This dataset consists of general soil association units. It was developed by the National Cooperative Soil Survey and supersedes the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) dataset published in 1994. It consists of a broad based inventory of soils and nonsoil areas that occur in a repeatable pattern on the landscape and that can be cartographically shown at the scale mapped of 1:250,000 in the continental U.S., Hawaii, Puerto, and the Virgin Islands and 1:1,000,000 in Alaska. The dataset was created by generalizing more detailed soil survey maps. Where more detailed soil survey maps were not available, data on geology, topography, vegetation, and climate were assembled, together with Land Remote Sensing Satellite (LANDSAT) images. Soils of like areas were studied, and the probable classification and extent of the soils were determined.

Map unit composition was determined by transecting or sampling areas on the more detailed maps and expanding the data statistically to characterize the entire map unit.

This dataset consists of georeferenced vector digital data and tabular digital data. The map data were collected in 1- by 2-degree topographic quadrangle units. The soil map units are linked to attributes in the National Soil Information System relational database, which gives the proportionate extent of the component soils and their properties.

These data provide information about soil features on or near the surface of the Earth. Data were collected as part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. These data are intended for geographic display and analysis at the state, regional, and national level. The data should be displayed and analyzed at scales appropriate for 1:250,000-scale data.This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: STATSGO2-State For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

Important Note: This item is in mature support as of June 2021 and is no longer updated. This map presents land cover and detailed topographic maps for the United States. It uses the USA Topographic Map service. The map includes the National Park Service (NPS) Natural Earth physical map at 1.24km per pixel for the world at small scales, i-cubed eTOPO 1:250,000-scale maps for the contiguous United States at medium scales, and National Geographic TOPO! 1:100,000 and 1:24,000-scale maps (1:250,000 and 1:63,000 in Alaska) for the United States at large scales. The TOPO! maps are seamless, scanned images of United States Geological Survey (USGS) paper topographic maps.The maps provide a very useful basemap for a variety of applications, particularly in rural areas where the topographic maps provide unique detail and features from other basemaps.To add this map service into a desktop application directly, go to the entry for the USA Topo Maps map service. Tip: Here are some famous locations as they appear in this web map, accessed by including their location in the URL that launches the map:Grand Canyon, ArizonaGolden Gate, CaliforniaThe Statue of Liberty, New YorkWashington DCCanyon De Chelly, ArizonaYellowstone National Park, WyomingArea 51, Nevada

Introduction and Rationale: Due to our increasing understanding of the role the surrounding landscape plays in ecological processes, a detailed characterization of land cover, including both agricultural and natural habitats, is ever more important for both researchers and conservation practitioners. Unfortunately, in the United States, different types of land cover data are split across thematic datasets that emphasize agricultural or natural vegetation, but not both. To address this data gap and reduce duplicative efforts in geospatial processing, we merged two major datasets, the LANDFIRE National Vegetation Classification (NVC) and USDA-NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL), to produce an integrated land cover map. Our workflow leveraged strengths of the NVC and the CDL to produce detailed rasters comprising both agricultural and natural land-cover classes. We generated these maps for each year from 2012-2021 for the conterminous United States, quantified agreement between input layers and accuracy of our merged product, and published the complete workflow necessary to update these data. In our validation analyses, we found that approximately 5.5% of NVC agricultural pixels conflicted with the CDL, but we resolved a majority of these conflicts based on surrounding agricultural land, leaving only 0.6% of agricultural pixels unresolved in our merged product. Contents: Spatial data Attribute table for merged rasters Technical validation data Number and proportion of mismatched pixels Number and proportion of unresolved pixels Producer's and User's accuracy values and coverage of reference data Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Attribute table for merged rasters. File Name: CombinedRasterAttributeTable_CDLNVC.csvResource Description: Raster attribute table for merged raster product. Class names and recommended color map were taken from USDA-NASS Cropland Data Layer and LANDFIRE National Vegetation Classification. Class values are also identical to source data, except classes from the CDL are now negative values to avoid overlapping NVC values. Resource Title: Number and proportion of mismatched pixels. File Name: pixel_mismatch_byyear_bycounty.csvResource Description: Number and proportion of pixels that were mismatched between the Cropland Data Layer and National Vegetation Classification, per year from 2012-2021, per county in the conterminous United States.Resource Title: Number and proportion of unresolved pixels. File Name: unresolved_conflict_byyear_bycounty.csvResource Description: Number and proportion of unresolved pixels in the final merged rasters, per year from 2012-2021, per county in the conterminous United States. Unresolved pixels are a result of mismatched pixels that we could not resolve based on surrounding agricultural land (no agriculture with 90m radius).Resource Title: Producer's and User's accuracy values and coverage of reference data. File Name: accuracy_datacoverage_byyear_bycounty.csvResource Description: Producer's and User's accuracy values and coverage of reference data, per year from 2012-2021, per county in the conterminous United States. We defined coverage of reference data as the proportional area of land cover classes that were included in the reference data published by USDA-NASS and LANDFIRE for the Cropland Data Layer and National Vegetation Classification, respectively. CDL and NVC classes with reference data also had published accuracy statistics. Resource Title: Data Dictionary. File Name: Data_Dictionary_RasterMerge.csv

