alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Planning

Small Groups for Development of Quantitative Targets for

Management Objectives

September 2000

Goal 1: Foodbase

Chairs: Barry Gold and Pam Hyde

Dave Cohen

Bill Persons

Norm Henderson

Bill Davis

Goal 2: Native Fish

Chairs: Barry Gold and Pam Hyde

Dave Cohen

Bill Persons

Bill Davis

Don Metz

Gary Burton

Jeff Cross

Goal 3: Extirpated Species

No small group formed (feasibility yet to

be determined)

Goal 4: Trout

Chairs: Barry Gold and Pam Hyde

Dave Cohen

Bill Persons

Bill Davis

Don Metz

Gary Burton

Bob Winfree

Goal 5: Water

Chair: Wayne Cook

Goal 6: Sediment

Chairs: Randy Peterson and 

Andre Potochnik

Goal 7: Kanab ambersnail

Chairs: Rick Johnson & Bob Winfree

Goal 8: Southwestern willow Flycatcher

Chairs: Rick Johnson & Bob Winfree

Goal 9: Riparian and spring (not

including MO33)

Chairs: Rick Johnson & Bob Winfree

Goal 10: Recreation

Chair: Andre Potochnik

Goal 11: Power

Chair: Ted Rampton

Goal 12: Cultural (including MO33) 

Chair: Kurt Dongoske

Goal 13: Adaptive Management Prog.

Chairs: Cliff Barrett, Barry Gold, and

Pam Hyde

Jeff Cross

John Shields

Mike Yeatts/Kurt Dongoske

Dave Cohen

Chris Harris

Norm Henderson

Robert Begay
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. German Elias GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-10455.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 20, 2007.

Don B. Overall, AUSA, USTU—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Maria Suzanna Davila, Davila Law Office, PC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

German Elias Garcia appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 40-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826(a).

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia’s counsel has filed a brief stating that she finds no meritorious issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our examination of the brief and our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no arguable issues for review on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-4153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES EDWARD PALMER, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CR-94-105)

Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: August 12, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Wells Dickson, Jr., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Sean Kittrell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston,

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Edward Palmer, Jr., appeals from his convictions pursuant to his guilty plea for bank robbery and use of a firearm during an attempted bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d) (1994) and

his resulting sentence. We affirm.

Palmer’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising as a potentially meritorious

issue the district court’s denial of Palmer’s motion to withdraw

his guilty plea and his motion for reconsideration of the same. We

have reviewed each of the allegations of error cited below and on

appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Palmer’s motions. See United States v. Wilson,

81 F.3d 1300, 1305 (4th Cir. 1996) (providing standard). Palmer has

also filed a pro se brief raising several allegations of error. We

have reviewed each of these claims and determine them to be without

merit. Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for

potential error and has found none. Therefore, we affirm Palmer’s

conviction and sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from
3

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was

served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
Glen Canyon Dam 

LTEMP EIS

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program 

Technical Work Group

April 3, 2013

Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation
Glen Canyon Dam

Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan EIS

LTEMP Purpose and Scope

• To identify dam operations, management actions, and 

experimental options that will provide a framework for 

adaptively managing Glen Canyon Dam over the next 15 to 20 

years consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA) 

and other provisions of applicable Federal law. 

• The proposed action is to develop a plan that will determine 

specific options for dam operations, non-flow actions, and 

appropriate experimental and management actions that will 

meet the GCPA’s requirements and minimize impacts to 

resources, including those of importance to Indian Tribes. 

