| Date | Title | Provider |
| 2018 |
Digitized regional surficial geology map for northwestern Pennsylvania. The complete citation for the paper map is: Map of the Glacial Deposits of Northwestern Pennsylvania by V.C. Shepps, J.B. Droste, and R.F. Sitler under the supervision of G.W.White, 1959, Bulletin G-32, Pennsylvania Geologic Survey. The original map was published at a scale of 1:125,000. Three counties are fully covered by these deposits and mapped (Crawford, Erie, and Mercer); five more are partially covered and mapped (Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, Warren, and Venango).
This GIS dataset shows the areal distribution of 14 distinct glacial deposits from the Pleistocene Epoch and Recent stream alluvium and/or bedrock exposures. All mapping activity and lithologic interpretations were made by the original authors of the map (Shepps et al., 1959); the authors of this electronic geospatial resource (Shaffer et al., 2005) have only provided digital transfer of the map features and attributes and documentation of the process. Purpose:
This dataset identifies the distribution of surficial unconsolidated sediments (glacial deposits and stream alluvium) in northwestern PA. This map is the only published comprehensive regional surficial geologic map available for the region. The original map was digitized to provide an electronic version for GIS work. Potential users should read the Supplemental Information Section (below) to determine the appropriate scale for using these data. More detailed surficial geologic maps may exist within the mapped area in either paper or electronic format. Researchers are encouraged to check with the U.S. Geological Survey, Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, PASDA, and/or Geology Departments at local universities and colleges for other maps.
Metadata
|
Download
| More Options...
| Allegheny College |
| 2010 |
Digitized sediment thickness map for western Crawford County, Pennsylvania. (The term western applies to all portions of the county west of 80 degrees 07' 30") The complete citation for the source map is: Map Showing the Thickness of Glacial Deposits and Locations of Wells in Western Crawford County, Pennsylvania by George R. Schiner and John T. Gallaher, 1979, W46, Plate 2. The original map was published at a scale of 1:50,000. The map is a part of the Pennsylvania Geologic Survey Water Resource Report 46, Geology and Groundwater Resources of Western Crawford County, Pennsylvania. This GIS dataset shows the areal distribution of glacial deposits and estimated well yields across the western portion of Crawford County. Water well locations published on the source map have not been included here. All mapping activity and thickness interpretations were made by the original authors of the map (Shiner and Gallaher, 1979); the authors of this electronic geospatial resource (Shaffer et al., 2010) have only transferred the map features, assigned attributes, and documented our process.
Metadata
|
Download
| More Options...
| Allegheny College |
| 2010 |
Digitized sediment thickness map for Erie County, Pennsylvania. The complete citation for the source map is: Map Showing the Thickness of Unconsolidated Deposits, Locations of Selected Wells, and Seismic-Refraction Cross Sections by David B. Richards, J. Jack McCoy, and John T. Gallaher, 1987, W62, Plate 2. The original map was published at a scale of 1:62,500. The map is a part of the Pennsylvania Geologic Survey Water Resource Report 62, Groundwater Resources of Erie County, Pennsylvania. This GIS dataset shows the areal distribution of sediment thickness across Erie County. Water well locations and geophysical data on the source map have not been included here. All mapping activity and thickness interpretations were made by the original authors of the map (Richards et al., 1987); the authors of this electronic geospatial resource (Shaffer et al., 2010) have only transferred the map features, assigned attributes, and documented our process.
Metadata
|
Download
| More Options...
| Allegheny College |
| 2004 |
Database containing more than 33,466 records on water quality from 1986 to the present from 622 testing sites throughout Pennsylvania. Information in records includes at least alkalinity and Ph and includes nitrates and phosphates for some sites since 1996.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Alliance for Aquatic Resource Monitoring |
| 2002 |
AMERICAN FORESTS conducted an urban ecosystem analysis of the Delaware Valley region to provide community leaders with detailed information about the region's tree cover and its environmental and economic impacts. The analysis documents what landscape changes have occurred over time and how these changes have impacted the environmental services the urban forest provides to the region. The study used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to connect image analysis of the area to ecological assessment of tree cover change trends over the last 15 years. In addition, AMERICAN FORESTS created a "green data layer" -a digital tool that local communities can use to integrate urban forest ecology into their future planning.
Frankford Tacony, Mill Creek and Cobbs Creek in Pennsylvania and the Big Timber in New Jersey were selected for analysis and to create a detailed (4-meter resolution) digital landcover. The detailed analysis used a high-resolution satellite image as the basis for creating a "green data layer" or classified land cover image. This digital mapping tool enables planners to integrate green infrastructure into their future planning.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
| More Options...
| American Forests |
| 1985 |
AMERICAN FORESTS conducted an urban ecosystem analysis of the Delaware Valley region to provide community leaders with detailed information about the region's tree cover and its environmental and economic impacts. The analysis documents what landscape changes have occurred over time and how these changes have impacted the environmental services the urban forest provides to the region. The study used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to connect image analysis of the area to ecological assessment of tree cover change trends over the last 15 years. This file represents a reclassification of 30-meter resolution Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
| More Options...
