Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under Basic Parcels."Database containing parcel boundary, parcel identifier, parcel address, owner type, and county recorder contact information" - HB113. The intent of the bill was to not include any attributes that the counties rely on for data sales. If you want other attributes associated with the parcels you need to contact the county recorder.Users should be aware the owner type field 'OWN_TYPE' in the parcel polygons is a very generalized ownership type (Federal, Private, State, Tribal). It is populated with the value of the 'OWNER' field where the parcel's centroid intersects the CADASTRE.LandOwnership polygon layer.This dataset is a snapshot in time and may not be the most current. For the most current data contact the county recorder.

The Address Points dataset shows Utah address points for all twenty-nine Utah counties. An address point represents a geographic location that has been assigned a US Postal Service (USPS) address by the local address authority (i.e., county or municipality) but does not necessarily receive mail. Address points may include several pieces of information about the structure or location that’s being mapped, such as:the full address (i.e., the USPS mailing address, if the address is for a physical location [rather than a PO box]);the landmark name; whether the location is a building;the type of unit;the city and ZIP code; unique code identifiers of the specific geographic location, including the Federal Information Processing Standard Publication (FIPS) county code and the US National Grid (USNG) spatial address;the address source; andthe date that the address point was loaded into the map layer.This dataset is mapping grade; it is a framework layer that receives regular updates. As with all our datasets, the Utah Geospatial Resource Center (UGRC) works to ensure the quality and accuracy of our data to the best of our abilities. Maintaining the dataset is now an ongoing effort between UGRC, counties, and municipalities. Specifically, UGRC works with each county or municipality’s Master Address List (MAL) authority to continually improve the address point data. Counties have been placed on an update schedule depending on the rate of new development and change within them. Populous counties, such as Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Washington, are more complete and are updated monthly, while rural or less populous counties may be updated quarterly or every six months.The information in the Address Points dataset was originally compiled by Utah counties and municipalities and was aggregated by UGRC for the MAL grant initiative in 2012. The purpose of this initiative was to make sure that all state entities were using the same verified, accurate county and municipal address information. Since 2012, more data has been added to the Address Points GIS data and is used for geocoding, 911 response, and analysis and planning purposes. The Address Point data is also used as reference data for the api.mapserv.utah.gov geocoding endpoint, and you can find the address points in many web mapping applications. This dataset is updated monthly and can also be found at: https://gis.utah.gov/data/location/address-data/.

These data were created for planimetric display and tax area analysis.Procedures_Used:The principal method of data entry used coordinate geometry software.Digitizing from paper maps and use of digital planimetric data were supplemental. Conversions, filling of gaps, georeferencing, reconciliations, and reformatting were often necessary to create a coherent database. Boundary updates are occasionally accepted from local GIS departments when the USTC has not received all relevant boundary change information through required channels. Updates have been made in this manner to Sandy, some Cache, Washington, Utah, Wasatch, and Carbon County cities.Revisions: Municipal boundaries are revised as documents are filed with the Lt. Governor's Office.Reviews_Applied_to_Data:Digital sources were visually compared with planimetric data. Digitized data were overlaid with source material and visually compared. Technical errors were also identified and corrected with ArcGIS Software.Notes: This metadata document contains a composite of information for alltiles in the library.Current thru April 29, 2015

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.

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 report describes the contents of a digital data set (approximately 269 MB) which consists of Arc/Info Export format files and associated macro programs. This report is one in a series of digital maps, data files, and reports generated by the US Geological Survey to provide geologic process and mineral resource information to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosytem Management Project (ICBEMP). The various digital maps and data files are being used in a GIS-based ecosystem assessment including an analysis of diverse questions relating to past, present, and future conditions within the general area of the Columbia River Basin east of the Cascade Mountains.

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

Debris flows, debris avalanches, mud flows and lahars are fast-moving landslides that occur in a wide variety of environments throughout the world. They are particularly dangerous to life and property because they move quickly, destroy objects in their paths, and can strike with little warning. The purpose of this map is to show where debris flows have occurred in the conterminous United States and where these slope movements might be expected in the future.

