This feature layer depicts the various types of land status within the National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska. The information was compiled by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 7, Division of Realty, using Bureau of Land Management Master Title Plats as the primary data source.Status depicted includes:- Managed by USFWS- Managed by other Federal agencies- Selected land (private, native corporation, State of Alaska)- Patented land (private, native corporation, State of Alaska)This feature layer is updated monthly, on or near the last day of the month.

This feature service displays the surface land management in the State of Alaska, as compiled by the Bureau of Land Management on March 9, 2017. It identifies the following status categories:State of AlaskaU.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceNational Park ServiceU.S. Forest ServiceBureau of Land ManagementAlaska Native CorporationPrivateMilitaryThis dataset was compiled by, and is maintained by, the Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office. This dataset was obtained from BLM's SDMS website at https://sdms.ak.blm.gov/isdms/imf.jsp?site=sdms

These boundaries are simplified from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Real Estate Interest data layer containing polygons representing tracts of land (parcels) in which the Service has a real estate interest. Interior boundaries between parcels were dissolved to produce a single set of simplified external boundaries for each feature. These are resource grade mapping representations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service boundaries. For legal descriptions of the land represented here, contact the USFWS Realty Office. This map layer was compiled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although these boundaries represent lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, not all areas are open to the public. Some fragile habitats need to be protected from human traffic and some management areas are closed. The public is urged to contact specific Refuges or other conservation areas before visiting.

When a species is proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must consider whether there are areas of habitat believed to be essential the species’ conservation. Those areas may be proposed for designation as “critical habitat.” Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the Act. It is a specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat may include an area that is not currently occupied by the species but that will be needed for its recovery. An area is designated as “critical habitat” after the Service publishes a proposed Federal regulation in the Federal Register and receives and considers public comments on the proposal. The final boundaries of the critical habitat are also published in the Federal Register. Critical habitat are areas considered essential for the conservation of a listed species. Federal agencies are required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on actions they carry out, fund, or authorize to ensure that their actions will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. These areas provide notice to the public and land managers of the importance of these areas to the conservation of a listed species. Special protections and/or restrictions are possible in areas where Federal funding, permits, licenses, authorizations, or actions occur or are required.

THIS ITEM IS PUBLIC AND READ ONLYThe Property feature layer is a spatial inventory of miscellaneous property features on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands that has not been included in other facility related layers. This is a read-only, public AGOL View of FWS_HQ_Fac_Property_Pt. Content can be added/edited by joining the FWS Asset Editing Group if a member of the FWS Organization. This public view only shows records that meet the following criteria:Record Status = "Valid"Public Viewable = "Yes"Data Set Contact: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Natural Resource Program Center, GIS Team Lead, richard_easterbrook@fws.govU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Catalog (ServCat) Record - https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/140661

This data layer depicts centroid points that have been placed upon the lands and waters administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in North America, U.S. Trust Territories and Possessions. Office locations should be mapped using data stored in the Corporate Master Table. It is specifically not intended to be used as a land survey or representation of land for conveyance or tax purposes.

This dataset contains a baseline inventory and condition assessment of all non-motorized trails on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands as part of the National Trails Inventory Program conducted by the US Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Lands Highway Division. This program began in 2006, with the latest cycle completed in 2012.

This layer is a component of FWS Trails.

When a species is proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must consider whether there are areas of habitat believed to be essential the species’ conservation. Those areas may be proposed for designation as “critical habitat.” Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the Act. It is a specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat may include an area that is not currently occupied by the species but that will be needed for its recovery. An area is designated as “critical habitat” after the Service publishes a proposed Federal regulation in the Federal Register and receives and considers public comments on the proposal. The final boundaries of the critical habitat are also published in the Federal Register. Critical habitat are areas considered essential for the conservation of a listed species. Federal agencies are required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on actions they carry out, fund, or authorize to ensure that their actions will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. These areas provide notice to the public and land managers of the importance of these areas to the conservation of a listed species. Special protections and/or restrictions are possible in areas where Federal funding, permits, licenses, authorizations, or actions occur or are required.

