This file contains the polygon SDE Feature Class for Federal Fluid Minerals(Oil and Gas) for the Bureau of Land Management(BLM) Montana/Dakotas. Federal Fluid Minerals as well as Federal Lease status and Indian Minerals/Leases are included. Plat maps are used to find federal mineral ownership and the Bureau of Land Management's LR2000 database is used to find current leasing status. Assistance from the Bureau of Indian Affairs is used to find Indian Mineral/Lease status. BLM Field Office with Oil and Gas responsibilities (Great Falls, Miles City, or North Dakota) provide final review of data.

Mobile Map Packages (MMPK’s) can be used in the ESRI Field Maps app (no login required), either by direct download in the Field Maps app or by sideloading from your PC. They can also be used in desktop applications that support MMPK’s such as ArcGIS Pro, and ArcGIS Navigator. MMPK’s will expire quarterly and have a warning for the user at that time but will still function afterwards. They are updated quarterly to ensure you have the most up to date data possible. These mobile map packages include the following national datasets along with others: Surface Management Agency, Public Land Survey System (PLSS), BLM Recreation Sites, National Conservation Lands, ESRI’s Navigation Basemap and Vector Tile Package. Last updated 20250321. Contact jlzimmer@blm.gov with any questions.

The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public open space and voluntarily provided, private protected areas, identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastral Theme (http://www.fgdc.gov/ngda-reports/NGDA_Datasets.html). PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database of areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural, recreational or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The geodatabase maps and describes public open space and other protected areas. Most areas are public lands owned in fee; however, long-term easements, leases, and agreements or administrative designations documented in agency management plans may be included. The PAD-US database strives to be a complete “best available” inventory of protected areas (lands and waters) including data provided by managing agencies and organizations. The dataset is built in collaboration with several partners and data providers (http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/stewards/). See Supplemental Information Section of this metadata record for more information on partnerships and links to major partner organizations. As this dataset is a compilation of many data sets; data completeness, accuracy, and scale may vary. Federal and state data are generally complete, while local government and private protected area coverage is about 50% complete, and depends on data management capacity in the state. For completeness estimates by state: http://www.protectedlands.net/partners. As the federal and state data are reasonably complete; focus is shifting to completing the inventory of local gov and voluntarily provided, private protected areas. The PAD-US geodatabase contains over twenty-five attributes and four feature classes to support data management, queries, web mapping services and analyses: Marine Protected Areas (MPA), Fee, Easements and Combined. The data contained in the MPA Feature class are provided directly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA, http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov ) tracking the National Marine Protected Areas System. The Easements feature class contains data provided directly from the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED, http://conservationeasement.us ) The MPA and Easement feature classes contain some attributes unique to the sole source databases tracking them (e.g. Easement Holder Name from NCED, Protection Level from NOAA MPA Inventory). The "Combined" feature class integrates all fee, easement and MPA features as the best available national inventory of protected areas in the standard PAD-US framework. In addition to geographic boundaries, PAD-US describes the protection mechanism category (e.g. fee, easement, designation, other), owner and managing agency, designation type, unit name, area, public access and state name in a suite of standardized fields. An informative set of references (i.e. Aggregator Source, GIS Source, GIS Source Date) and "local" or source data fields provide a transparent link between standardized PAD-US fields and information from authoritative data sources. The areas in PAD-US are also assigned conservation measures that assess management intent to permanently protect biological diversity: the nationally relevant "GAP Status Code" and global "IUCN Category" standard. A wealth of attributes facilitates a wide variety of data analyses and creates a context for data to be used at local, regional, state, national and international scales. More information about specific updates and changes to this PAD-US version can be found in the Data Quality Information section of this metadata record as well as on the PAD-US website, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/history/.) Due to the completeness and complexity of these data, it is highly recommended to review the Supplemental Information Section of the metadata record as well as the Data Use Constraints, to better understand data partnerships as well as see tips and ideas of appropriate uses of the data and how to parse out the data that you are looking for. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/. To find more data resources as well as view example analysis performed using PAD-US data visit, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/resources/. The PAD-US dataset and data standard are compiled and maintained by the USGS Gap Analysis Program, http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/ . For more information about data standards and how the data are aggregated please review the “Standards and Methods Manual for PAD-US,” http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/standards/ .