| American Forests |
| 1993 |
AMERICAN FORESTS conducted an urban ecosystem analysis of the Delaware Valley region to provide community leaders with detailed information about the region's tree cover and its environmental and economic impacts. The analysis documents what landscape changes have occurred over time and how these changes have impacted the environmental services the urban forest provides to the region. The study used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to connect image analysis of the area to ecological assessment of tree cover change trends over the last 15 years. This file represents a reclassification of 30-meter resolution Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
| More Options...
| American Forests |
| 2000 |
AMERICAN FORESTS conducted an urban ecosystem analysis of the Delaware Valley region to provide community leaders with detailed information about the region's tree cover and its environmental and economic impacts. The analysis documents what landscape changes have occurred over time and how these changes have impacted the environmental services the urban forest provides to the region. The study used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to connect image analysis of the area to ecological assessment of tree cover change trends over the last 15 years. This file represents a reclassification of 30-meter resolution Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
| More Options...
| American Forests |
| 2005 |
The state of PA that falls within the Higlands Regional Study Area designated by the USFS. Plus, the extended area designated by the Appalachian Mountain Club to the border of Maryland.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Appalachian Mountain Club |
| 2005 |
A Critical Treasure is a recognized priority area for additional land conservation efforts in the Highlands that has significant value of open space preservation, watershed protection, habitats for plants or wildlife, or outdoor recreation.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Appalachian Mountain Club |
| 2005 |
Corridors are made up of the least disturbed and therefore the best potential lands available to unite core conservation areas. These are key landscapes that provide opportunities for biodiversity while contributing to the greenway’s overall ecological richness.
The hubs and corridors are the major concentration of the map and serve as the core conservation areas in the PA Highlands Greenway. The hub and spoke system was created by AMC by combining the results of two analysis techniques, stronghold analysis and the Natural Lands Trust’s Smart ConservationTM.. Stronghold analysis identifies areas that are least affected by man-made disturbances such as roads and fragmentation of the natural landscape while Smart Conservation determines the ecological health of an area. The combination of these two analyses in conjunction with the knowledge of local stakeholders was used to prioritize core conservation areas.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Appalachian Mountain Club |
| 2007 |
Hubs are areas that have a high natural resource value such as large intact forests or abundant wildlife. They have little fragmentation and include unfragemented forests and farmland. Hubs are both undisturbed natural lands and adjacent protected lands such as state parks, forests or state game lands.
The hubs and corridors are the major concentration of the map and serve as the core conservation areas in the PA Highlands Greenway. The hub and spoke system was created by AMC by combining the results of two analysis techniques, stronghold analysis and the Natural Lands Trust’s Smart ConservationTM.. Stronghold analysis identifies areas that are least affected by man-made disturbances such as roads and fragmentation of the natural landscape while Smart Conservation determines the ecological health of an area. The combination of these two analyses in conjunction with the knowledge of local stakeholders was used to prioritize core conservation areas.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Appalachian Mountain Club |
| 2005 |
States that fall within the Higlands Regional Study Area designated by the USFS, portions of CT, NJ, NY, and PA. PA Highlands boundary was extended by the Appalachian Mountain Club to the border of Maryland.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Appalachian Mountain Club |
| 2012 |
Portion of Pennsylvania that fall within the Higlands Regional Study Area.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Appalachian Mountain Club |
| 2003 |
This data set represents the most current depiction of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail centerline for the portion of the trail passing through Pennsylvania. Locational information used to create this data set were obtained from both Global Positioning Systems (GPS) survey data collected between 1998-2001 and information digitized from USGS topographical maps and Appalachian Trail maps.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Appalachian Trail Conference |
| 2003 |
This map layer portrays our current understanding of the distributions of
United States and Canadian bat species during the past 100-150 years.
Specimen and capture data were obtained from a variety of data sources,
including U.S. State natural heritage programs, Canadian conservation data
centers, published literature, unpublished reports, museum collections,
and personal communications from university, federal, State and local
biologists. Records are all specimen, roost, capture, or positive visual
identification-based; no acoustic-only identifications were used for this
map layer. This map layer reflects minor changes to the July, 2002, data
set.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Bat Conservation International |
| 2003 |
This map layer portrays our current understanding of the distributions of
United States and Canadian bat species during the past 100-150 years.
Specimen and capture data were obtained from a variety of data sources,
including U.S. State natural heritage programs, Canadian conservation data
centers, published literature, unpublished reports, museum collections,
and personal communications from university, federal, State and local
biologists. Records are all specimen, roost, capture, or positive visual
identification-based; no acoustic-only identifications were used for this
map layer. This map layer reflects minor changes to the July, 2002, data
set.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Bat Conservation International |
| 2003 |
This map layer portrays our current understanding of the distributions of
United States and Canadian bat species during the past 100-150 years.
