A Web Map displaying the property ownership boundaries within Natrona County, as well as the municipal boundaries, addresses, Improvement Service District boundaries, streets, roads, Township, Range, and Section Boundaries and zoning boundaries.

This dataset represents the portion of Surface and Mineral Ownership for the State of Wyoming within the Wyoming portions of the Utah Sub-Region for the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy. This data was used during preparation of a draft and final environmental impact statement and the record of decision to consider amendments to 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah, as well as consideration of 6 Forest Service land use plans, including portions of two that extended into Wyoming. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on September 24, 2015. The purpose of the planning process was to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process resulted in preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with cooperating agencies for the planning effort. The planning effort addressed the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, as well as addressing the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS. This dataset is intended to represent the ownership information on Master Title Plats (MTPs). Surface ownership will be identified by the Agency of Jurisdiction, when the surface is Federal. All other parcels will be identified as either Private or State. Private parcels do not identify the name of the individual owner.

The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public open space and voluntarily provided, private protected areas, identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastral Theme (http://www.fgdc.gov/ngda-reports/NGDA_Datasets.html). PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database of areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural, recreational or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The geodatabase maps and describes public open space and other protected areas. Most areas are public lands owned in fee; however, long-term easements, leases, and agreements or administrative designations documented in agency management plans may be included. The PAD-US database strives to be a complete “best available” inventory of protected areas (lands and waters) including data provided by managing agencies and organizations. The dataset is built in collaboration with several partners and data providers (http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/stewards/). See Supplemental Information Section of this metadata record for more information on partnerships and links to major partner organizations. As this dataset is a compilation of many data sets; data completeness, accuracy, and scale may vary. Federal and state data are generally complete, while local government and private protected area coverage is about 50% complete, and depends on data management capacity in the state. For completeness estimates by state: http://www.protectedlands.net/partners. As the federal and state data are reasonably complete; focus is shifting to completing the inventory of local gov and voluntarily provided, private protected areas. The PAD-US geodatabase contains over twenty-five attributes and four feature classes to support data management, queries, web mapping services and analyses: Marine Protected Areas (MPA), Fee, Easements and Combined. The data contained in the MPA Feature class are provided directly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA, http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov ) tracking the National Marine Protected Areas System. The Easements feature class contains data provided directly from the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED, http://conservationeasement.us ) The MPA and Easement feature classes contain some attributes unique to the sole source databases tracking them (e.g. Easement Holder Name from NCED, Protection Level from NOAA MPA Inventory). The "Combined" feature class integrates all fee, easement and MPA features as the best available national inventory of protected areas in the standard PAD-US framework. In addition to geographic boundaries, PAD-US describes the protection mechanism category (e.g. fee, easement, designation, other), owner and managing agency, designation type, unit name, area, public access and state name in a suite of standardized fields. An informative set of references (i.e. Aggregator Source, GIS Source, GIS Source Date) and "local" or source data fields provide a transparent link between standardized PAD-US fields and information from authoritative data sources. The areas in PAD-US are also assigned conservation measures that assess management intent to permanently protect biological diversity: the nationally relevant "GAP Status Code" and global "IUCN Category" standard. A wealth of attributes facilitates a wide variety of data analyses and creates a context for data to be used at local, regional, state, national and international scales. More information about specific updates and changes to this PAD-US version can be found in the Data Quality Information section of this metadata record as well as on the PAD-US website, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/history/.) Due to the completeness and complexity of these data, it is highly recommended to review the Supplemental Information Section of the metadata record as well as the Data Use Constraints, to better understand data partnerships as well as see tips and ideas of appropriate uses of the data and how to parse out the data that you are looking for. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/. To find more data resources as well as view example analysis performed using PAD-US data visit, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/resources/. The PAD-US dataset and data standard are compiled and maintained by the USGS Gap Analysis Program, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/ . For more information about data standards and how the data are aggregated please review the “Standards and Methods Manual for PAD-US,” http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/standards/ .