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

This political map of United States of America shows state and national boundaries, state names and other features.

description: This map presents land cover imagery for the world and detailed topographic maps for the United States. The map includes the National Park Service (NPS) Natural Earth physical map at 1.24km per pixel for the world at small scales, i-cubed eTOPO 1:250,000-scale maps for the contiguous United States at medium scales, and National Geographic TOPO! 1:100,000 and 1:24,000-scale maps (1:250,000 and 1:63,000 in Alaska) for the United States at large scales. The TOPO! maps are seamless, scanned images of United States Geological Survey (USGS) paper topographic maps. For more information on this map, including our terms of use, visit us online at http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/USA_Topo_Maps; abstract: topography, topographic, land cover, physical, TOPO!imageryBaseMapsEarthCover (Imagery, basemaps, and land cover)USA Topo Maps

Important Note: The USA Topo Maps raster tile layer is in mature support as of June 2021 and no longer updated. The USA Topo Maps (US Edition) map presents land cover and detailed topographic maps for the United States. The map includes the National Park Service (NPS) Natural Earth physical map at 1.24km per pixel for the world at small scales, i-cubed eTOPO 1:250,000-scale maps for the contiguous United States at medium scales, and National Geographic TOPO! 1:100,000 and 1:24,000-scale maps (1:250,000 and 1:63,000 in Alaska) for the United States at large scales. The TOPO! maps are seamless, scanned images of United States Geological Survey (USGS) paper topographic maps.This basemap is available in the United States Vector Basemaps gallery and uses the Hybrid Reference Layer (US Edition) vector tile layer and USA Topo Maps.The vector tile layer in this web map is built using the same data sources used for other Esri Vector Basemaps. Use this MapThis map is designed to be used as a basemap for overlaying other layers of information or as a stand-alone reference map. You can add layers to this web map and save as your own map. If you like, you can add this web map to a custom basemap gallery for others in your organization to use in creating web maps. If you would like to add this map as a layer in other maps you are creating, you may use the tile layer item referenced in this map.

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. 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.