This dataset was updated May, 2025.This ownership dataset was generated primarily from CPAD data, which already tracks the majority of ownership information in California. CPAD is utilized without any snapping or clipping to FRA/SRA/LRA. CPAD has some important data gaps, so additional data sources are used to supplement the CPAD data. Currently this includes the most currently available data from BIA, DOD, and FWS. Additional sources may be added in subsequent versions. Decision rules were developed to identify priority layers in areas of overlap.Starting in 2022, the ownership dataset was compiled using a new methodology. Previous versions attempted to match federal ownership boundaries to the FRA footprint, and used a manual process for checking and tracking Federal ownership changes within the FRA, with CPAD ownership information only being used for SRA and LRA lands. The manual portion of that process was proving difficult to maintain, and the new method (described below) was developed in order to decrease the manual workload, and increase accountability by using an automated process by which any final ownership designation could be traced back to a specific dataset.The current process for compiling the data sources includes:* Clipping input datasets to the California boundary* Filtering the FWS data on the Primary Interest field to exclude lands that are managed by but not owned by FWS (ex: Leases, Easements, etc)* Supplementing the BIA Pacific Region Surface Trust lands data with the Western Region portion of the LAR dataset which extends into California.* Filtering the BIA data on the Trust Status field to exclude areas that represent mineral rights only.* Filtering the CPAD data on the Ownership Level field to exclude areas that are Privately owned (ex: HOAs)* In the case of overlap, sources were prioritized as follows: FWS > BIA > CPAD > DOD* As an exception to the above, DOD lands on FRA which overlapped with CPAD lands that were incorrectly coded as non-Federal were treated as an override, such that the DOD designation could win out over CPAD.In addition to this ownership dataset, a supplemental _source dataset is available which designates the source that was used to determine the ownership in this dataset. Data Sources:* GreenInfo Network's California Protected Areas Database (CPAD2023a). https://www.calands.org/cpad/; https://www.calands.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CPAD-2023a-Database-Manual.pdf* US Fish and Wildlife Service FWSInterest dataset (updated December, 2023). https://gis-fws.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/9c49bd03b8dc4b9188a8c84062792cff_0/explore* Department of Defense Military Bases dataset (updated September 2023) https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/military-bases* Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Region, Surface Trust and Pacific Region Office (PRO) land boundaries data (2023) via John Mosley John.Mosley@bia.gov* Bureau of Indian Affairs, Land Area Representations (LAR) and BIA Regions datasets (updated Oct 2019) https://biamaps.doi.gov/bogs/datadownload.html Data Gaps & Changes:Known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. Additionally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the appropriate source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.25_1: The CPAD Input dataset was amended to merge large gaps in certain areas of the state known to be erroneous, such as Yosemite National Park, and to eliminate overlaps from the original input. The FWS input dataset was updated in February of 2025, and the DOD input dataset was updated in October of 2024. The BIA input dataset was the same as was used for the previous ownership version.24_1: Input datasets this year included numerous changes since the previous version, particularly the CPAD and DOD inputs. Of particular note was the re-addition of Camp Pendleton to the DOD input dataset, which is reflected in this version of the ownership dataset. We were unable to obtain an updated input for tribral data, so the previous inputs was used for this version.23_1: A few discrepancies were discovered between data changes that occurred in CPAD when compared with parcel data. These issues will be taken to CPAD for clarification for future updates, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data as it was coded in CPAD at the time. In addition, there was a change in the DOD input data between last year and this year, with the removal of Camp Pendleton. An inquiry was sent for clarification on this change, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data per the DOD input dataset.22_1 : represents an initial version of ownership with a new methodology which was developed under a short timeframe. A comparison with previous versions of ownership highlighted the some data gaps with the current version. Some of these known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. In addition, any topological errors (like overlaps or gaps) that exist in the input datasets may thus carry over to the ownership dataset. Ideally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the relevant source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.

Land status map of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is making available a final report that is designed to help guide the efforts of the States and other partners to conserve the Greater sage-grouse with a landscape level strategy that will benefit the species while maintaining a robust economy in the West. The report, prepared by state and federal scientists and sage-grouse experts, identifies the conservation status of the Greater sage-grouse, the nature of the threats facing the species, and objectives to ensure its long-term conservation. The final report is a collaborative state and federal effort to evaluate species conservation before the Service is required to make a decision in 2015 on whether to propose protecting the species under the Endangered Species Act. The draft report was submitted for scientific peer review, and the Service addressed those comments in the final version. The intent of the report is to provide State, Federal, local and private entities with permitting or land management authority information to support conservation actions for the sage-grouse. Such actions might involve modifying or amending regulatory frameworks to ensure the long-term conservation of the species by avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating the threats to the species, or focusing voluntary conservation efforts in ways that will benefit the species the most. The final Conservations Objectives report is based on scientific principles of conservation biology and uses information and conservation strategies provided by the States to identify key areas of habitat across the species' range, as well as the threats operating within each population that need to be mitigated to conserve the species over the long term. Given the differences across the sage-grouse range, the report allows flexibility for States or other agencies to determine and develop the measures that will best achieve conservation success.

This data layer depicts centroid points of NWRS lands. that have been placed upon the lands and waters administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in North America, U.S. Trust Territories and Possessions. Office locations should be mapped using data stored in the Corporate Master Table.Data can also be downloaded on Servcat or here: https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/179870Sync is enabled, but editing is disabled. POC for these data are: cdwg@fws.gov

This Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) data set, produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), contains areas designated as undeveloped coastal barriers in accordance with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), 16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., as amended. The boundaries used to create the polygons herein were compiled from the official John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System CBRS maps, which are accessible at the Service’s Headquarters office or https://www.fws.gov/program/coastal-barrier-resources-act/maps-and-data. These digital polygons are only representations of the CBRS boundaries shown on the official CBRS maps and are not to be considered authoritative. The Service is not responsible for any misuse or misinterpretation of this digital data set, including use of the data to determine eligibility for federal financial assistance such as federal flood insurance. As maps are revised, this data set will be updated with the new boundaries. CBRS boundaries viewed using the CBRS Mapper or the shapefile are subject to misrepresentations beyond the Service’s control, including misalignments of the boundaries with third party base layers and mis-projections of spatial data. The official CBRS map is the controlling document and should be consulted for all official determinations. Official determinations are recommended for all properties that are in close proximity (within 20 feet) of a CBRS boundary. For an official determination of whether or not an area or specific property is located within the CBRS, please follow the procedures found at https://www.fws.gov/service/coastal-barrier-resources-system-property-documentation. For any questions regarding the CBRS, please contact your local Service field office or email CBRA@fws.gov. Contact information for Service field offices can be found at https://www.fws.gov/our-facilities.Data Set Contact: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Natural Resource Program Center, GIS Team Lead, richard_easterbrook@fws.gov

This geospatial dataset identifies the bounding geometry (i.e., enclosing envelope) and provides a set of core attributes (e.g., Unique ID, Publication Date, Title, and ServCat URL) that describe spatial datasets created from individual Refuge vegetation mapping efforts. These individual records are contained with the NWRS Vegetation and Land Cover Datasets Saved Search in ServCat.Data Set Contact: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Natural Resource Program Center, GIS Team Lead, richard_easterbrook@fws.gov

BLM_Land_Status_Within_RoC_Boundary

This file contains five metrics that were selected to collectively represent the adaptive capacity of each of the 360 HUC-8 watersheds in US Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin). The metrics were: percent cultivated, density of dams, projected increase in developed land cover, landscape diversity and local connectedness. Percent cultivated land cover was obtained from the National Agricultural Statistics Services 2018 Cultivated layer and was calculated by dividing the number of cultivated grid cells by the total number of grid cells in each watershed. Density of dams was calculated as the number of dams per area of the watershed using the 2018 National Inventory of Dams from The Army Corps of Engineers. Projected increase in develop land cover was estimated using projections of future land cover developed using the USGS’s FORE-SCE model for the conterminous United States by taking the total number of grid cells classified as developed land cover and dividing by the total number of grid cells in each watershed and then calculated the difference between the future (midcentury) and baseline periods. Landscape diversity and local connectedness were both created by The Nature Conservancy’s Resilient Lands Mapping Project and were calculated as the average score among all the grid cells within each HUC for each metric. All of these metrics were min-max normalized and combined to create the adaptive capacity component of the climate change vulnerability index for Region 3 of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

This data view depicts lands and waters administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in North America, U.S. Trust Territories and Possessions. It may also include inholdings that are not administered by USFWS. The primary source for this information is the USFWS Realty program. These are resource grade mapping representations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service boundaries. For legal descriptions of the land represented here, contact the USFWS Realty Office. This map layer was compiled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although these boundaries represent lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, not all areas are open to the public. Some fragile habitats need to be protected from human traffic and some management areas are closed. The public is urged to contact specific Refuges or other conservation areas before visiting.Data can also be downloaded from ServCat, the FWS Catalog. Go to this link for downloadable cadastral data: https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/179879Sync is enabled, but editing is disabled. POC for these data are: cdwg@fws.gov

This data set was created to depict land tenure allocations from the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy in the Utah Sub-Region. This data was developed to reflect the land tenure actions (MA-LR-9 and MA-LR-10) of the final agency decision to amend 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on September 24, 2015. The purpose of the planning process was to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process resulted in preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with cooperating agencies for the planning effort. The planning effort addressed the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, as well as addressing the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS. This data set displays the decision that federal lands within priority and general habitat management areas will be retained in federal ownership, pending documentation of criteria noted in MA-LR-9 of the ROD/ARMPA. Note that further site-specific analysis of the any parcels would be required prior to disposal. The parcel data has been obtained from approved land use plans as of May 2012, and consolidated into a statewide data set. In Section 102 of FLPMA Congress declared: "it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning...it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest" (43 U.S.C. 1701 (a)(1)). While not originally mapped as retention areas in the land use plans, public lands are managed according to this Congressional direction, as well as disposal authorities in FLPMA Sections 203 and 206 and other non-FLPMA legal disposal authorities. Land tenure adjustments in Priority Habitat Management Areas and General Habitat Management Areas would also be consistent with the land use plan direction. Credits: Mary von Koch and Jean Carson Moab BLM, Premier Data Sources for Cedar City BLM, Paul Leatherbury Monticello BLM, Jason Anderson Richfield, SWCA Inc. for Vernal BLM.

This dataset represents the portion of Surface and Mineral Ownership for the State of Wyoming within the Wyoming portions of the Utah Sub-Region for the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy. This data was used during preparation of a draft and final environmental impact statement and the record of decision to consider amendments to 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah, as well as consideration of 6 Forest Service land use plans, including portions of two that extended into Wyoming. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on September 24, 2015. The purpose of the planning process was to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process resulted in preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with cooperating agencies for the planning effort. The planning effort addressed the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, as well as addressing the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS. This dataset is intended to represent the ownership information on Master Title Plats (MTPs). Surface ownership will be identified by the Agency of Jurisdiction, when the surface is Federal. All other parcels will be identified as either Private or State. Private parcels do not identify the name of the individual owner.