This TNC Lands spatial dataset represents the lands and waters in which The Nature Conservancy (TNC) currently has, or historically had, an interest, legal or otherwise in Wyoming. The system of record for TNC Lands is the Legal Records Management (LRM) system, which is TNC’s database for all TNC land transactions.TNC properties should not be considered open to the public unless specifically designated as being so. TNC may change the access status at any time at its sole discretion. It's recommended to visit preserve-specific websites or contact the organization operating the preserve before any planned visit for the latest conditions, notices, and closures. TNC prohibits redistribution or display of the data in maps or online in any way that misleadingly implies such lands are universally open to the public.The types of current land interests represented in the TNC Lands data include: Fields and Attributes included in the public dataset:Field NameField DefinitionAttributesAttribute Definitions Public NameThe name of the tract that The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Business Unit (BU) uses for public audiences.Public name of tract if applicableN/A TNC Primary InterestThe primary interest held by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) on the tractFee OwnershipProperties where TNC currently holds fee-title or exclusive rights and control over real estate. Fee Ownership can include TNC Nature Preserves, managed areas, and properties that are held for future transfer. Conservation EasementProperties on which TNC holds a conservation easement, which is a legally binding agreement restricting the use of real property for conservation purposes (e.g., no development). The easement may additionally provide the holder (TNC) with affirmative rights, such as the rights to monitor species or to manage the land. It may run forever or for an expressed term of years. Deed RestrictionProperties where TNC holds a deed restriction, which is a provision placed in a deed restricting or limiting the use of the property in some manner (e.g., if a property goes up for sale, TNC gets the first option). TransferProperties where TNC historically had a legal interest (fee or easement), then subsequently transferred the interest to a conservation partner. AssistProperties where TNC assisted another agency/entity in protecting. Management Lease or AgreementAn agreement between two parties whereby one party allows the other to use their property for a certain period of time in exchange for a periodic fee. Grazing Lease or PermitA grazing lease or permit held by The Nature Conservancy Right of WayAn access easement or agreement held by The Nature Conservancy. OtherAnother real estate interest or legal agreement held by The Nature Conservancy Fee OwnerThe name of the organization serving as fee owner of the tract, or "Private Land Owner" if the owner is a private party. If The Nature Conservancy (TNC) primary interest is a "Transfer" or "Assist", then this is the fee owner at the time of the transaction.Fee Owner NameN/A Fee Org TypeThe type of organization(s) that hold(s) fee ownership. Chosen from a list of accepted values.Organization Types for Fee OwnershipFED:Federal, TRIB:American Indian Lands, STAT:State,DIST:Regional Agency Special District, LOC:Local Government, NGO:Non-Governmental Organization, PVT:Private, JNT:Joint, UNK:Unknown, TERR:Territorial, DESG:Designation Other Interest HolderThe name of the organization(s) that hold(s) a different interest in the tract, besides fee ownership or TNC Primary Interest. This may include TNC if the Other Interest is held or co-held by TNC. Multiple interest holders should be separated by a semicolon (;).Other Interest Holder NameN/A Other Interest Org TypeThe type of organization(s) that hold(s) a different interest in the tract, besides fee ownership. This may include TNC if the Other Interest is held or co-held by TNC. Chosen from a list of accepted values.Organization Types for interest holders:FED:Federal, TRIB:American Indian Lands, STAT:State,DIST:Regional Agency Special District, LOC:Local Government, NGO:Non-Governmental Organization, PVT:Private, JNT:Joint, UNK:Unknown, TERR:Territorial, DESG:Designation Other Interest TypeThe other interest type held on the tract. Chosen from a list of accepted values.​Access Right of Way; Conservation Easement; Co-held Conservation Easement; Deed Restriction; Co-held Deed Restriction; Fee Ownership; Co-held Fee Ownership; Grazing Lease or Permit; Life Estate; Management Lease or Agreement; Timber Lease or Agreement; OtherN/A Preserve NameThe name of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) preserve that the tract is a part of, this may be the same name as the as the "Public Name" for the tract.Preserve Name if applicableN/APublic AccessThe level of public access allowed on the tract.Open AccessAccess is encouraged on the tract, trails are maintained, signage is abundant, and parking is available. The tract may include regular hours of availability.Open with Limited AccessThere are no special requirements for public access to the tract, the tract may include regular hours of availability with limited amenities.Restricted AccessThe tract requires a special permit from the owner for access, a registration permit on public land, or has highly variable times or conditions to use.Closed AccessNo public access is allowed on the tract.UnknownAccess information for the tract is not currently available.Gap CategoryThe Gap Analysis Project (GAP) code for the tract. Gap Analysis is the science of determining how well we are protecting common plants and animals. Developing the data and tools to support that science is the mission of the Gap Analysis Project (GAP) at the US Geological Survey. See their website for more information, linked in the field name.1 - Permanent Protection for BiodiversityPermanent Protection for Biodiversity2 - Permanent Protection to Maintain a Primarily Natural StatePermanent Protection to Maintain a Primarily Natural State3 - Permanently Secured for Multiple Uses and in natural coverPermanently Secured for Multiple Uses and in natural cover39 - Permanently Secured and in agriculture or maintained grass coverPermanently Secured and in agriculture or maintained grass cover4 - UnsecuredUnsecured (temporary easements lands and/or municipal lands that are already developed (schools, golf course, soccer fields, ball fields)9 - UnknownUnknownProtected AcresThe planar area of the tract polygon in acres, calculated by the TNC Lands geographic information system (GIS).Total geodesic area of polygon in acresProjection: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereOriginal Protection DateThe original protection date for the tract, from the Land Resource Management (LRM) system record.Original protection dateN/AStateThe state within the United States of America or the Canadian province where the tract is located.Chosen from a list of state names.N/ACountryThe name of the country where the tract is located.Chosen from a list of countries.N/ADivisionThe name of the TNC North America Region Division where the tract is located. Chosen from a list of TNC North America DivisionsN/A