Soil map units are the basic geographic unit of the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO). The SSURGO dataset is a compilation of soils information collected over the last century by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Map units delineate the extent of different soils. Data for each map unit contains descriptions of the soil’s components, productivity, unique properties, and suitability interpretations.Each soil type has a unique combination of physical, chemical, nutrient and moisture properties. Soil type has ramifications for engineering and construction activities, natural hazards such as landslides, agricultural productivity, the distribution of native plant and animal life and hydrologic and other physical processes. Soil types in the context of climate and terrain can be used as a general indicator of engineering constraints, agriculture suitability, biological productivity and the natural distribution of plants and animals.Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: Soils of the United States and associated territoriesCoordinate System: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereExtent: The 50 United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Marshall Islands, Northern Marianas Islands, Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and American SamoaVisible Scale: 1:144,000 to 1:1,000Resolution/Tolerance: 1 meter/2 metersNumber of Features: 36,543,233Feature Request Limit: 10,000Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation ServicePublication Date: October 1, 2019ArcGIS Server URL: https://landscape11.arcgis.com/arcgis/rest/servicesData from the gNATSGO database was used to create the layer for the contiguous United States, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The remaining areas were created with the gSSURGO database (Hawaii, Guam, Marshall Islands, Northern Marianas Islands, Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and American Samoa).AttributesKey fields from nine commonly used SSURGO tables were compiled to create the 173 attribute fields in this layer. Some fields were joined directly to the SSURGO Map Unit polygon feature class while others required summarization and other processing to create a 1:1 relationship between the attributes and polygons prior to joining the tables. Attributes of this layer are listed below in their order of occurrence in the attribute table and are organized by the SSURGO table they originated from and the processing methods used on them.Map Unit Polygon Feature Class Attribute TableThe fields in this table are from the attribute table of the Map Unit polygon feature class which provides the geographic extent of the map units.Area SymbolSpatial VersionMap Unit SymbolMap Unit TableThe fields in this table have a 1:1 relationship with the map unit polygons and were joined to the table using the Map Unit Key field.Map Unit NameMap Unit KindFarmland ClassInterpretive FocusIntensity of MappingIowa Corn Suitability RatingLegend TableThis table has 1:1 relationship with the Map Unit table and was joined using the Legend Key field.Project ScaleSurvey Area Catalog TableThe fields in this table have a 1:1 relationship with the polygons and were joined to the Map Unit table using the Survey Area Catalog Key and Legend Key fields.Survey Area VersionTabular VersionMap Unit Aggregated Attribute TableThe fields in this table have a 1:1 relationship with the map unit polygons and were joined to the Map Unit attribute table using the Map Unit Key field.Slope Gradient - Dominant ComponentSlope Gradient - Weighted AverageBedrock Depth - MinimumWater Table Depth - Annual MinimumWater Table Depth - April to June MinimumFlooding Frequency - Dominant ConditionFlooding Frequency - MaximumPonding Frequency - PresenceAvailable Water Storage 0-25 cm - Weighted AverageAvailable Water Storage 0-50 cm - Weighted AverageAvailable Water Storage 0-100 cm - Weighted AverageAvailable Water Storage 0-150 cm - Weighted AverageDrainage Class - Dominant ConditionDrainage Class - WettestHydrologic Group - Dominant ConditionIrrigated Capability Class - Dominant ConditionIrrigated Capability Class - Proportion of Mapunit with Dominant ConditionNon-Irrigated Capability Class - Dominant ConditionNon-Irrigated Capability Class - Proportion of Mapunit with Dominant ConditionRating for Buildings without Basements - Dominant ConditionRating for Buildings with Basements - Dominant ConditionRating for Buildings with Basements - Least LimitingRating for Buildings with Basements - Most LimitingRating for Septic Tank Absorption Fields - Dominant ConditionRating for Septic Tank Absorption Fields - Least LimitingRating for Septic Tank Absorption Fields - Most LimitingRating for Sewage Lagoons - Dominant ConditionRating for Sewage Lagoons - Dominant ComponentRating for Roads and Streets - Dominant ConditionRating for Sand Source - Dominant ConditionRating for Sand Source - Most ProbableRating for Paths and Trails - Dominant