This feature class represents the point features that show the physical locations of BLM Montana-Dakotas Recreation Sites. The general types of recreation point features targeted by this feature class include information center sites, water-based sites, overnight sites, day use sites, restrooms, water access, recreational access, parking areas, airplane landing strips, etc.

Greater Sage-Grouse Management Areas (habitat) in the Proposed Plan of the Great Basin Region, Idaho-SW Montana Sub-region, Greater Sage-grouse Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as Priority, Important, and General. Management Areas were delineated by BLM, U.S. Forest Service, State of Idaho and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on considerations of sage-grouse occupancy, landscape, habitat and land use/adaptive management opportunities. This data was developed as the Administrative Draft Proposed Plan (ADPP). for the Great Basin Region, Idaho-SW Montana Sub-region, Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This layer was edited 5/7/2015 at the WO direction to add three areas of non-habitat in the Sagebrush Focal Areas as PHMA. See processing steps. Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) have the highest conservation value based on various sage-grouse population and habitat considerations and reflect the most restrictive management designed to promote sage-grouse conservation. Important Habitat Management Areas (IHMA) are closely aligned with PHMA, but management is somewhat less restrictive, providing additional management flexibility. The General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA) designation is the least restrictive due to generally lower occupancy of sage-grouse and more marginal habitat conditions. A decision was made in September 2014 by the Washington Office that all sub-regions would use a consistent naming convention for identifying Habitat Management Areas (HMA). These are Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA) and General Habitat Management Area (GHMA). The Idaho and Southwestern Montana sub-region has an additional HMA identified as Important Habitat Management Area (IHMA). Attributes in this layer were updated 9/26/2014. Core updated to PHMA, Important updated to IHMA, and General updated to GHMA. The layer was renamed from ManagementZones_Alt_G_05272014_Final to ManagementAreas_Alt_G_05272014_final. The field identifying the Management Areas was renamed from Management_Zone to Habitat_Management_Area. ManagementAreas_Alt_G_05272014_final renamed to Habitat_ADPP on 01212015. Field edits started with the Alt E map from DEIS (State of Idaho’s Alternative) as a baseline and were completed in December 2013. In subsequent discussions, the State and FWS Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, expressed concerns about adding more areas to Core designation especially if outside the FWS PACs which were delineated prior to release of the DEIS. The final map used for the Proposed Plan reflects Management Zones (M.Z.s) delineations following multiple discussions between, BLM, FS, FWS and the State. Some additional areas in south central Idaho, Mountain Home, and Weiser area were added as GHMA, which are not reflected in the Alt D or E map. These were typically annual grassland areas from the Key Habitat Map that had been previously excluded from the initial PPH/PGH model. These areas have restoration potential or involve past or ongoing restoration efforts. “Donut holes” of less than 500 acres located inside a larger matrix were classified the same as the surrounding matrix. Snapping of PHMA, IHMA, or GHMA to meaningful edges or features (canyons, allotment/pasture boundaries, roads etc.) was completed at the field level to facilitate use of the map designations at the field level. Specific changes can be viewed in MapEditsSummary_05232014_Final.docx, see metadata properties for the attachment

This data set depicts federal lands having restrictions on access or activities -- that is, lands mangaed by the National Park Service, Defense Department, or Energy Department -- in western North America. The data set was created by reformatting and merging state- and province-based ownership data layers originally acquired from diverse sources (including state GAP programs, USBLM state offices and other sources). For each original dataset 3 additional fields, "Pub_Pvt", "CA_OWN", and "SOURCE" were added and populated based on the specific ownership information contained in the source data. The original coverages were then merged based on the "CA_OWN" field. Finally, NPS, DOD, and DOE lands were selected out of the ownership layer. All work was completed in AcMap 8.3. This product and all source data are available online from SAGEMAP: http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov.

The Mapping Control Database (MCPD) is a database of mapping control covering Montana. The control were submitted by registered land surveyors or mapping professionals.

Full metadata available at https://mslservices.mt.gov/Geographic_Information/Data/DataList/datalist_Details.aspx?did=62c565ec-de6e-11e6-bf01-fe55135034f3.