• LTEMP is not considering infrastructure additions or 

modifications as part of the proposed action

2
Glen Canyon Dam

Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan EIS

Alternatives Under Consideration

3

1. No-action (MLFF with HFE and NNFC protocols expiring in 2020)

2. Modified low fluctuating flows (MLFF) with extension of high flow 

experiment (HFE) and non-native fish control (NNFC) protocols for 

entire LTEMP period

3. Seasonal fluctuations with low summer fluctuations

4. Seasonally adjusted steady flows (modification of 1995 EIS SASF)

5. Year-round steady flows

6. Condition-dependent adaptive strategy

7. Resource-targeted condition-dependent alternative (Submitted by 

the Basin States)

8. Balanced resource alternative (Submitted by the Colorado River 

Energy Distributors Association)
Glen Canyon Dam

Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan EIS

Current EIS Schedule

• Preliminary Assessment – Phase I (Apr-Jun)

• Stakeholders Workshop Tradeoff analysis (Jul)

• Alternative refinement and experimental design (JunAug)

• Additional assessment – Phase II (Aug-Sep)

• Public meeting to present science and alternatives 

(Expected between Jul 2013-Jan 2014)

• Public Draft EIS (Expected between Dec, 2013-Apr 

2014)

4
Glen Canyon Dam

Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan EIS

Update on the LTEMP EIS Process

• Alternatives development is continuing

• Structured Decision Analysis process led by USGS

• Currently focused on finalization of performance 

criteria to use for preliminary modeling/analysis phase

• A list of the current DRAFT performance metrics were 

distributed at the Feb AMWG meeting, would like 

comments by April 15

5
Glen Canyon Dam

Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan EIS

6
#### In the Matter of Kahlil S., an Infant. Erie County Department of Social Services, Appellant; Mamie W.-K., Respondent. In the Matter of Terrell Z., an Infant. Erie County Department of Social Services, Appellant; Mamie W.-K., Respondent.

Submitted April 23, 2007;

decided May 8, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the proceedings within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for a stay pending disposition of the appeal dismissed as academic.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathan Bonner, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered May 30, 1985, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Based upon a review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea *(see,*CPL 220.60 [3]). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### Private E1 Marvin J. KIDD (SS # [ XXX-XX-XXXX ]), U.S. Army, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent.

Miscellaneous Docket No. 75-70.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

Nov. 14, 1975.

On June 27, 1975, we set aside the findings and the sentence in petitioner’s case and authorized a rehearing on the basis of our decision in *United States v. Holland,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 442, 50 C.M.R. 461, 1 M.J. 58 (1975). *United States v. Kidd,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 442, 50 C.M.R. 461, 1 M.J. 58 (1975). A rehearing has been ordered by the convening authority and initial sessions of a court-martial pursuant to Article 39(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 839(a), were held in October 9 and 10, 1975. In his petition, petitioner has informed us that trial is now scheduled for November 10, 1975. We have confirmed telephonically that trial is still scheduled for that date. In view of the impending trial date, we need not act upon petitioner’s request that we order the trial judge to proceed with the trial.1

More than four months has elapsed since we rendered our decision. Since June 2, 1975, petitioner has been on excess leave in Florida, apparently having served most, if not all, of the confinement at hard labor approved as a result of his initial trial. While he has apparently not been placed in pretrial confinement pending the rehearing, and thus the 90-day rule of *United States v. Burton,*21 U.S.C.M.A. 112, 44 C.M.R. 166 (1971), is not applicable, this does not in any way lessen the need for a speedy trial or retrial. Moreover, requiring an accused to return to Fort Leavenworth from Florida for the trial and then delay the trial with frivolous motions2 is unconscionable and unprofessional. See Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Petition for Extraordinary Relief is denied.

1

. While petitioner has apparently not served a copy of his petition upon the respondent, because of our action we do not deem it necessary that the respondent reply to the petition.

2

. At his first trial, petitioner pleaded guilty.; In the present rehearing trial counsel moved, after petitioner pleaded not guilty, that he be forced to plead guilty. The trial judge ordered an 18-day continuance to give the parties time to prepare briefs on the issue.
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 172 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 29, 2015 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 

East Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘R. 