State lands information - ownership, easements, and easement applications - as provided by the Office of State Lands and Investments. Provided via a map server.

These are the corners of the PLSS. This data set contains summary information about the coordinate _location and reliability of corner coordinate information within the BLM Administrative State of Wyoming. The information in the corner feature has been collected by the identified data steward. For more information about corner locations, credits and use limitations the identified data steward in the corner feature should be contacted. These are not the official representations and SHOULD NOT be used to determine official corner positions.

This data set depicts federal lands having restrictions on access or activities -- that is, lands mangaed by the National Park Service, Defense Department, or Energy Department -- in western North America. The data set was created by reformatting and merging state- and province-based ownership data layers originally acquired from diverse sources (including state GAP programs, USBLM state offices and other sources). For each original dataset 3 additional fields, "Pub_Pvt", "CA_OWN", and "SOURCE" were added and populated based on the specific ownership information contained in the source data. The original coverages were then merged based on the "CA_OWN" field. Finally, NPS, DOD, and DOE lands were selected out of the ownership layer. All work was completed in AcMap 8.3. This product and all source data are available online from SAGEMAP: http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov.

This dataset combines the work of several different projects to create a seamless data set for the contiguous United States. Data from four regional Gap Analysis Projects and the LANDFIRE project were combined to make this dataset. In the northwestern United States (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Wyoming) data in this map came from the Northwest Gap Analysis Project. In the southwestern United States (Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) data used in this map came from the Southwest Gap Analysis Project. The data for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia came from the Southeast Gap Analysis Project and the California data was generated by the updated California Gap land cover project. The Hawaii Gap Analysis project provided the data for Hawaii. In areas of the county (central U.S., Northeast, Alaska) that have not yet been covered by a regional Gap Analysis Project, data from the Landfire project was used. Similarities in the methods used by these projects made possible the combining of the data they derived into one seamless coverage. They all used multi-season satellite imagery (Landsat ETM+) from 1999-2001 in conjunction with digital elevation model (DEM) derived datasets (e.g. elevation, landform) to model natural and semi-natural vegetation. Vegetation classes were drawn from NatureServe's Ecological System Classification (Comer et al. 2003) or classes developed by the Hawaii Gap project. Additionally, all of the projects included land use classes that were employed to describe areas where natural vegetation has been altered. In many areas of the country these classes were derived from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). For the majority of classes and, in most areas of the country, a decision tree classifier was used to discriminate ecological system types. In some areas of the country, more manual techniques were used to discriminate small patch systems and systems not distinguishable through topography. The data contains multiple levels of thematic detail. At the most detailed level natural vegetation is represented by NatureServe's Ecological System classification (or in Hawaii the Hawaii GAP classification). These most detailed classifications have been crosswalked to the five highest levels of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC), Class, Subclass, Formation, Division and Macrogroup. This crosswalk allows users to display and analyze the data at different levels of thematic resolution. Developed areas, or areas dominated by introduced species, timber harvest, or water are represented by other classes, collectively refered to as land use classes; these land use classes occur at each of the thematic levels. Raster data in both ArcGIS Grid and ERDAS Imagine format is available for download at http://gis1.usgs.gov/csas/gap/viewer/land_cover/Map.aspx Six layer files are included in the download packages to assist the user in displaying the data at each of the Thematic levels in ArcGIS. In adition to the raster datasets the data is available in Web Mapping Services (WMS) format for each of the six NVC classification levels (Class, Subclass, Formation, Division, Macrogroup, Ecological System) at the following links. http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Class_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Subclass_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Formation_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Division_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Macrogroup_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_Ecological_Systems_Landuse/MapServer