The Sheeprocks (UT) was revised to resync with the UT habitat change as reflected in the Oct 2017 habitat data, creating the most up-to-date version of this dataset. Data submitted by Wyoming in February 2018 and by Montana and Oregon in May 2016 were used to update earlier versions of this feature class. The biologically significant unit (BSU) is a geographical/spatial area within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats which is used as the basis for comparative calculations to support evaluation of changes to habitat. This BSU unit, or subset of this unit is used in the calculation of the anthropogenic disturbance threshold and in the adaptive management habitat trigger. BSU feature classes were submitted by individual states/EISs and consolidated by the Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab. They are sometimes referred to as core areas/core habitat areas in the explanations below, which were consolidated from metadata submitted with BSU feature classes. These data provide a biological tool for planning in the event of human development in sage-grouse habitats. The intended use of all data in the BLM's GIS library is to support diverse activities including planning, management, maintenance, research, and interpretation. While the BSU defines the geographic extent and scale of these two measures, how they are calculated differs based on the specific measures to reflect appropriate assessment and evaluation as supported by scientific literature.There are 10 BSUs for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana GRSG EIS sub-region. For the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment FEIS the biologically significant unit is defined as: a geographical/spatial area within greater sage-grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats which is used as the basis for comparative calculations to support evaluation of changes to habitat. Idaho: BSUs include all of the Idaho Fish and Game modeled nesting and delineated winter habitat, based on 2011 inventories within Priority and/or Important Habitat Management Area (Alternative G) within a Conservation Area. There are eight BSUs for Idaho identified by Conservation Area and Habitat Management Area: Idaho Desert Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Desert Conservation Area - Important, Idaho Mountain Valleys Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Mountain Valleys Conservation Area - Important, Idaho Southern Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Southern Conservation Area - Important, Idaho West Owyhee Conservation Area - Priority, and Idaho West Owyhee Conservation Area - Important. Raft River : Utah portion of the Sawtooth National Forest, 1 BSU. All of this areas was defined as Priority habitat in Alternative G. Raft River - Priority. Montana: All of the Priority Habitat Management Area. 1 BSU. SW Montana Conservation Area - Priority. Montana BSUs were revised in May 2016 by the MT State Office. They are grouped together and named by the Population in which they are located: Northern Montana, Powder River Basin, Wyoming Basin, and Yellowstone Watershed. North and South Dakota BSUs have been grouped together also. California and Nevada's BSUs were developed by Nevada Department of Wildlife's Greater Sage-Grouse Wildlife Staff Specialist and Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team Representative in January 2015. Nevada's Biologically Significant Units (BSUs) were delineated by merging associated PMUs to provide a broader scale management option that reflects sage grouse populations at a higher scale. PMU boundarys were then modified to incorporate Core Management Areas (August 2014; Coates et al. 2014) for management purposes. (Does not include Bi-State DPS.) Within Colorado, a Greater Sage-Grouse GIS data set identifying Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) was developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. This data is a combination of mapped grouse occupied range, production areas, and modeled habitat (summer, winter, and breeding). PPH is defined as areas of high probability of use (summer or winter, or breeding models) within a 4 mile buffer around leks that have been active within the last 10 years. Isolated areas with low activity were designated as general habitat. PGH is defined as Greater sage-grouse Occupied Range outside of PPH. Datasets used to create PPH and PGH: Summer, winter, and breeding habitat models. Rice, M. B., T. D. Apa, B. L. Walker, M. L. Phillips, J. H. Gammonly, B. Petch, and K. Eichhoff. 2012. Analysis of regional species distribution models based on combined radio-telemetry datasets from multiple small-scale studies. Journal of Applied Ecology in review. Production Areas are defined as 4 mile buffers around leks which have been active within the last 10 years (leks active between 2002-2011). Occupied range was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife –CPW) biologists and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in early 2012. Occupied Habitat is defined as areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are mapped as occupied habitat unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use. Mapped from any combination of telemetry locations, sightings of sage grouse or sage grouse sign, local biological expertise, GIS analysis, or other data sources. This information was derived from field personnel. A variety of data capture techniques were used including the SmartBoard Interactive Whiteboard using stand-up, real-time digitizing atvarious scales (Cowardin, M., M. Flenner. March 2003. Maximizing Mapping Resources. GeoWorld 16(3):32-35). Update August 2012: This dataset was modified by the Bureau of Land Management as requested by CPW GIS Specialist, Karin Eichhoff. Eichhoff requested that this dataset, along with the GrSG managment zones (population range zones) dataset, be snapped to county boundaries along the UT-CO border and WY-CO border. The county boundaries dataset was provided by Karin Eichhoff. In addition, a few minor topology errors were corrected where PPH and PGH were overlapping. Update October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat, as requested by Jim Cagney, BLM CO Northwest District Manager. 6 water bodies in total were removed (Hog Lake, South Delaney, Williams Fork Reservoir, North Delaney, Wolford Mountain Reservoir (2 polygons)). There were two “SwampMarsh” polygons that resulted when selecting polygons greater than 100 acres; these polygons were not included. Only polygons with the attribute “LakePond” were removed from GrSG habitat. Colorado Greater Sage Grouse managment zones based on CDOW GrSG_PopRangeZones20120609.shp. Modified and renumbered by BLM 06/09/2012. The zones were modified again by the BLM in August 2012. The BLM discovered areas where PPH and PGH were not included within the zones. Several discrepancies between the zones and PPH and PGH dataset were discovered, and were corrected by the BLM. Zones 18-21 are linkages added as zones by the BLM. In addition to these changes, the zones were adjusted along the UT-CO boundary and WY-CO boundary to be coincident with the county boundaries dataset. This was requested by Karin Eichhoff, GIS Specialist at the CPW. She provided the county boundaries dataset to the BLM. Greater sage grouse GIS data set identifying occupied, potential and vacant/unknown habitats in Colorado. The data set was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife biologist and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in the winter of 2005. Occupied Habitat: Areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are mapped as occupied habitat unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use. Mapped from any combination of telemetry locations, sightings of sage grouse or sage grouse sign, local biological expertise, GIS analysis, or other data sources. Vacant or Unknown Habitat: Suitable habitat for sage-grouse that is separated (not contiguous) from occupied habitats that either: 1) Has not been adequately inventoried, or 2) Has not had documentation of grouse presence in the past 10 years Potentially Suitable Habitat: Unoccupied habitats that could be suitable for occupation of sage-grouse if practical restoration were applied. Soils or other historic information (photos, maps, reports, etc.) indicate sagebrush communities occupied these areas. As examples, these sites could include areas overtaken by pinyon-juniper invasions or converted rangelandsUpdate October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat and management zones, as requested by Jim Cagney, BLM CO Northwest District Manager. 6 water bodies in total were removed (Hog Lake, South Delaney, Williams Fork Reservoir, North Delaney, Wolford Mountain Reservoir (2 polygons)). There were two “SwampMarsh” polygons that resulted when selecting polygons greater than 100 acres; these polygons were not included. Only polygons with the attribute “LakePond” were removed from GrSG habitat. Oregon submitted updated BSU boundaries in May 2016 and again in October 2016, which were incorporated into this latest version. In Oregon, the Core Area maps and data were developed as one component of the Conservation Strategy for sage-grouse. Specifically, these data provide a tool in planning and identifying appropriate mitigation in the event of human development in sage-grouse habitats. These maps will assist in making