ConditionRating for Paths and Trails - Weighted AverageErosion Hazard of Forest Roads and Trails - Dominant ComponentHydric Classification - PresenceRating for Manure and Food Processing Waste - Weighted AverageComponent Table – Dominant ComponentMap units have one or more components. To create a 1:1 join component data must be summarized by map unit. For these fields a custom script was used to select the component with the highest value for the Component Percentage Representative Value field (comppct_r). Ties were broken with the Slope Representative Value field (slope_r). Components with lower average slope were selected as dominant. If both soil order and slope were tied, the first value in the table was selected.Component Percentage - Low ValueComponent Percentage - Representative ValueComponent Percentage - High ValueComponent NameComponent KindOther Criteria Used to Identify ComponentsCriteria Used to Identify Components at the Local LevelRunoff ClassSoil loss tolerance factorWind Erodibility IndexWind Erodibility GroupErosion ClassEarth Cover 1Earth Cover 2Hydric ConditionHydric RatingAspect Range - Counter Clockwise LimitAspect - Representative ValueAspect Range - Clockwise LimitGeomorphic DescriptionNon-Irrigated Capability SubclassNon-Irrigated Unit Capability ClassIrrigated Capability SubclassIrrigated Unit Capability ClassConservation Tree Shrub GroupGrain Wildlife HabitatGrass Wildlife HabitatHerbaceous Wildlife HabitatShrub Wildlife HabitatConifer Wildlife HabitatHardwood Wildlife HabitatWetland Wildlife HabitatShallow Water Wildlife HabitatRangeland Wildlife HabitatOpenland Wildlife HabitatWoodland Wildlife HabitatWetland Wildlife HabitatSoil Slip PotentialSusceptibility to Frost HeavingConcrete CorrosionSteel CorrosionTaxonomic ClassTaxonomic OrderTaxonomic SuborderGreat GroupSubgroupParticle SizeParticle Size ModCation Exchange Activity ClassCarbonate ReactionTemperature ClassMoist SubclassSoil Temperature RegimeEdition of Keys to Soil Taxonomy Used to Classify SoilCalifornia Storie IndexComponent KeyComponent Table – Weighted AverageMap units may have one or more soil components. To create a 1:1 join, data from the Component table must be summarized by map unit. For these fields a custom script was used to calculate an average value for each map unit weighted by the Component Percentage Representative Value field (comppct_r).Slope Gradient - Low ValueSlope Gradient - Representative ValueSlope Gradient - High ValueSlope Length USLE - Low ValueSlope Length USLE - Representative ValueSlope Length USLE - High ValueElevation - Low ValueElevation - Representative ValueElevation - High ValueAlbedo - Low ValueAlbedo - Representative ValueAlbedo - High ValueMean Annual Air Temperature - Low ValueMean Annual Air Temperature - Representative ValueMean Annual Air Temperature - High ValueMean Annual Precipitation - Low ValueMean Annual Precipitation - Representative ValueMean Annual Precipitation - High ValueRelative Effective Annual Precipitation - Low ValueRelative Effective Annual Precipitation - Representative ValueRelative Effective Annual Precipitation - High ValueDays between Last and First Frost - Low ValueDays between Last and First Frost - Representative ValueDays between Last and First Frost - High ValueRange Forage Annual Potential Production - Low ValueRange Forage Annual Potential Production - Representative ValueRange Forage Annual Potential Production - High ValueInitial Subsidence - Low ValueInitial Subsidence - Representative ValueInitial Subsidence - High ValueTotal Subsidence - Low ValueTotal Subsidence - Representative ValueTotal Subsidence - High ValueCrop Productivity IndexEsri SymbologyThis field was created to provide symbology based on the Taxonomic Order field (taxorder). Because some mapunits have a null value for soil order, a custom script was used to populate this field using the Component Name (compname) and Mapunit Name (muname) fields. This field was created using the dominant soil order of each mapunit.Esri SymbologyHorizon TableEach map unit polygon has one or more components and each component has one or more layers known as horizons. To incorporate this field from the Horizon table into the attributes for this layer, a custom script was used to first calculate the mean value weighted by thickness of the horizon for each component and then a mean value of components weighted by the Component Percentage Representative Value field for each map unit. K-Factor Rock FreeEsri Soil OrderThese fields were calculated from the Component table using a model that included the Pivot Table Tool, the Summarize Tool and a custom script. The first 11 fields provide the sum of Component Percentage Representative Value for each soil order for each map unit. The Soil Order Dominant Condition field was calculated by selecting the highest value in the preceding 11 soil order fields. In the case of tied values the component with the lowest average slope value (slope_r) was selected. If both soil order and slope