Specimen and capture data were obtained from a variety of data sources,
including U.S. State natural heritage programs, Canadian conservation data
centers, published literature, unpublished reports, museum collections,
and personal communications from university, federal, State and local
biologists. Records are all specimen, roost, capture, or positive visual
identification-based; no acoustic-only identifications were used for this
map layer. This map layer reflects minor changes to the July, 2002, data
set.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Bat Conservation International |
| 2003 |
This map layer portrays our current understanding of the distributions of
United States and Canadian bat species during the past 100-150 years.
Specimen and capture data were obtained from a variety of data sources,
including U.S. State natural heritage programs, Canadian conservation data
centers, published literature, unpublished reports, museum collections,
and personal communications from university, federal, State and local
biologists. Records are all specimen, roost, capture, or positive visual
identification-based; no acoustic-only identifications were used for this
map layer. This map layer reflects minor changes to the July, 2002, data
set.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Bat Conservation International |
| 2003 |
This map layer portrays our current understanding of the distributions of
United States and Canadian bat species during the past 100-150 years.
Specimen and capture data were obtained from a variety of data sources,
including U.S. State natural heritage programs, Canadian conservation data
centers, published literature, unpublished reports, museum collections,
and personal communications from university, federal, State and local
biologists. Records are all specimen, roost, capture, or positive visual
identification-based; no acoustic-only identifications were used for this
map layer. This map layer reflects minor changes to the July, 2002, data
set.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Bat Conservation International |
| 2003 |
This map layer portrays our current understanding of the distributions of
United States and Canadian bat species during the past 100-150 years.
Specimen and capture data were obtained from a variety of data sources,
including U.S. State natural heritage programs, Canadian conservation data
centers, published literature, unpublished reports, museum collections,
and personal communications from university, federal, State and local
biologists. Records are all specimen, roost, capture, or positive visual
identification-based; no acoustic-only identifications were used for this
map layer. This map layer reflects minor changes to the July, 2002, data
set.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Bat Conservation International |
| 2003 |
This map layer portrays our current understanding of the distributions of
United States and Canadian bat species during the past 100-150 years.
Specimen and capture data were obtained from a variety of data sources,
including U.S. State natural heritage programs, Canadian conservation data
centers, published literature, unpublished reports, museum collections,
and personal communications from university, federal, State and local
biologists. Records are all specimen, roost, capture, or positive visual
identification-based; no acoustic-only identifications were used for this
map layer. This map layer reflects minor changes to the July, 2002, data
set.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Bat Conservation International |
| 2003 |
This map layer portrays our current understanding of the distributions of
United States and Canadian bat species during the past 100-150 years.
Specimen and capture data were obtained from a variety of data sources,
including U.S. State natural heritage programs, Canadian conservation data
centers, published literature, unpublished reports, museum collections,
and personal communications from university, federal, State and local
biologists. Records are all specimen, roost, capture, or positive visual
identification-based; no acoustic-only identifications were used for this
map layer. This map layer reflects minor changes to the July, 2002, data
set.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Bat Conservation International |
| 2003 |
This map layer portrays our current understanding of the distributions of
United States and Canadian bat species during the past 100-150 years.
Specimen and capture data were obtained from a variety of data sources,
including U.S. State natural heritage programs, Canadian conservation data
centers, published literature, unpublished reports, museum collections,
and personal communications from university, federal, State and local
biologists. Records are all specimen, roost, capture, or positive visual
identification-based; no acoustic-only identifications were used for this
map layer. This map layer reflects minor changes to the July, 2002, data
set.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Bat Conservation International |
| 2003 |
This map layer portrays our current understanding of the distributions of
United States and Canadian bat species during the past 100-150 years.
Specimen and capture data were obtained from a variety of data sources,
including U.S. State natural heritage programs, Canadian conservation data
centers, published literature, unpublished reports, museum collections,
and personal communications from university, federal, State and local
biologists. Records are all specimen, roost, capture, or positive visual
identification-based; no acoustic-only identifications were used for this
map layer. This map layer reflects minor changes to the July, 2002, data
set.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Bat Conservation International |
| 2003 |
This map layer portrays our current understanding of the distributions of
United States and Canadian bat species during the past 100-150 years.
Specimen and capture data were obtained from a variety of data sources,
including U.S. State natural heritage programs, Canadian conservation data
centers, published literature, unpublished reports, museum collections,
and personal communications from university, federal, State and local
biologists. Records are all specimen, roost, capture, or positive visual
identification-based; no acoustic-only identifications were used for this
map layer. This map layer reflects minor changes to the July, 2002, data
set.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Bat Conservation International |
| 2003 |
This map layer portrays our current understanding of the distributions of
United States and Canadian bat species during the past 100-150 years.
Specimen and capture data were obtained from a variety of data sources,
including U.S. State natural heritage programs, Canadian conservation data
centers, published literature, unpublished reports, museum collections,
and personal communications from university, federal, State and local
biologists. Records are all specimen, roost, capture, or positive visual
identification-based; no acoustic-only identifications were used for this
map layer. This map layer reflects minor changes to the July, 2002, data
set.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Bat Conservation International |
| 2003 |
This map layer portrays our current understanding of the distributions of
United States and Canadian bat species during the past 100-150 years.
