing land cover at a 5 m spatial resolution. In June 2011, INR completed an initial proof-of-concept product describing high value conservation areas in the Portland-Vancouver region. The product demonstrated a methodology that enabled stakeholder involvement while also being data-driven. In May 2012, a second version of this product was completed. While the product is considered final at this time, it is expected and hoped that the models and data will be updated and improved upon into the future as more funds and better information becomes available so that the product functions as a “living work” rather than a one-time snapshot in time.Among the data used, the habitat prioritization modeling makes use of multiple data sets including high, 5 m spatial resolution imagery, improving on past efforts that were mapped at 30 m spatial resolution and nationally available data. The 5 m spatial resolution allows users to distinguish individual features on the landscape, such as large tree canopies. Because urban landscapes are widely diverse in terms of the vegetation types and types of surfaces (e.g., sidewalks, rooftops, plants, etc.), and many materials may be located in small areas, high resolution spatial data is essential to understanding and cataloging urban areas. The nationally available data allows the products to use spatially consistent data across the whole metropolitan region. Local data sets were used to supplement region-wide data sets. Data SummaryThe Riparian Habitat layer was developed by overlaying four ranked data sets in ArcGIS using the "Calculate Riparian Metric" tool produced for this project. The four layers used were: NHD stream buffers, other stream buffers, FEMA floodplains, 100 year, and Wetland buffers. The NHD stream buffers layer was developed using information on salmonid presence, flow velocity, and flow volume. The other stream buffers layer was developed using expert assigned buffers of influence based on stream types. FEMA floodplains were acquired from FEMA (http://msc.fema.gov). Wetlands were buffered by 30 m and excluded if farther than 200 m from a stream. Each input layer's ranking values were adjusted according to the surface runoff within their buffers and the path distance from feature edges to their buffer boundaries (within the buffers). The input layers were weighted and combined using the following scheme: Riparian = (NHD stream buffer * 0.175) + (Other stream buffers * 0.3) + (FEMA floodplain * 0.4) + (Wetland buffer * 0.125).Stream data sources used to develop this data set were National Hydrography Dataset (NHD; 1:100,000; http://nhd.usgs.gov/) and Oregon Department of Geology and Mines (http://www.oregongeology.org). Fish distribution data were obtained from the StreamNet database (http://www.streamnet.org). FEMA 100 year floodplains were downloaded from the FEMA Map Service Center (http://msc.fema.gov). Wetlands data were obtained from the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center and Oregon Explorer (http://oregonexplorer.info/wetlands/DataCollections/GeospatialData). Surface runoff was estimated using land cover classes described in the Intertwine High Spatial Resolution Land Cover data set (IHSRLC). Data version: Riparian_1_05
Copyright Text: Institute for Natural Resources, Clean Water Services, METRO, Clark County GIS
Description: This layer only displays the Highest values of those areas evaluated. The Riparian Habitat Model describes riparian habitat value for conservation purposes. Over 400,000 acres were evaluated, though this data only shows the highest values. We decided to display these values in a continues ramp from High - Highest values. The Riparian Habitat Model is calculated:Riparian = FEMA floodplains + NHD stream buffers + Other stream buffers + Wetland buffers Executive SummaryPrior to November 2010, when The Intertwine Alliance launched the Regional Conservation Strategy (RCS) and Biodiversity Guide (RBG) efforts for the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan region, conservation priorities in the metropolitan region were identified at a broad regional scale that generally excluded urban areas (e.g., state conservation strategies and Willamette Synthesis); were regional but based solely on expert opinion (e.g., Natural Features); and consisted of localized priorities that abruptly ended at jurisdiction boundaries. The goal of the RCS was to fill in the gaps between broad and local scales of information related to conservation priorities. RCS members envisioned a data-driven approach that could add a regional perspective to local efforts and facilitate cross-scale cooperation toward protecting remaining valuable habitat in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan region. Also, RCS members expected that the product would complement rather than replace local knowledge, by validating what is known and expanding to areas that are less well known.The RCS Technical Working Group hired the Institute for Natural Resources to develop a land cover layer at a spatial resolution appropriate for highly fragmented areas (5m versus the typical 30m), then to develop a conservation priority model that addressed both aquatic and terrestrial conservation needs. Several key products resulted from the project: the High-value Habitat Model describing high-value terrestrial habitat within the metropolitan region, the Riparian Habitat Model describing high-value habitat adjacent to streams and rivers, and the high spatial resolution land cover data set describing land cover at a 5 m spatial resolution. In June 2011, INR completed an initial proof-of-concept product describing high value conservation areas in the Portland-Vancouver region. The product demonstrated a methodology that enabled stakeholder involvement while also being data-driven. In May 2012, a second version of this product was completed. While the product is considered final at this time, it is expected and hoped that the models and data will be updated and improved upon into the future as more funds and better information becomes available so that the product functions as a “living work” rather than a one-time snapshot in time.Among the data used, the habitat prioritization modeling makes use of multiple data sets including high, 5 m spatial resolution imagery, improving on past efforts that were mapped at 30 m spatial resolution and nationally available data. The 5 m spatial resolution allows users to distinguish individual features on the landscape, such as large tree canopies. Because urban landscapes are widely diverse in terms of the vegetation types and types of surfaces (e.g., sidewalks, rooftops, plants, etc.), and many materials may be located in small areas, high resolution spatial data is essential to understanding and cataloging urban areas. The nationally available data allows the products to use spatially consistent data across the whole metropolitan region. Local data sets were used to supplement region-wide data sets. Data SummaryThe Riparian Habitat layer was developed by overlaying four ranked data sets in ArcGIS using the "Calculate Riparian Metric" tool produced for this project. The four layers used were: NHD stream buffers, other stream buffers, FEMA floodplains, 100 year, and Wetland buffers. The NHD stream buffers layer was developed using information on salmonid presence, flow velocity, and flow volume. The other stream buffers layer was developed using expert assigned buffers of influence based on stream types. FEMA floodplains were acquired from FEMA (http://msc.fema.gov). Wetlands were buffered by 30 m and excluded if farther than 200 m from a stream. Each input layer's ranking values were adjusted according to the surface runoff within their buffers and the path distance from feature edges to their buffer boundaries (within the buffers). The input layers were weighted and combined using the following scheme: Riparian = (NHD stream buffer * 0.175) + (Other stream buffers * 0.3) + (FEMA floodplain * 0.4) + (Wetland buffer * 0.125).Stream data sources used to develop this data set were National Hydrography Dataset (NHD; 1:100,000; http://nhd.usgs.gov/) and Oregon Department of Geology and Mines (http://www.oregongeology.org). Fish distribution data were obtained from the StreamNet database (http://www.streamnet.org). FEMA 100 year floodplains were downloaded from the FEMA Map Service Center (http://msc.fema.gov). Wetlands data were obtained from the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center and Oregon Explorer (http://oregonexplorer.info/wetlands/DataCollections/GeospatialData). Surface runoff was estimated using land cover classes described in the Intertwine High Spatial Resolution Land Cover data set (IHSRLC). Data version: Riparian_1_05
Copyright Text: Institute for Natural Resources, Clean Water Services, METRO, Clark County GIS