Conservation planning in the Great Plains often depends on understanding the degree of fragmentation of the various types of grasslands and savannas that historically occurred in this region. To define ecological subregions of the Great Plains, we used a revised version of Kuchler’s (1964) map of the potential natural vegetation of the United States. The map was digitized from the 1979 physiographic regions map produced by the Bureau of Land Management, which added 10 physiognomic types. All analyses are based on data sources specific to the United States; hence, we only analyze the portion of the Great Plains occurring in the United States.We sought to quantify the current amount of rangeland in the US Great Plains converted due to 1) woody plant encroachment; 2) urban, exurban, and other forms of development (e.g., energy infrastructure); and 3) cultivation of cropland. At the time of this analysis, the most contemporary measure of land cover across the United States was the 2011 NLCD (Homer et al. 2015). One limitation of the NLCD is that some grasslands with high rates of productivity, such as herbaceous wetlands or grasslands along riparian zones, are misclassified as cropland. A second limitation is the inability to capture cropland conversion occurring after 2011 (Lark et al. 2015). Beginning in 2009 (and retroactively for 2008), the US Department of Agriculture - NASS has annually produced a Cropland Data Layer (CDL) for the United States from satellite imagery, which maps individual crop types at a 30-m spatial resolution. We used the annual CDLs from 2011 to 2017 to map the distribution of cropland in the Great Plains. We merged this map with the 2011 NLCD to evaluate the degree of fragmentation of grasslands and savannas in the Great Plains as a result of conversion to urban land, cropland, or woodland. We produced two maps of fragmentation (best case and worst case scenarios) that quantify this fragmentation at a 30 x 30 m pixel resolution across the US Great Plains, and make them available for download here. Resources in this dataset: Resource title: Data Dictionary for Figure 2 derived land cover of the US portion of the North American Great Plains File name: Figure2_Key for landcover classes.csv Resource title: Figure 1. Potential natural vegetation of US portion of the North American Great Plains, adapted from Kuchler (1964). File name: Figure1_Kuchler_GPRangelands.zip Resource description: Extracted grassland, shrubland, savanna, and forest communities in the US Great Plains from the revised Kuchler natural vegetation map Resource title: Figure 2. Derived land cover of the US portion of the North American Great Plains. File name: Figure2_Key for landcover classes.zip Resource description: The fNLCD-CDL product estimates that 43.7% of the Great Plains still consists of grasslands and shrublands, with the remainder consisting of 40.6% cropland, 4.4% forests, 3.0% UGC, 3.0% developed open space, 2.9% improved pasture or hay fields, 1.2% developed land, 1.0% water, and 0.2% barren land, with important regional and subregional variation in the extent of rangeland loss to cropland, forests, and developed land. Resource title: Figure 3. Variation in the degree of fragmentation of Great Plains measured in terms of distance to cropland, forest, or developed lands. File name: Figure3_bestcase_disttofrag.zip Resource description: This map depicts a “best case” scenario in which 1) croplands are mapped based only on the US Department of AgricultureNational Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layers (2011e2017), 2) all grass-dominated cover types including hay fields and improved pasture are considered rangelands, and 3) developed open space (as defined by the National Land Cover Database) are assumed to not be a fragmenting land cover type. Resource title: Figure 4. Variation in the degree of fragmentation of Great Plains measured in terms of distances to cropland, forest, or developed lands. File name: Figure4_worstcase_disttofrag.zip Resource description: This map depicts a ‘worst case’ scenario in which 1) croplands are mapped based on the US Department of AgricultureNational Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layers (2011e2017) and the 2011 National Land Cover Database (NLCD), 2) hay fields and improved pasture are not included as rangelands, and 3) developed open space (as defined by NLCD) is included as a fragmenting land cover type.