Specimen and capture data were obtained from a variety of data sources,
including U.S. State natural heritage programs, Canadian conservation data
centers, published literature, unpublished reports, museum collections,
and personal communications from university, federal, State and local
biologists. Records are all specimen, roost, capture, or positive visual
identification-based; no acoustic-only identifications were used for this
map layer. This map layer reflects minor changes to the July, 2002, data
set.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Bat Conservation International |
| 2003 |
This map layer portrays our current understanding of the distributions of
United States and Canadian bat species during the past 100-150 years.
Specimen and capture data were obtained from a variety of data sources,
including U.S. State natural heritage programs, Canadian conservation data
centers, published literature, unpublished reports, museum collections,
and personal communications from university, federal, State and local
biologists. Records are all specimen, roost, capture, or positive visual
identification-based; no acoustic-only identifications were used for this
map layer. This map layer reflects minor changes to the July, 2002, data
set.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Bat Conservation International |
| 2006 |
The 3 Rivers 2nd Nature project was directed by artists/researchers Tim Collins and Reiko Goto. The project addressed the meaning, form, and function of public space and nature in Allegheny County, PA, U.S.A. This is the region that encompasses the former steel industry capital of the United States, Pittsburgh PA, U.S.A. 3 Rivers 2nd Nature focused upon the three major rivers; the Allegheny, the Monongahela, and the Ohio Rivers, as well as the streams and subwatersheds. This five-year project revisited questions of nature and post-industrial public space, first addressed on the Nine Mile Run Greenway Project. The focus of the work is research to benefit the public realm, applied as strategic knowledge with accompanying outreach programs intended to enable creative public advocacy and change.
The 3 Rivers 2nd Nature conducted integrative analysis and instrumental planning based upon the rigorous field studies that began in the year 2000. The work effort focused upon partnerships to accomplish interdisciplinary analysis, spatial mapping, and concept design within and among specific communities. The work culminated with an ecological design plan and a water quality policy report that analyzed alternatives for ongoing water quality sampling. Finally, the project team has organized the "Monongahela Conferences" and the subsequent 2005 "Groundworks" exhibition (October 2005) to examine the artist's role in social and environmental change.
Metadata
|
Download
| More Options...
| Carnegie Mellon University |
| 2011 |
Public landings and other river access points to the Choptank River and its tributaries, on Maryland's Eastern Shore.
Metadata
|
Download
| More Options...
| Choptank River Heritage |
| 2011 |
Shows environmental education and preservation sites in or near the watershed of the Choptank River, on Maryland's Eastern Shore, that are of interest to tourism planners, historians, and environmentalists.
Metadata
|
Download
| More Options...
| Choptank River Heritage |
| 2011 |
Shows historic sites in or near the watershed of the Choptank River, on Maryland's Eastern Shore, that are of interest to tourism planners, historians, and environmentalists.
Metadata
|
Download
| More Options...
| Choptank River Heritage |
| 2011 |
This map shows NRHP sites in the Mid-Shore counties of Kent, Queen Anne, Caroline, Talbot, and Dorchester, on Maryland's Eastern Shore. Map data was provided to the Choptank River Heritage Center (CRHC) by the office of the Chief Archeologist/GIS Coordinator, Maryland Historical Trust, Maryland Department of Planning, 100 Community Place, Crownsville, MD 21032.
Metadata
|
Download
| More Options...
| Choptank River Heritage |
| 2010 |
Shows watershed of the Choptank River and its tributaries, on Maryland's Eastern Shore.
Metadata
|
Download
| More Options...
| Choptank River Heritage |
| 2010 |
Protected areas are cornerstones of national and international conservation strategies. By way of these designations, lands and waters are set-aside in-perpetuity to preserve functioning natural ecosystems, act as refuges for species, and maintain ecological processes. Complementary conservation strategies preserve land for the sustainable use of natural resources, or for the protection of significant geologic and cultural features or open space. PAD-US 1.1 (CBI Edition) attempts to include all available spatial data on these places. It is our goal to publish the most comprehensive geospatial data set of U. S. protected areas to date.
PAD-US 1.1 (CBI Edition) is limited to the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. It does not include protected areas data for U.S. territories at this time.
The PAD-US 1.1 (CBI Edition) data set portrays the nation's protected areas with a standardized spatial geometry and numerous valuable attributes on land ownership, management designations, and conservation status (using national GAP and international IUCN coding systems). The PAD-US 1.1 (CBI Edition) defines protected area to include all lands dedicated to the preservation of biology diversity and to other natural, recreation and cultural uses, and managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means (adapted from IUCN definition). The database represents the full range of conservation designations that preserve these natural resources in the United States. Our database does not distinguish a protection threshold above which biodiversity is considered secure. Instead, a complete suite of protected area attributes are provided for each polygon with the purpose of giving users the information they need to define the most relevant conservation thresholds for their own objectives and requirements. Collaborating with the nation's leading data providers, the goal is to provide an annual update.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Conservation Biology Institute |
| 2006 |
The Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) is the nation's first pilot project under the National Fish Habitat Initiative, which directs locally-driven efforts that build private and public partnerships to improve fish habitat. The long-term goals of the EBTJV are to develop a comprehensive restoration and education strategy to improve aquatic habitat, to raise education awareness, and to raise federal, state and local funds for brook trout conservation.