PUBLIC VIEW - Planning areas polygons - Additional Planning areas needed for the ID State FMP effort. FMDA boundary, SG ARMPA boundary, Research Natural Areas, Special Management Areas, Visual Resource Management and Inventory, BLM Land Use Planning These are non-editable Fire map information for use with the Idaho BLM Fire Management Plan (FMP). This Feature Service contains data that are not intended for active editing and will require regular yearly updates. Additional Planning areas needed for the ID State FMP effort. FMDA boundary, SG ARMPA boundary, Research Natural Areas, Special Management Areas, Visual Resource Management and Inventory, BLM Land Use Planning AreasSG ARMPA - Idaho-Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Areas for the Idaho and Southwestern Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Conservation Areas are seamless and cover the extent of the Idaho-SW Montana GRSG EIS. They include non-habitat as well as habitat/Sage-Grouse Management areas identified in all alternatives. The Sage-grouse Conservation Areas are intended to be used for summarizing sage-grouse habitat and form the geographic basis for evaluating disturbance density and adaptive management strategies. The Idaho Governor's Conservation Areas were used as the foundation for this layer.FMDA - a Fire, Fuels, and Related Vegetation Management Direction Draft Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement (Draft Plan Amendment/EIS) to consider management direction for fire, fuels, and related uses of vegetation.Research Natural Areas -any tract of land or water which supports high quality examples of terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems, habitats, and populations of rare or endangered plant or animal species, or unique geological study of the features, and is managed in a way that allows natural processes to predominate Special Mgt Areas - Areas with special management objectives Visual resource Management and Inventory - The Inventory Observation Points feature class shall be representative of those locations that are used to support the analysis of scenic quality. Land Use Planning Area - boundaries for anticipated, in-progress, existing and historic BLM Land Use Planning Area (LUPA) polygons. Land Use Planning Areas are geographic areas within which the BLM will make decisions during a land use planning effort.