The State Geologic Map Compilation (SGMC) geodatabase of the conterminous United States (https://doi.org/10.5066/F7WH2N65) represents a seamless, spatial database of 48 State geologic maps that range from 1:50,000 to 1:1,000,000 scale. A national digital geologic map database is essential in interpreting other datasets that support numerous types of national-scale studies and assessments, such as those that provide geochemistry, remote sensing, or geophysical data. The SGMC is a compilation of the individual U.S. Geological Survey releases of the Preliminary Integrated Geologic Map Databases for the United States. The SGMC geodatabase also contains updated data for six States and seven entirely new State geologic maps that have been added since the preliminary databases were published. Numerous errors have been corrected and enhancements added to the preliminary datasets using thorough quality assurance/quality control procedures. The SGMC is not a truly integrated geologic map database because geologic units have not been reconciled across State boundaries. However, the geologic data contained in each State geologic map have been standardized to allow spatial analyses of lithology, age, and stratigraphy at a national scale. A full discussion of the procedures and methodology used to create this dataset is available in the accompanying report: Horton, J.D., San Juan, C.A., and Stoeser, D.B, 2017, The State Geologic Map Compilation (SGMC) geodatabase of the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1052, 46 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ds1052.

Citation: Horton, John D., and San Juan, Carma A., 2019, Prospect- and Mine-Related Features from U.S. Geological Survey 7.5- and 15-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Maps of the United States (ver. 4.0, November 2019): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F78W3CHG.Version 4.0 of 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 637,000-plus point and polygon mine symbols from approximately 88,000 maps across 35 states has been completed: Alabama (AL), Arizona (AZ), Arkansas (AR), California (CA), Colorado (CO), Florida (FL), Georgia (GA), Idaho (ID), Iowa (IA), Illinois (IL), Indiana (IN), Kansas (KS), Kentucky (KY), Louisiana (LA), Michigan (MI), Minnesota (MN), Mississippi (MS), Missouri (MO), Montana (MT), North Carolina (NC), North Dakota (ND), Nebraska (NE), New Mexico (NM), Nevada (NV), Oklahoma (OK), Ohio (OH), Oregon (OR), South Carolina (SC), South Dakota (SD), Tennessee (TN), Texas (TX), Utah (UT), Washington (WA), Wisconsin (WI), and Wyoming (WY). The process renders not only a more complete picture of exploration and mining in the 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. Datasets were developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center (GGGSC). Compilation work was completed by USGS student contractors: Germán Schmeda, Patrick C. Scott, William Gnesda, Margaret Hammond, Tyler Reyes, Morgan Mullins, Thomas Carroll, Margaret Brantley, and Logan Barrett; and by USGS personnel Damon Bickerstaff, Stuart A. Giles and E.G. Boyce. First release: August 4, 2016 Revised: December 1, 2017 (ver. 1.0) Revised: April 30, 2018 (ver. 2.0) Revised: April 10, 2019 (ver. 3.0) Revised: November 25, 2019 (ver.4.0)

The Fish and Wildlife Service prescribes final late-season frameworks from which States may select season dates, limits, and other options for migratory bird hunting seasons. The effect of this final rule is to facilitate the States' selection of hunting seasons and to further the annual establishment of the late-season migratory bird hunting regulations. This dataset contains the following administrative waterfowl flyway delineations that are used by states in this process. Atlantic Flyway--includes Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Mississippi Flyway--includes Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Central Flyway--includes Colorado (east of the Continental Divide), Kansas, Montana (Counties of Blaine, Carbon, Fergus, Judith Basin, Stillwater, Sweetgrass, Wheatland, and all counties east thereof), Nebraska, New Mexico (east of the Continental Divide except the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming (east of the Continental Divide). Pacific Flyway--includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and those portions of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming not included in the Central Flyway.USFWS Migratory Bird Program: https://www.fws.gov/birds/index.phpFor a direct link to the official Enterprise Geospatial dataset and metadata: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/42276