This EnviroAtlas dataset is a point feature class showing the locations of stream confluences, with attributes showing indices of ecological integrity in the upstream catchments and watersheds of stream confluences and the results of a cluster analysis of these indices. Stream confluences are important components of fluvial networks. Hydraulic forces meeting at stream confluences often produce changes in streambed morphology and sediment distribution, and these changes often increase habitat heterogeneity relative to upstream and downstream locations. Increases in habitat heterogeneity at stream confluences have led some to identify them as biological hotspots. Despite their potential ecological importance, there are relatively few empirical studies documenting ecological patterns across the upstream-confluence-downstream gradient. To facilitate more studies of the ecological value and role of stream confluences in fluvial networks, we have produced a database of stream confluences and their associated watershed attributes for the conterminous United States. The database includes 1,085,629 stream confluences and 383 attributes for each confluence that are organized into 15 database tables for both tributary and mainstem upstream catchments ("local" watersheds) and watersheds. Themes represented by the database tables include hydrology (e.g., stream order), land cover and land cover change, geology (e.g., calcium content of underlying lithosphere), physical condition (e.g., precipitation), measures of ecological integrity, and stressors (e.g., impaired streams). We use measures of ecological integrity (Thornbrugh et al. 2018) from the StreamCat database (Hill et al. 2016) to classify stream confluences using disjoint clustering and validate the cluster results using decision tree analysis. This dataset was produced by the US EPA to support research and online mapping activities related to EnviroAtlas. EnviroAtlas (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas) allows the user to interact with a web-based, easy-to-use, mapping application to view and analyze multiple ecosystem services for the contiguous United States. The dataset is available as downloadable data (https://edg.epa.gov/data/Public/ORD/EnviroAtlas) or as an EnviroAtlas map service. Additional descriptive information about each attribute in this dataset can be found in its associated EnviroAtlas Fact Sheet (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas/enviroatlas-fact-sheets).

In the Public Land Survey System a Township refers to a unit of land, that is nominally six miles on a side, usually containing 36 sections.

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

These data are part of a larger USGS project to develop an updated geospatial database of mines, mineral deposits and mineral regions in the United States. Mine and prospect-related symbols, such as those used to represent prospect pits, mines, adits, dumps, tailings, etc., hereafter referred to as “mine” symbols or features, are currently being digitized on a state-by-state basis from the 7.5-minute (1:24, 000-scale) and the 15-minute (1:48, 000 and 1:62,500-scale) archive of the USGS Historical Topographic Maps Collection, or acquired from available databases (California and Nevada, 1:24,000-scale only). Compilation of these features is the first phase in capturing accurate locations and general information about features related to mineral resource exploration and extraction across the U.S. To date, the compilation of 400,000-plus point and polygon mine symbols from approximately 51,000 maps of 17 western states (AZ, CA, CO, ID, KS, MT, ND, NE, NM, NV, OK, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY and western TX) has been completed. The process renders not only a more complete picture of exploration and mining in the western U.S., but an approximate time line of when these activities occurred. The data may be used for land use planning, assessing abandoned mine lands and mine-related environmental impacts, assessing the value of mineral resources from Federal, State and private lands, and mapping mineralized areas and systems for input into the land management process. The data are presented as three groups of layers based on the scale of the source maps. No reconciliation between the data groups was done.