Feature class of Montana State Boundary was created to be coincident with the Montana County Boundaries, GCDB, and Cadastral Parcel Boundaries. Where the boundary is coincident with public land survey section lines, they were copied from the BLM's Geographic Coordinate Database (GCDB). If boundary was not coincident with GCDB lines, they were digitized on screen from 1:24,000 scale Geological Survey Digital Raster Graphics (DRGs). The state boundary will change as the GCDB / Montana CadNSDI is adjusted by the BLM / Montana State Library and those data are incorporated with the Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure Administrative Boundaries & Cadastral datasets.

NOTE: Previously published data inlcuded incorrect HiLine GHMA data. HiLine GHMA was reverted back to the original 2015 data, as an update was submitted in 2022 in error and should NOT be used (per HiLine EIS, Dec 2022) Previous versions of this sage-grouse habitat management area dataset included habitat management areas in the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument and Butte Field Office within Montana. These areas were included in the 2015 & 2019 cumulative effects and affected environment analyses, however neither planning process affected decisions within these areas. Therefore, no sage-grouse habitat management area designations occurred. These data have been removed to accurately reflect habitat management area designations in the 2015 sage-grouse land use plans, as maintained. Please contact the BLM Montana State Office for details on how sage-grouse management is applied in these areas. This dataset represents the consolidated submissions of GRSG habitat management areas from each individual BLM ARMP & ARMPA/Records of Decision (ROD) and for subsequent updates. These data were submitted to the BLM’s Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab in March 2016 and were updated for UT in April of 2017, WY in October of 2017 (Lander and Bighorn EIS) and May 2022 (Buffalo and NinePlan EIS); CO in February of 2020, NVCA in July 2022, and Oregon in August 2022. August 2022 Update: OR - New habitat data was submitted by Oregon EIS as part of the Allocation Decision Analysis data call in 2022. Data that was submitted earlier was updated to reflect SFA designations in Aug 2022.July 2022 Update: NVCA - New habitat data was submitted by NVCA as part of the Allocation Decision Analysis data call in 2022. May 2022 Update: WY - New habitat data was submitted by Wyoming EISs Buffalo and Nine Plan as part of the Allocation Decision Analysis data call in 2022. February 2020 Update: CO - In February 2016, the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado (AGNC) hired a consultant (Olsson) to help further refine CPW’s greater sage-grouse habitat maps in Northwest Colorado. The Olsson consultation team, have utilized CPW’s contemporary and rigorous habitat models and developed their own to produce revised PHMA and GHMA habitat data. These spatial datasets (i.e., habitat maps) are specifically designed to meet the management intent of the ARMPA and have been produced for formal submittal to the BLM for incorporation into Northwest Colorado Land and Resource Management Plans. The updated habitat delineations for NWCO include Undesignated Habitat (UDH) to address concerns surrounding the management of privately held irrigated agricultural lands. The BLM's NWCO Sage-Grouse Plan has no management decisions associated with this habitat designation. October 2017 Update: WY - On October 27, 2017 the WY state director signed maintenance actions for the Wyoming Sage-Grouse ARMPA, Buffalo RMP, Cody RMP, and Worland RMP that changed WY PHMA boundaries, bringing them into consistency with the Wyoming Core Areas (version 4) from the current Governor's executive order 2015-4. The updated PHMA boundaries were also adopted by the Lander RMP.April 2017 Update: UT - The interagency team reconvened in late 2016 to review State of Utah GRSG populations and the BLM’s 2015 and 2016 wildfire data. Of the ten soft triggers and seven hard triggers evaluated, only one population soft trigger and one population hard trigger have been met, both within the Sheeprocks population area of Fillmore and Salt Lake Field Offices. Appendix I of the ARMPA includes “hard-wired” changes in management that were finalized in the 2015 Record of Decision, listed in Appendix I Table I.1 (Specific Management Responses). The PHMA in the Sheeprocks population has changed as a result of this, and the change is reflected in this data.The following habitat management areas were used in the creation of this feature class:PHMA: Areas identified as having the highest habitat value for maintaining sustainable GRSG populations and include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas.GHMA: Areas that are occupied seasonally or year-round and are outside of PHMAs.IHMA: Areas in Idaho that provide a management buffer for and that connect patches of PHMAs. IHMAs encompass areas of generally moderate to high habitat value habitat or populations but that are not as important as PHMAs.OHMA: Areas in Nevada and Northeastern California, identified as unmapped habitat in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, that are within the Planning Area and contain seasonal or connectivity habitat areas.RHMA: Areas in Montana EISs with ongoing or imminent impacts containing substantial and high-quality GRSG habitat that historically supported sustainable GRSG populations. Management actions would emphasize restoration for the purpose of establishing or restoring sustainable GRSG populations. Areas are delineated using key, core, and connectivity data or maps and other resource information.LCHMA: Areas in CO EIS that have been identified as broader regions of connectivity important to facilitate the movement of GRSG and maintain ecological processes.UDH: In CO EIS, An Undesignated Habitat management prescription was developed to address concerns surrounding the management of privately held irrigated agricultural lands.Anthro Mountain: An additional 41,200 acres of National Forest System lands in the Anthro Mountain portion of the Carbon Population Area in Utah EIS that are managed as neither PHMA nor GHMA. These areas are identified as “Anthro Mountain.” In the BLM’s ARMPA, these areas are considered split-estate, where the BLM merely administers the mineral estate.