In 2005, in recognition of the need to address regional and range-wide threats to brook trout, a group of public and private entities formed the EBTJV to halt the decline of brook trout and restore fishable populations. The group spearheaded a range-wide assessment of brook trout populations and threats to brook trout and brook trout habitat in the Eastern United States (report forthcoming). Seventeen states are currently drafting strategies to prioritize policy changes and on-the-ground actions to improve water quality and restore brook trout habitat and populations in their individual state using locally-driven, incentive-based, and non-regulatory programs.
Metadata
|
Download
| More Options...
| Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture |
| 2022 |
Water Quality of the Large Discharges from Mines in the Anthracite Region of Eastern Pennsylvania. Developed by USGS to showcase the locations and water quality of the anthracite discharges
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation |
| 2014 |
Boundaries of 9,895 watersheds in Pennsylvania indicated in the Pennsylvania gazetteer of streams. These boundaries enclose catchment areas for named streams officially recognized by the Board on Geographic Names and other unofficially named streams that flow through named hollows. ERRI extracted, reprojected and edgematched datasets for major watersheds produced by the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey into this smallsheds coverage of the state of Pennsylvania. EPCAMR spatially joined PA DEP 104 Major Sheds, Act 167 Stormwater and PA River Basins layers and incorporated them into the attributes to show features as pieces of a bigger watershed (2009).
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation |
| 2000 |
Watershed conservation plan for the Neshaminy Creek. Contains multiple datasets including park boundaries, cultural places, floodplains, hydrology, municipal boundaries, land use, roads, railroads, soils, and zoning
Metadata
|
Download
| More Options...
| Heritage Conservancy |
| 2012 |
During 2011 - 2012, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP), as part of the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program and Pennsylvania Stream ReLeaf, funded Heritage Conservancy to develop a rapid assessment method to identify and map sections of stream lacking riparian forest buffers. Montgomery County Planning Commission provided in-kind funding for the project as well as completing the assessment portion in Montgomery Count. Heritage Conservancy completed the assessment for the areas in Bucks County and Philadelphia County. Both organizations then mapped waterways lacking riparian forest buffers. The assessment included the main stem, tributaries and small headwater streams. The 1' pixel resolution 2010 aerials from DVRPC served as the basis for the riparian conditions along the waterways. The forest buffer conditions were classified and digitized into a Geographic Information System (GIS). This dataset is an assessment of the same area completed back in 200-2004. The same methodology of creating 50 foot buffers from the edge of water to assess the tree cover in this area was used. The stream centerline is used to represent the classification of whether one side, both sides, or neither side has tree cover. In addition to the three categories from the previous assessment, the category of culvert was added to incorporate areas where there was not an opportunity for tree cover.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Heritage Conservancy |
| 2000 |
During 2000 - 2004, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP), as part of the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program and Pennsylvania Stream ReLeaf, funded Heritage Conservancy to develop a rapid assessment method to identify and map sections of stream lacking riparian forest buffers. The conservancy then assessed various watersheds in southeastern Pennsylvania and mapped waterways lacking riparian forest buffers. The assessment included the main stem, tributaries and small headwater streams.
Interpretation of 1" = 400' black-and-white high altitude aerial photographs, Orthophotos, and videotape from helicopter over flights were used to determine the presence or absence of a forested buffer for 1,200 miles of stream. The forest buffer conditions were classified and digitized into a Geographic Information System (GIS).
A series of large-scale (1" = 400') maps were produced showing sections of stream bank lacking forest buffers. Local conservation groups were given the maps to assist them in targeting areas for riparian buffer plantings to improve water quality.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Heritage Conservancy |
| 2007 |
This is a county wide analysis of Berks County waterways to determine riparian buffer values given a 50 ft., 50% canopy coverage requirement.
The analysis was done by first overlaying the stream shapefile on the orthophotos. Next a 50 ft. buffer shapefile was derived from the streamlines and added. Using the newly created buffer shapefile as a guide, visual analysis was done for entire shapefile. The canopy coverage percentage was interpreted by Heritage Conservancy and buffer shapefile was used to define the 50 ft. distance requirement. At a scale of 1:2,000, the streamlines were attributed with one of three riparian values (full, half, none).
- Full Value: both banks of the stream contain 50% or greater canopy coverage for 50 ft from the stream.
- Half Value: only one bank of the stream contains 50% or greater canopy coverage.
- None Value: neither stream bank contains 50% or greater canopy coverage.