This data set is a polygon coverage. It only contains irrigated acreage in the Green River, Little Snake, and Great Divide basin within Wyoming. The initial interpretation of irrigated lands due to the works of man was taken from 1982 and 1983 aerial infra-red photos. The interpretation was then revised with 1999infra-red satellite photography. Upon completion of digitizing these areas, StateEngineer personnel provided comments for proposed alterations to the delineation. The data structure for this data set is based on graph theory, in which a two-dimensional diagram is expressed as a set of spatial objects in a manner that explicitly expresses logical relationships. Applied to a map, this concept is used to encode the spatial relationships between the objects, including such concepts as adjacency and connectivity between objects. A topologically structured data file can support graphic applications,as well as computations and analyses involving the spatial objects and their spatialrelationships. Irrigated lands and sub-irrigated lands are differentiated.

Monitoring rangelands by identifying the departure of contemporary conditions from long-term ecological potential allows for the disentanglement of natural biophysical gradients driving change from changes due to land uses and other disturbance types. We developed maps of ecological potential (EP) for shrub, sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), perennial herbaceous, litter, and bare ground fractional cover in Wyoming, USA. EP maps correspond to the potential natural vegetation cover expected by environmental conditions in the absence of anthropogenic and natural disturbance as represented by the best growing conditions and least disturbed period of the Landsat archive. EP was predicted using regression tree models with inputs of soil maps and spectral data associated with the 75th percentile of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) in the Landsat archive. We used contemporary (~2015) component cover maps on ecologically-intact sites with relatively low bare ground than expectations and with low amounts of annual herbaceous cover as training. We generated departure of vegetation cover by comparing the EP and contemporary (~2015) fractional cover. The departures represent land cover change from potential land cover and/or within state changes in 2015. Next, we converted EP and contemporary fractional cover maps into thematic land cover and evaluated departure to determine if it was great enough to result in land cover change. The contemporary conditions showed reduced shrub, sagebrush, litter, and perennial herbaceous cover and increased bare ground relative to EP. Known disturbances, such as energy development, fires, and vegetation treatments, are clearly visible on the departure maps, but not EP component maps. The most frequent departure from EP land cover was shrubland conversion to grassland. Land cover departures can be explained only in small part by known disturbance, such fire, and instead are ostensibly related to climate and land management practices. These drivers result in land cover departures that broadened the ecotone between shrubland and grassland relative to EP. Five EP layers are presented here; bare ground, perennial herbaceous, sagebrush, and shrub cover. Also available are two “crosswalked” (CW) land cover layers; 2015CW and EPCW. For more information see https://www.mrlc.gov/.

The National Land Cover Database 2006 land cover layer was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of federal agencies (www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). One of the primary goals of the project is to generate a current, consistent, seamless, and accurate National Land cover Database (NLCD) circa 2006 for the United States at medium spatial resolution. This landcover map and all documents pertaining to it are considered "provisional" until a formal accuracy assessment can be conducted. For a detailed definition and discussion on MRLC and the NLCD 2006 products, refer to Homer et al. (2004) and http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k.asp. The NLCD 2006 is created by partitioning the U.S. into mapping zones. A total of 66 mapping zones were delineated within the conterminous U.S. based on ecoregion and geographical characteristics, edge matching features and the size requirement of Landsat mosaics. Questions about the NLCD mapping zone 37A can be directed to the NLCD 2006 land cover mapping team at the USGS/EROS, Sioux Falls, SD (605) 594-6151 or mrlc@usgs.gov.

