Improving the quality of water discharged from agricultural watersheds requires comprehensive and adaptive approaches for planning and implementing conservation practices. These measures will need to consider landscape hydrology, distributions of soil types, land cover, and crop distributions in an integrated manner. The two most consistent challenges to these efforts will be consistency and reliability of data, and the capacity to translate conservation planning from watershed to farm and field scales. The translation of scale is required because, while conservation practices can be planned based on a watershed scale framework, they must be implemented by landowners in specific fields and riparian sites that are under private ownership. To support these goals, it has been necessary to develop planning approaches, high-resolution spatial datasets, and conservation practice assessment tools that will allow the agricultural and conservation communities to characterize and mitigate these challenges. The field boundary dataset represents a spatial framework for assembling and maintaining geospatial data to support conservation planning at the scale where conservation practices are implemented. This field boundaries dataset has been assembled to support field-scale agricultural conservation planning using the USDA/ARS Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF). The original data used to create this database are the pre-2008 Farm Bill FSA common land unit (CLU) datasets. A portion of metadata found herein pertains to the USDA FSA CLU. The remaining information has been developed to reflect the repurposing of the data in its aggregated form. It is important to note that all USDA programmatic and ownership information that was associated with the original data have been removed. Beyond that, these data has been extensively edited to reflect crop-specific land use consistent with 2009 land cover as derived from 2009 NASS Crop Data Layer datasets and 2009 aerial photography, and no longer reflects discrete ownership patterns. The ACPF field boundaries feature class incorporates two additional resources that form the Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB) ACPF Land Use database. The UMRB ACPF Fields Crop History table holds the dominant land use class, derived from the NASS CDL, for individual fields from 2010 to 2020. The UMRB ACPF Land Use table hold summary land use information for individual fields for 2015 to 2020 including an assigned General Land Use (GenLU) that represent the cropping system over that period. In lieu of a data dictionary for these resources, each dataset has a FGDC-compliant metadata file using the North American ISO 19115-2003 profile in .xml format. For more information about this dataset contact David E. James at davide.james@usda.gov or dejames@iastate.edu Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Agricultural land use by field: Upper Mississippi River Basin 2010-2020. File Name: UMRB_ACPFfields2020.zipResource Description: This field boundaries dataset has been assembled to support field-scale agricultural conservation planning using the USDA/ARS Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF).Resource Software Recommended: ESRI's ArcGIS,url: www.esri.com Resource Title: Upper Mississippi River Basin Field Boundaries 2020. File Name: UMRB_ACPFfields2020.pdfResource Description: UMRB Field Boundaries 2020 feature class metadataResource Software Recommended: Adobe Acrobat,url: www.adobe.com Resource Title: Upper Mississippi River Basin ACPF Crop History 2010-2020. File Name: UMRB_ACPFfields_CropHistory2010_2020.pdfResource Description: Upper Mississippi River Basin ACPF Crop History table 2010-2020 metadataResource Software Recommended: Adobe Acrobat,url: www.adobe.com Resource Title: Upper Mississippi River Basin ACPF Land Use 2015-2020. File Name: UMRB_ACPFfields_LandUse2015_2020.pdfResource Description: Upper Mississippi River Basin ACPF Land Use table 2015-2020 metadataResource Software Recommended: Adobe Acrobat,url: www.adobe.com

These Surface Water Supply Protection Areas delineate those areas included in 310 CMR 22.00, the Massachusetts Drinking Water Regulations, as Surface Water Supply Protection Zones:

• ZONEA: represents a) the land area between the surface water source and the upper boundary of the bank; b) the land area within a 400 foot lateral distance from the upper boundary of the bank of a Class A surface water source, as defined in 314 CMR 4.05(3)(a); and c) the land area within a 200 foot lateral distance from the upper boundary of the bank of a tributary or associated surface water body.

• ZONEB: represents the land area within one-half mile of the upper boundary of the bank of a Class A surface water source, as defined in 314 CMR 4.05(3)(a), or edge of watershed, whichever is less. Zone B always includes the land area within a 400 ft lateral distance from the upper boundary of the bank of a Class A surface water source.

• ZONEC: represents the land area not designated as Zone A or B within the watershed of a Class A surface water source, as defined in 314 CMR 4.05(3)(a).

Please see http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/swp.html for full details.