Jess Brown United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 172 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States courthouse located at 501 East 

3 Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, shall be known and 

4 designated as the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States Court5 house’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States 

11 Courthouse’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 28, 2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

STEVEN J. SERAFINI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DONN ANGELO SIMIONE; GEOFFREY 

THOMPSON; ASSET MANAGEMENT 

OUTSOURCING RECOVERIES, INC., a 

Georgia corporation; BOCCHETTI 

CONTRACTING, INC., an Oregon 

corporation; TRI-COUNTY ELECTRIC 

INC., an Oregon corporation; STATE OF 

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

a governmental agency of the State of 

Oregon; and UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA, by and through the INTERNAL 

REVENUE SERVICE; DICK WAND 

CONSTRUCTION, LLC; RICHARD J. 

WAND, DBA DICK WAND 

CONSTRUCTION, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:16-cv-510-BR 

STIPULATED JUDGMENT OF 

DISMISSAL 

Page 1 - STIPULATED JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 

88451939.2 0090147-00111 

Case 3:16-cv-00510-BR Document 18 Filed 11/08/16 Page 1 of 2
This matter having come before the Court on the stipulation of plaintiff and the United 

States of America, by and through the Internal Revenue Service (the "U.S."); defaults having 

been entered against all defendants other than the U.S. and defendant Donn Angelo Simione 

(''Simione"); plaintiff having filed a notice that defendant Simione is deceased; and the Court 

being fully advise, now, therefore, 

JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED dismissing the above-captioned lawsuit without 

an award of costs or attorney fees to any party. 

DATED: \\\ 0~ , 2016. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED: 

STOEL RIVES LLP 

Isl Kenneth P. Childs 

Kenneth P. Childs, OSB No. 831690 

760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000 

Portland, OR 97205 

503-294-9409 phone 

503-220-2480 fax 

kip.childs@stoel.com 

Attorney for plaintiff 

H1(!r~b'A~hrow~:u1. District 

Court Judge 

CAROLINE D. CIRAOLO 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

Isl Yen Jeannette Tran 

Yael Bartnick 

Yen Jeannette Tran 

Trial Attorneys, Tax Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

PO Box 683 

Ben Franklin Station 

Washington, D.C. 20044-0683 

Tel: 202-616-3366 (Tran) 

Tel: 202-514-6632 (Bartnick) 

Fax: 202-307-0054 

Y ael.Bortnick@usdoj.gov 

y .jeannette. tran@usdoj.gov 

BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

United States Attorney 

Of Counsel 

Attorneys for the United States 

Page 2 - STIPULATED JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 

88451939.2 0090147-00111 

Case 3:16-cv-00510-BR Document 18 Filed 11/08/16 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.2


 


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA INC.


 


Summary of Director Compensation


 


	Annual Retainer for Independent Directors:	 	$75,000
	 	 	 
	Share Grants for all Directors:	 	3,000 annually to be granted on the day of the first board meeting following the Annual Meeting of Stockholders (or, for Directors who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first board meeting attended)
	 	 	 
	Lead Independent Director: 	 	$17,500 per year 
	 	 	 
	Chair of the Audit Committee:	 	$22,500 per year
	 	 	 
	Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee:	 	$12,500 per year
	 	 	 
	Chair of the Compensation Committee:	 	$12,500 per year
	 	 	 
	Board Liaison to the Gaming Compliance Committee:	 	$12,500 per year
	 	 	 


 


The Company generally reimburses all Directors for travel expenses
incurred in connection with their duties as Directors and for out of pocket costs incurred in connection with their attending certain
continuing education programs.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Subtropical Horticulture Research: Miami, FL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Miami, Florida Subtropical Horticulture Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications
- Friends of Chapman Field
- Community Day 2017 at Chapman Field

Collaborations The Subtropical Horticulture Research has a long and productive history of collaborative research involving stakeholders.  Current collaborators and projects:  Sabbatical at SHRS  Pesticide Resistance Management of Tephritid Fruit Flies and Other Related Pests of Fruit Crops  Characterize the Germplasm Collection of Subtropical Horticulture Fruit Crops and Ornamental Plants Using Genomics/Transcriptomics  Metabolomics and Mineral Analyses of Tropical Crops Germplasm  Discovery Sequencing for Improved PCR/qPCR Diagnostic Test Development to Identify the Presence of Badnaviruses in Cacao Germplasm Collections  Integrated Pest Management of Invasive Pests for Subtropical Agriculture in Florida Genomics and Bioninformatics of Tropical Fruit Crops Genetic and Phenotypic Characterization of Sugarcane Germplasm


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
MOTION FOR EXTENSION - 1

KEITH D. KARNES, OSB # 033521

keith@rankkarneslaw.com

Rank & Karnes Law, P.C.