The threshold for determining whether or not a shoreline segment or a stream centerline segment should be used for the analysis was if the waterway was wider than 100 ft for a linear distance of approximately 400 ft. If a waterway was wider than 100 ft. for a linear distance of approximately 400 ft., shorelines would be used rather than stream centerlines. Having the threshold include a 400 ft linear distance requirement made many ponds be represented by a centerline rather than a shoreline. In cases were the original data contained two shorelines to represent a stream that was not greater than 100 ft wide, a new centerline was created by Heritage Conservancy by using the orthophotos and the shorelines as guides.
Ponds that were delineated to represent headwaters were not included in this analysis. Analysis and editing would begin at the tributary originating from the pond, but the pond itself would not be given a riparian value.
Edits to the shape of the streamline were done when they were visually obvious. The point of this analysis was not to delineate new stream lines, but rather to give existing streamlines riparian buffer attributes. The large majority of the segments are identical to the original Berks County Planning Commission streamlines.
Stream and shorelines were cut into segments based on the riparian attribute value.
Ten sites were chosen for on-site verification and they were visited in July 2007.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Heritage Conservancy |
| 2009 |
PA CleanWays' illegal dump surveys educate state, county and local officials, as well as citizens, about the problem of illegal dumping and provide valuable data about the dumpsites and the community in which they reside.
Illegal dumping mostly occurs in remote and secluded places, rural areas where few persons live, and the roads are less traveled. However, for many people who are residents of an urban area, an illegal dump is often within a one-mile radius of their home. Overall, very few people are aware of the widespread problem of illegal dumping in Pennsylvania.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful |
| 2010 |
Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful illegal dump surveys educate state, county and local officials, as well as citizens, about the problem of illegal dumping and provide valuable data about the dumpsites and the community in which they reside.
Illegal dumping mostly occurs in remote and secluded places, rural areas where few persons live, and the roads are less traveled. However, for many people who are residents of an urban area, an illegal dump is often within a one-mile radius of their home. Overall, very few people are aware of the widespread problem of illegal dumping in Pennsylvania.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful |
| 2011 |
Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful illegal dump surveys educate state, county and local officials, as well as citizens, about the problem of illegal dumping and provide valuable data about the dumpsites and the community in which they reside.
Illegal dumping mostly occurs in remote and secluded places, rural areas where few persons live, and the roads are less traveled. However, for many people who are residents of an urban area, an illegal dump is often within a one-mile radius of their home. Overall, very few people are aware of the widespread problem of illegal dumping in Pennsylvania.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful |
| 2015 |
These ESRI shape files are of National Park Service tract and boundary data that was created by the Land Resources Division. Tracts are numbered and created by the regional cartographic staff at the Land Resources Program Centers and are associated to the Land Status Maps. This data should be used to display properties that NPS owns and properties that NPS may have some type of interest such as scenic easements or right of ways. Spatial data contained herein represent the administrative boundary of the Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River (UPDE) as defined in the 1986 Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River Management Plan. The data are intended for general GIS analysis, display, planning, and reference purposes only. The spatial data contained herein are a digital representation of the Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River's administrative boundary. These digital data were derived from the official version of the boundary as represented in hard-copy form in the 1986 Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River Management Plan, as approved in the 1987 Record of Decision. The plan boundary, which was established to meet the resource protection requirements set forth in the Wild and Scenic Rvers Act and in the Special Statutory Provisions for the Upper Delaware, was delineated so as to encompass "lands from which runoff drains directly into the river and tributary drainages upstream to the first prominent topographic feature" (River Management Plan, 1986). The authoritative area of the boundary as given in the 1986 River Management Plan is 55,574.5 acres. At present, the National Park Service owns approximately 31 acres within the boundary, and the remaining land is mostly privately owned, with some state and local government holdings. The boundary was digitized based on the eight pages of maps from the River Management Plan georeferenced to 7.5 minute quadrangle topo maps from the USGS Historical Topographic Map Collection. National Park Service, Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River . Credits: Shannon L. Thol - Graduate Certificate in GIS, Master of Geographic Information Systems - Under contract by National Park Service, Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River to complete task of digitizing Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River's administrative boundary.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| National Park Service |
| 2015 |
These ESRI shape files are of National Park Service tract and boundary data that was created by the Land Resources Division. Tracts are numbered and created by the regional cartographic staff at the Land Resources Program Centers and are associated to the Land Status Maps. This data should be used to display properties that NPS owns and properties that NPS may have some type of interest such as scenic easements or right of ways. Spatial data contained herein represent the administrative boundary of the Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River (UPDE) as defined in the 1986 Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River Management Plan. The data are intended for general GIS analysis, display, planning, and reference purposes only. The spatial data contained herein are a digital representation of the Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River's administrative boundary. These digital data were derived from the official version of the boundary as represented in hard-copy form in the 1986 Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River Management Plan, as approved in the 1987 Record of Decision. The plan boundary, which was established to meet the resource protection requirements set forth in the Wild and Scenic Rvers Act and in the Special Statutory Provisions for the Upper Delaware, was delineated so as to encompass "lands from which runoff drains directly into the river and tributary drainages upstream to the first prominent topographic feature" (River Management Plan, 1986). The authoritative area of the boundary as given in the 1986 River Management Plan is 55,574.5 acres. At present, the National Park Service owns approximately 31 acres within the boundary, and the remaining land is mostly privately owned, with some state and local government holdings. The boundary was digitized based on the eight pages of maps from the River Management Plan georeferenced to 7.5 minute quadrangle topo maps from the USGS Historical Topographic Map Collection. National Park Service, Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River . Credits: Shannon L. Thol - Graduate Certificate in GIS, Master of Geographic Information Systems - Under contract by National Park Service, Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River to complete task of digitizing Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River's administrative boundary.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| National Park Service |