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

These Surface Water Supply Protection Areas delineate those areas included in 310 CMR 22.00, the Massachusetts Drinking Water Regulations, as Surface Water Supply Protection Zones:ZONEA: represents a) the land area between the surface water source and the upper boundary of the bank; b) the land area within a 400 foot lateral distance from the upper boundary of the bank of a Class A surface water source, as defined in 314 CMR 4.05(3)(a); and c) the land area within a 200 foot lateral distance from the upper boundary of the bank of a tributary or associated surface water body. ZONEB: represents the land area within one-half mile of the upper boundary of the bank of a Class A surface water source, as defined in 314 CMR 4.05(3)(a), or edge of watershed, whichever is less. Zone B always includes the land area within a 400 ft lateral distance from the upper boundary of the bank of a Class A surface water source. ZONEC: represents the land area not designated as Zone A or B within the watershed of a Class A surface water source, as defined in 314 CMR 4.05(3)(a). More details... Feature service also available.

This data represents Travel Management Areas (TMA) used for travel planning efforts for the BLM Arizona State Office. Data contains information about status of route inventory, route evaluation, TMP and signage status. Dataset is in a File Geodatabase Feature Class format. The boundaries may be updated by BLM Staff as boundaries are refined.This feature class was created by combining the most recent and updated geometry for TMAs (edited by Sprint Contractor Ricardo Franco) and the best attributes available in the AZ Corporate Layers (cjallen - 4/13/17). Additional boundary edits and the creation of a new TMA (Prescott Metro) were completed with close guidance from Bill Gibson. TMA boundaries for Bumble Bee, Table Mesa, Lower Black Canyon Trail, Upper Agua Fria River Basin, and Prescott Metro have been updated in this feature class. Additional boundary updates include changing some TMA boundaries to align with transportation routes, PLSS, BLM district/field office boundaries, etc. This data was updated for use in 2 maps requested by Bill Gibson (April 2017) located here:\blm\dfs\loc\EGIS\AZ\State_Office\projects\932_Renewable_Minerals\TravelManagement\TMA_TMP\State_Park_Grants\StatePark_GrantFunds_TMP_2017_PDO.mxd\blm\dfs\loc\EGIS\AZ\State_Office\projects\932_Renewable_Minerals\TravelManagement\TMA_TMP\State_Park_Grants\StatePark_GrantFunds_TMP_2017_UP.mxdThe geodatabase containing the Sprint Contractor geometry updates is located here:\blm\dfs\loc\EGIS\AZ\State_Office\QA_QC\Tracking\TMAP\TMA_Vertical_Integration\TMA_Vertical_Integration.gdbAdditional edits wer made to Imperial Hills and Lower Colorado in June, 2017, and changes with intermittent frequency.

ID shows GenBank accession numbers for sequences used in the IDR calculation (DISOPRED2 [25]) and the polyproline sliding-window analysis. Class codes to right of each ID are: Av, avian; Ra, rat; genotype 1; genotype 2; subgenotype 3b; subgenotype 3f; genotype 4; WB, Japanese wild boar; Rub, rubivirus and CTV, cutthroat trout virus. The start and stop positions are those obtained from each calculation. Max is the maximum disorder probability in the PPR (threshold = 0.05). Pro lists the number of prolines in each PPR IDR. Avg P is the average number of prolines in all members of a class. Empty avg P indicates presence of only a single member in that class.

This dataset provides a land cover map focused on peatland ecosystems in the upper peninsula of Michigan. The map was produced at 12.5-m resolution using a multi-sensor fusion (optical and L-band SAR) approach with imagery from Landsat-5 TM and ALOS PALSAR collected between 2007 and 2011. A random forest classifier trained with polygons delineated from field data and aerial photography was used to determine pixel classes. Accuracy assessment based on field-sampled sites show high overall map accuracy (92%).

This map describes actions proposed as part of the Upper Cheat River Project, proposed by the U.S. Forest Service in the Monongahela National Forest, in Tucker and Preston counties, WV.Purpose:Stakeholders have raised significant concerns about this project, particularly with regard to the amount of timbering involved. The Forest Service asserts that a more even distribution of forest age classes is necessary to promote the overall health of the ecosystem, and aims to significantly increase the proportion of early successional forest (clear cuts/burnt areas). However, in its analyses the USFS accounts only for the land within the USFS-administered boundaries of the forest. It completely disregards the age class distribution on the private lands within the Proclamation Boundary, and on private lands adjacent to the National Forest, which show a much younger age class distribution. Questions have been raised as to whether this is simply a good way to get mature timber out of the forest. Stakeholders have called for a more regional approach to determining the age class structure of contiguous forest lands...not just those within the US-owned properties.Click on the map layer names below for detailed descriptions of those data.