Version 10.0 (Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico added) of these data are part of a larger U.S. Geological Survey (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, have been digitized from the 7.5-minute (1:24,000, 1:25,000-scale; and 1:10,000, 1:20,000 and 1:30,000-scale in Puerto Rico only) and the 15-minute (1:48,000 and 1:62,500-scale; 1:63,360-scale in Alaska only) archive of the USGS Historical Topographic Map Collection (HTMC), 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. The compilation of 725,690 point and polygon mine symbols from approximately 106,350 maps across 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PR) and the District of Columbia (DC) has been completed: Alabama (AL), Alaska (AK), Arizona (AZ), Arkansas (AR), California (CA), Colorado (CO), Connecticut (CT), Delaware (DE), Florida (FL), Georgia (GA), Hawaii (HI), Idaho (ID), Illinois (IL), Indiana (IN), Iowa (IA), Kansas (KS), Kentucky (KY), Louisiana (LA), Maine (ME), Maryland (MD), Massachusetts (MA), Michigan (MI), Minnesota (MN), Mississippi (MS), Missouri (MO), Montana (MT), Nebraska (NE), Nevada (NV), New Hampshire (NH), New Jersey (NJ), New Mexico (NM), New York (NY), North Carolina (NC), North Dakota (ND), Ohio (OH), Oklahoma (OK), Oregon (OR), Pennsylvania (PA), Rhode Island (RI), South Carolina (SC), South Dakota (SD), Tennessee (TN), Texas (TX), Utah (UT), Vermont (VT), Virginia (VA), Washington (WA), West Virginia (WV), Wisconsin (WI), and Wyoming (WY). The process renders not only a more complete picture of exploration and mining in the U.S., but an approximate timeline of when these activities occurred. These 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. These data are presented as three groups of layers based on the scale of the source maps. No reconciliation between the data groups was done.Datasets were developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center (GGGSC). Compilation work was completed by USGS National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) interns: Emma L. Boardman-Larson, Grayce M. Gibbs, William R. Gnesda, Montana E. Hauke, Jacob D. Melendez, Amanda L. Ringer, and Alex J. Schwarz; USGS student contractors: Margaret B. Hammond, Germán Schmeda, Patrick C. Scott, Tyler Reyes, Morgan Mullins, Thomas Carroll, Margaret Brantley, and Logan Barrett; and by USGS personnel Virgil S. Alfred, Damon Bickerstaff, E.G. Boyce, Madelyn E. Eysel, Stuart A. Giles, Autumn L. Helfrich, Alan A. Hurlbert, Cheryl L. Novakovich, Sophia J. Pinter, and Andrew F. Smith.USMIN project website: https://www.usgs.gov/USMIN

Citation: Horton, John D., and San Juan, Carma A., 2019, Prospect- and Mine-Related Features from U.S. Geological Survey 7.5- and 15-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Maps of the United States (ver. 4.0, November 2019): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F78W3CHG.Version 4.0 of 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 637,000-plus point and polygon mine symbols from approximately 88,000 maps across 35 states has been completed: Alabama (AL), Arizona (AZ), Arkansas (AR), California (CA), Colorado (CO), Florida (FL), Georgia (GA), Idaho (ID), Iowa (IA), Illinois (IL), Indiana (IN), Kansas (KS), Kentucky (KY), Louisiana (LA), Michigan (MI), Minnesota (MN), Mississippi (MS), Missouri (MO), Montana (MT), North Carolina (NC), North Dakota (ND), Nebraska (NE), New Mexico (NM), Nevada (NV), Oklahoma (OK), Ohio (OH), Oregon (OR), South Carolina (SC), South Dakota (SD), Tennessee (TN), Texas (TX), Utah (UT), Washington (WA), Wisconsin (WI), and Wyoming (WY). The process renders not only a more complete picture of exploration and mining in the 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. Datasets were developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center (GGGSC). Compilation work was completed by USGS student contractors: Germán Schmeda, Patrick C. Scott, William Gnesda, Margaret Hammond, Tyler Reyes, Morgan Mullins, Thomas Carroll, Margaret Brantley, and Logan Barrett; and by USGS personnel Damon Bickerstaff, Stuart A. Giles and E.G. Boyce. First release: August 4, 2016 Revised: December 1, 2017 (ver. 1.0) Revised: April 30, 2018 (ver. 2.0) Revised: April 10, 2019 (ver. 3.0) Revised: November 25, 2019 (ver.4.0)