| 2015 |
These ESRI shape files are of National Park Service tract and boundary data that was created by the Land Resources Division. Tracts are numbered and created by the regional cartographic staff at the Land Resources Program Centers and are associated to the Land Status Maps. This data should be used to display properties that NPS owns and properties that NPS may have some type of interest such as scenic easements or right of ways. Spatial data contained herein represent the administrative boundary of the Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River (UPDE) as defined in the 1986 Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River Management Plan. The data are intended for general GIS analysis, display, planning, and reference purposes only. The spatial data contained herein are a digital representation of the Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River's administrative boundary. These digital data were derived from the official version of the boundary as represented in hard-copy form in the 1986 Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River Management Plan, as approved in the 1987 Record of Decision. The plan boundary, which was established to meet the resource protection requirements set forth in the Wild and Scenic Rvers Act and in the Special Statutory Provisions for the Upper Delaware, was delineated so as to encompass "lands from which runoff drains directly into the river and tributary drainages upstream to the first prominent topographic feature" (River Management Plan, 1986). The authoritative area of the boundary as given in the 1986 River Management Plan is 55,574.5 acres. At present, the National Park Service owns approximately 31 acres within the boundary, and the remaining land is mostly privately owned, with some state and local government holdings. The boundary was digitized based on the eight pages of maps from the River Management Plan georeferenced to 7.5 minute quadrangle topo maps from the USGS Historical Topographic Map Collection. National Park Service, Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River . Credits: Shannon L. Thol - Graduate Certificate in GIS, Master of Geographic Information Systems - Under contract by National Park Service, Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River to complete task of digitizing Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River's administrative boundary.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| National Park Service |
| 2016 |
Natural Lands Trust works proactively to protect the natural heritage of the Philadelphia region for today and generations to come. This file contains various
layers and maps for Schuylkill Action Network - Land Prioritization Strategy Model Included maps are:
Composite Resource Protection Prioritization, Composite Resource Protection Prioritization 3 color, DVRPC Future Development Year 2020-2030, Future Development on High Priority CRP Areas, NLT SC Conservation Resource Prioritization, PWD Source Water Model.
Also included are the GIS data layers that support these maps.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Natural Lands Trust |
| 2023 |
These are the NLT preserves that are currently open to the public. Trails, parking areas, and other information can be found on the NLT website: https://natlands.org/category/preserves-to-visit/list-of-preserves/
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Natural Lands Trust |
| 2015 |
Two seamless soils datasets based on USDA’s SSURGO and STATSGO databases were created for the entire DRB region, and information pertaining to various soil-related factors such as erodibility (k factor), available water - holding capacity, texture, etc. were compiled and summarized for discrete mapping units at these two scales. The SSURGO (Soil Survey Geographic) database is compiled at the detailed county-level survey scale that most soil information users are familiar with, and has two basic components: 1) digital boundaries of the detailed soil mapping units, and 2) tabular information on a wide range of soil parameters associated with each mapping unit. The STATSGO (State Soil Geographic) database summarizes similar soils information at a much more generalized “soil association” scale. Both of these datasets for the DRB area were downloaded from USDA’s “geospatial data” site at http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov. Once downloaded, considerable effort was then expended to first
seam together the data from the separate states overlapping the DRB, and then to “populate” both soil databases by linking a number of “attribute tables” to the soils polygons contained within the DRB boundary. In this case, over 325,000 soil polygons were populated with information extracted from about a dozen different attribute tables.
Metadata
|
Download
| More Options...
| Open Space Institute |
| 2006 |
Boundary of the Delaware Estuary
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| Partnership for the Delaware Estuary |
| 2004 |
This data layer depicts a subset of protected lands information for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The data for all of the Protected Lands Inventory layers was collected from the 1998 PA GAP Analysis Program's Managed Lands data layer as well as from hard copy and digital data provided by land trusts and local governments.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| The Conservation Fund |
| 2004 |
This data layer depicts a subset of protected lands information for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The data for all of the Protected Lands Inventory layers was collected from the 1998 PA GAP Analysis Program's Managed Lands data layer as well as from hard copy and digital data provided by land trusts and local governments.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| The Conservation Fund |
| 2004 |
This data layer depicts a subset of protected lands information for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The data for all of the Protected Lands Inventory layers was collected from the 1998 PA GAP Analysis Program's Managed Lands data layer as well as from hard copy and digital data provided by land trusts and local governments.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| The Conservation Fund |
| 2010 |
PAMAP Program Cycle 1/DVRPC 2005 Digital Orthoimagery High Resolution Orthoimage (2003 - 2006) - cached mapservice
Metadata
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
| More Options...