The U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center created statewide roads data for the Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office using 2009 aerial photography from the National Agriculture Imagery Program. The updated roads data resolves known concerns of omission, commission, and inconsistent representation of map scale, attribution, and ground reference dates which were present in the original source data. To ensure a systematic and repeatable approach of capturing roads on the landscape using on-screen digitizing from true color National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery, we developed a photogrammetry key and quality assurance/quality control protocols. Therefore, the updated statewide roads data will support the Bureau of Land Management’s resource management requirements with a standardized map product representing 2009 ground conditions. The updated Geographic Information System roads data set product, represented at 1:4,000 and +/- 10 meters spatial accuracy, contains 425,275 kilometers within eight attribute classes. The quality control of these products indicated a 97.7 percent accuracy of aspatial information and 98.0 percent accuracy of spatial locations. Approximately 48 percent of the updated roads data was corrected for spatial errors of greater than 1 meters relative to the pre-existing road data. Twenty-six percent of the updated roads involved correcting spatial errors of greater than 5 meters and 17 percent of the updated roads involved correcting spatial errors of greater than 9 meters. The Bureau of Land Management, other land managers, and researchers can use these new statewide roads data set products to support important studies and management decisions regarding land use changes, transportation and planning needs, transportation safety, wildlife applications, and other studies.

The data set contains 8 different classifications for road type and constitutes an improvement to a 2002 BLM Wyoming State Office roads layer for both spatial and attribute accuracy.

This data set represents the 2018 elk seasonal range boundaries for Wyoming. Seasonal range delineations depict lands that are important in each season for certain biological processes within a herd unit. Seasonal range boundaries are based on long-term observation data, specific research projects, and professional judgement. Ranges were originally digitized at a scale of 1:100,000 using USGS 1:100,000 DRGs as a backdrop for heads up digitizing, and are revised as needed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Current seasonal range definitions are based on a 1990 document drafted by the Wyoming Chapter of The Wildlife Society in cooperation with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and federal land agencies.

This EnviroAtlas dataset represents the percentage of land area in estimated floodplains that is classified as natural, forest, shrubland, wetland, developed, low intensity developed, medium intensity developed, high intensity developed, agriculture, pasture, cropland, and rangeland land cover for each 12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) in the conterminous United States. Land cover is defined using the EnviroAtlas hybrid Cropland Data Layer (CDL) - 2016 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). Floodplains were defined using the EnviroAtlas FEMA_RF_Blend dataset dated 3/25/2019. This dataset was produced by the US EPA to support research and online mapping activities related to EnviroAtlas. EnviroAtlas (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas) allows the user to interact with a web-based, easy-to-use, mapping application to view and analyze multiple ecosystem services for the contiguous United States. The dataset is available as downloadable data (https://edg.epa.gov/data/Public/ORD/EnviroAtlas) or as an EnviroAtlas map service. Additional descriptive information about each attribute in this dataset can be found in its associated EnviroAtlas Fact Sheet (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas/enviroatlas-fact-sheets).

The National Land Cover Database 2001 Land Cover 2011 Edition layer is produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of federal agencies (www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service (USDA-FS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).One of the primary goals of the project is to generate a current, consistent, seamless, and accurate National Land Cover Database (NLCD) circa 2001 for the United States at medium spatial resolution. This land cover map and all documents pertaining to it are considered "provisional" until a formal accuracy assessment can be conducted. For a detailed definition and discussion on MRLC and the NLCD 2001 products, refer to Homer et al. (2004) and http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k.asp.The NLCD 2001 is created by partitioning the U.S. into mapping zones. A total of 66 mapping zones were delineated within the conterminous U.S. based on ecoregion and geographical characteristics, edge matching features and the size requirement of Landsat mosaics. This update represents a seamless assembly of updated NLCD 2001 Land Cover (2011 Edition) for all 66 MRLC mapping zones. Questions about the NLCD the NLCD 2001 Land Cover 2011 Edition can be directed to the NLCD 2001 land cover mapping team at USGS EROS, Sioux Falls, SD (605) 594-6151 or mrlc@usgs.gov.