Infrastructure, such as roads, airports, water and energy transmission and distribution facilities, sewage treatment plants, and many other facilities, is vital to the sustainability and vitality of any populated area. Rehabilitation of existing and development of new infrastructure requires three natural resources: natural aggregate (stone, sand, and gravel), water, and energy http://rockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/frontrange/overview.htm.

The principal goals of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Front Range Infrastructure Resources Project (FRIRP) were to develop information, define tools, and demonstrate ways to: (1) implement a multidisciplinary evaluation of the distribution and quality of a region's infrastructure resources, (2) identify issues that may affect availability of resources, and (3) work with cooperators to provide decision makers with tools to evaluate alternatives to enhance decision-making. Geographic integration of data (geospatial databases) can provide an interactive tool to facilitate decision-making by stakeholders http://rockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/frontrange/overview.htm.

This data set consists of general soil association units. It was develped by the National Cooperative Soil Survey and supersedes the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) data set published in 1994. It consists of a broad based inventory of soils and nonsoil areas that occur in a repeatable pattern on the landscape and that can be cartographically shown at the scale mapped. The data set was created by generalizing more detailed soil survey maps. Where more detailed soil survey maps were not available, data on geology, topography, vegetation, and climate were assembled, together with Land Remote Sensing Satellite (LANDSAT) images. Soils of like areas were studied, and the probable classification and extent of the soils were determined. Map unit composition was determined by transecting or sampling areas on the more detailed maps and expanding the data statistically to characterize the whole map unit. This data set consists of georeferenced vector digital data and tabular digital data. The map data were collected in 1-by 2-degree topographic quadrangle units and merged into a seamless national data set. It is distributed in state/territory and national extents. The soil map units are linked to attributes in the National Soil Information System data base which gives the proportionate extent of the component soils and their properties.

Interactive map depicting oil drilling, gas drilling, coal mining, power plants, refineries, and other data. Includes metadata.

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. See http://geonames.usgs.gov for additional information.

Northeastern United States Town Boundary data are intended for geographic display of state, county and town (municipal) boundaries at statewide and regional levels. Use it to map and label towns on a map. These data are derived from Northeastern United States Political Boundary Master layer. This information should be displayed and analyzed at scales appropriate for 1:24,000-scale data. The State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) assembled this regional data layer using data from other states in order to create a single, seamless representation of political boundaries within the vicinity of Connecticut that could be easily incorporated into mapping applications as background information. More accurate and up-to-date information may be available from individual State government Geographic Information System (GIS) offices. Not intended for maps printed at map scales greater or more detailed than 1:24,000 scale (1 inch = 2,000 feet.)

The NRCS National Water and Climate Center's Interactive Map displays both current and historic hydrometeorological data in an easy-to-use, visual interface. The information on the map comes from many sources. Natural Resources Conservation Service snowpack and precipitation data are derived from manually-collected snow courses and automated Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) and Soil Climate Analysis Network (SCAN) stations. Other data sources include precipitation, streamflow, and reservoir data from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BoR), the Applied Climate Information System (ACIS), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and other hydrometeorological monitoring entities. The Interactive Map has two regions: the map display itself, and the map controls which determine both the display mode and the types of data and stations to show on the map: Display Modes; Map Components; Station Conditions Controls; Basin Conditions Controls; Station Inventory Controls. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Interactive Map home. File Name: Web Page, url: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/wcc/home/quicklinks/predefinedMaps/ The Interactive Map provides spatial visualization of current and historic hydrometeorological data collected by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and other monitoring agencies. The map also provides station inventories based on sensor and geographic filters. This page has links to pre-defined maps organized by data type. After opening a map, users can zoom to area of interest, customize the map, and then bookmark the URL to save the settings.

USGS Topo is a tile cache base map service that combines the most current data in The National Map (TNM), and other public-domain data, into a multi-scale topographic reference map. Data themes included are Boundaries, Geographic Names, Transportation, Contours, Hydrography, Land Cover, Shaded Relief, and Bathymetry. This service is designed to provide a seamless view of TNM data in a geographic information system (GIS) accessible format.USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief Model. Data refreshed May, 2020.

The natural amenities scale is a measure of the physical characteristics of a county area that enhance the location as a place to live. The scale was constructed by combining six measures of climate, topography, and water area that reflect environmental qualities most people prefer. These measures are warm winter, winter sun, temperate summer, low summer humidity, topographic variation, and water area. The data are available for counties in the lower 48 States. The file contains the original measures and standardized scores for each county as well as the amenities scale.This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: Data file For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

Wetlands within EPA Region 9

This is a polyline dataset representing the major natural gas transmission pipelines in the U.S. including interstate, intrastate, and gathering pipelines. These data were compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Administration from various sources including federal and state agencies, and other external sources such as company web pages and industry press. Updated January 2020.