The "Watershed" feature layer is a component of the "Pollinator Restoration 2022" map which is itself a component of the "USFWS Pollinator Restoration Projects Mapper" which is a dashboard showing management projects that benefit pollinators across the Western U.S. See below for a description of the "USFWS Pollinator Restoration Projects Mapper."The "USFWS Pollinator Restoration Projects Mapper" is under development by the Region 1 (Pacific Northwest) USFWS Science Applications program. Completion is anticipated by Winter 2023. Contact: Alan Yanahan (alan_yanahan@fws.gov).The purpose of the "USFWS Pollinator Restoration Projects Mapper" is to inform future pollinator conservation efforts by providing a way to identify geographic areas where additional pollinator conservation may be needed.The "USFWS Pollinator Restoration Projects Mapper" maps the locations of where on-the-ground projects that are beneficial to pollinators have taken place. Its primary focus is projects on public lands. The majority of records included in this tool come from internal databases for the USFWS, US Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management, which were queried for relevant projects. The tool is not intended as a database for reporting projects to. Rather, the tool synthesizes records from existing databases.The geographic scope of the tool includes the western states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.When possible, the tool includes projects from 2014 to the present. This timespan was chosen because it matches the timespan of the USFWS Monarch Conservation Database For consistency, the tool groups pollinator beneficial projects into the following four activity types:Restoration: Actions taken after a disturbance, such as planting native forbs after a wildfireMaintenance: Actions taken outside the growing season that maintain habitat quality through regular disturbance using manual or chemical means. Examples: mowing, spraying weeds, prescribed fireConservation: Acquiring land or creating easements that are managed for biodiversityEnhancement: Actions that increase forb diversity and nectar resources, such as planting native milkweedThe tool includes a map that aggregates project point locations within 49 square mile sized hexagon grid cells. Users can click on individual grid cells to activate a pop-up menu to cycle through the projects that occurred within that grid cell. Information for each project include, but are not limited to, acreage, type of activity (i.e., restoration, maintenance, conservation, enhancement), data source, and lead organization.The tool also includes a dashboard to view bar graphs and pie charts that display project acreages and project number based on location (i.e., state), project activity type (i.e., restoration, maintenance, conservation, enhancement), data source, and management type. Data can be filtered by data source, activity type, and year. Data filtering will update the map, bar graphs, and pie charts.

This map shows the oil and natural gas wells across the United States. Oil and Natural Gas Well: A hole drilled in the earth for the purpose of finding or producing crude oil or natural gas; or producing services related to the production of crude or natural gas. Geographic coverage includes the United States (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming) as well Oil and Natural Gas wells in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba that are within 100 miles of the country's border with the United States. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) the following states do not have active/producing Oil or Natural Gas Wells: Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Idaho, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Some states do have wells for underground Natural Gas storage facilities where these have been identified they were included. This layer is derived from well data from individual states and provinces and United States Agencies. This layer is complete for the United States but further development of data missing from two Canadian provinces and Mexico is in process. This update release includes an additional 497,036 wells covering Texas. Oil and gas exploration in Texas takes advantage of drilling technology to use a single surface well drilling location to drill multiple bottom hole well connections to extract oil and gas. The addition of Well data from Texas results in the addition of a related table to support this one surface well to many bottom hole connections. This related table provides records for Wells that have more than one bottom hole linked to the surface well. Sourced from the HIFLD Open Data Portal for Energy.