2701 12th St. S.E.

Salem, OR 97302

Tel: (503) 385-8888

Fax: (503)385-8899

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

JOHN HUNSAKER et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Defendant.

Case No. 6:16-cv-00386-MC

MOTION FOR EXTENSION

Pursuant to LR 7.1 the parties have conferred and defendant does not oppose this motion.

Plaintiffs hereby move the Court for an extension of 14 days to submit their reply to the 

United States of America’s Response in Opposition of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees and 

Costs. Plaintiffs’ counsel is out of the country until September 3, 2019 and has been unable to 

reply to defendant’s response. 
MOTION FOR EXTENSION - 2

Wherefore, plaintiffs request that the Court grant until September 10, 2019 to submit 

their reply to United States of America’s Response in Opposition of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Attorney Fees and Costs.

Dated: August 26, 2019

RESPECTFULLY FILED,

/s/ Keith D. Karnes

Keith D. Karnes, OSB No. 033521

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Rank & Karnes Law, P.C.

2701 12th St. S.E.

Salem, Oregon 97302

keith@rankkarneslaw.com

(503) 385-8888
MOTION FOR EXTENSION - 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Keith Karnes, certify that I filed the foregoing document via ECF which will in turn 

serve:

Keith D. Karnes keith@rankkarneslaw.com, 9982680420@filings.docketbird.com, 

jacob@rankkarneslaw.com

Boris Kukso boris.kukso@usdoj.gov, western.taxcivil@usdoj.gov

Yael Bortnick Yael.Bortnick@usdoj.gov, western.taxcivil@usdoj.gov

Dated: August 26, 2019

/s/ Keith D. Karnes

Keith D. Karnes, OSB No. 033521
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

FREDRICK ROUNDS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 128 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Order entered November 1 9 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01 140

- CR

MANUEL CORTEZ , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283 rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12

- 30535

- T



### O RDER

The reporter’s record has been filed in th is appeal, but the clerk’s record ha s not been

filed. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s

record within TWENTY

- ONE DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MY ERS JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

BRUCE ALLEN WILLIAMS, 3:16-cv-00054-AC

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Acting Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration,

 Defendant.

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and

Recommendation (#36) on May 22, 2017, in which he recommends the

Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's

application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental

security income. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the

Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil

 - 1 ORDER
Procedure 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make

a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's

report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 

This Court has reviewed the record de novo, including

Plaintiff's Objections. The Court concludes Plaintiff's

Objections do not provide a basis to modify the Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and

Recommendation (#36). Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the

Commissioner's decision and DISMISSES this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 23rd day of June, 2017.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

 - 2 ORDER
#### GAVIN et al., Respondents, v. CAMPBELL et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 12, 1897.)

Action by Addison Gavin and others against Elijah M. Campbell and others.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Margarita Rivera, Respondent, v Katte Anilesh, D.D.S., et al., Defendants, and Indu Anilesh, D.D.S., Appellant.

Submitted April 9, 2007;

decided April 26, 2007

Motion by FOJP Service Corporation for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein denied as untimely *(see*Rules of Prac of Ct of Appeals [22 NYCRR] § 500.23).
Legend      
**Site Types****  Confluence    **  Stream Gage    **  Reach    **  Diversion    **  Climate Site (Rain)    **  Climate Site (Snow)    **  Canal    **  Reservoir    **Data Sources****  BOR      **  USGS      **  NRCS      **  CDEC      **  CASS      **  COOP      **  ACIS              Updated: June 04, 2024