| The Pennsylvania State University |
| 1996 |
Agricultural security areas from LLRWS data.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| The Pennsylvania State University |
| 2012 |
Pennsylvania bear harvest by county boundary 2003 - 2010
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| The Pennsylvania State University |
| 2010 |
This dataset is intended to illustrate the potential for biofuel production in the Chesapeake Bay, in a manner that does not compete with current food or fiber production. This data was used in support of a Chesapeake Bay Commission report titled: "Chesapeake Biofuel Policies: Balancing Energy, Economy and Environment" published in 2010.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| The Pennsylvania State University |
| 2010 |
This layer shows potential land area for the production of biofuel feedstocks, such as winter barley, winter rye and switchgrass. Areas and corresponding crop production totals are aggregated by HUC6 boundaries for the Chesapeake Bay.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| The Pennsylvania State University |
| 2021 |
The goal of this project is to apply the latest in remote sensing technology to map the Lake Erie shoreline in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has 77 miles of Lake Erie shoreline contanined entirely within Erie County. Most of the shoreline consists of bluff geomorphologies ranging in height from 5 to 180 feet above the lake level. A bluff is a high bank or bold headland with a broad precipitous cliff face overlooking a lake or sea. Notable exceptions include the mouths of major tributaries and Presque Isle, adjacent to the City of Erie. Nearly all of the shoreline is designated as Bluff Recession Hazard Areas (BRHA) under the framework established in the Bluff Recession and Setback Act (the Act) and companion regulations in Pa. Code Title 25, Chapter 85. Municipalities having BRHAs designated within their jurisdictions are required to enact specific setback ordinances relating to construction and development activities occurring within the BRHAs.The bluff crest is the edge of the bluff.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| The Pennsylvania State University |
| 2021 |
The goal of this project is to apply the latest in remote sensing technology to map the Lake Erie shoreline in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has 77 miles of Lake Erie shoreline contanined entirely within Erie County. Most of the shoreline consists of bluff geomorphologies ranging in height from 5 to 180 feet above the lake level. A bluff is a high bank or bold headland with a broad precipitous cliff face overlooking a lake or sea. Notable exceptions include the mouths of major tributaries and Presque Isle, adjacent to the City of Erie. Nearly all of the shoreline is designated as Bluff Recession Hazard Areas (BRHA) under the framework established in the Bluff Recession and Setback Act (the Act) and companion regulations in Pa. Code Title 25, Chapter 85. Municipalities having BRHAs designated within their jurisdictions are required to enact specific setback ordinances relating to construction and development activities occurring within the BRHAs.The bluff crest is the edge of the bluff.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| The Pennsylvania State University |
| 2021 |
The goal of this project is to apply the latest in remote sensing technology to map the Lake Erie shoreline in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has 77 miles of Lake Erie shoreline contanined entirely within Erie County. Most of the shoreline consists of bluff geomorphologies ranging in height from 5 to 180 feet above the lake level. A bluff is a high bank or bold headland with a broad precipitous cliff face overlooking a lake or sea. Notable exceptions include the mouths of major tributaries and Presque Isle, adjacent to the City of Erie. Nearly all of the shoreline is designated as Bluff Recession Hazard Areas (BRHA) under the framework established in the Bluff Recession and Setback Act (the Act) and companion regulations in Pa. Code Title 25, Chapter 85. Municipalities having BRHAs designated within their jurisdictions are required to enact specific setback ordinances relating to construction and development activities occurring within the BRHAs.The bluff crest is the edge of the bluff.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| The Pennsylvania State University |
| 1996 |
Major watershed boundaries for the Chesapeake Bay basin.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
Spreadsheet
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| The Pennsylvania State University |
| 1996 |
Boundaries for the states in the Chesapeake Bay region.
Metadata
|
Download
| More Options...
| The Pennsylvania State University |
| 2010 |
Pennsylvania deer harvest by county boundary 2003
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| The Pennsylvania State University |
| 2012 |
Pennsylvania deer harvest by Wildlife Management Units 2004 - 2012
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
| The Pennsylvania State University |
| 2021 |
The Erie PA Hydrology mapping will consist of the following:
1. Island – land areas within rivers and water bodies.
2. Marsh_Swamp – marshes, swamps and areas of intermittent water.
3. River_Poly – double line streams that are wider than 8 feet wide.
4. Streams – single line stream less than 8 feet wide.
5. Waterbody – a quarter acre ponds larger than 200 sq. ft. within 200 feet. of the bluff line and half an acre beyond 200 feet.
Metadata
|
Download
|
Preview
|
KMZ
|
Spreadsheet
|
GeoJSON
|
Add to ArcMap:
Image
or
Feature
|
Add to ArcGIS Pro
| More Options...
|