This map of human habitation was developed, following a modification of Schumacher et al. (2000), by incorporating 2000 U.S Census Data and land ownership. The 2000 U.S. Census Block data and ownership map of the western United States were used to correct the population density for uninhabited public lands. All census blocks in the western United States were merged into one shapefile which was then clipped to contain only those areas found on private or indian reservation lands because human habitation on federal land is negligible. The area (ha) for each corrected polygon was calculated and the 2000 census block data table was joined to the shapefile. In a new field, population density (individuals/ha) corrected for public land in census blocks was calculated . SHAPEGRID in ARC/INFO was used to convert population density values to grid with 90m resolution.

description: This dataset combines the work of several different projects to create a seamless data set for the contiguous United States. Data from four regional Gap Analysis Projects and the LANDFIRE project were combined to make this dataset. In the Northwestern United States (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Wyoming) data in this map came from the Northwest Gap Analysis Project. In the Southwestern United States (Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) data used in this map came from the Southwest Gap Analysis Project. The data for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia came from the Southeast Gap Analysis Project and the California data was generated by the updated California Gap land cover project. The Hawaii Gap Analysis project provided the data for Hawaii. In areas of the county (central U.S., Northeast, Alaska) that have not yet been covered by a regional Gap Analysis Project, data from the Landfire project was used. Similarities in the methods used by these projects made possible the combining of the data they derived into one seamless coverage. They all used multi-season satellite imagery (Landsat ETM+) from 1999-2001 in conjunction with digital elevation model (DEM) derived datasets (e.g. elevation, landform) to model natural and semi-natural vegetation. Vegetation classes were drawn from NatureServe's Ecological System Classification (Comer et al. 2003) or classes developed by the Hawaii Gap project. Additionally, all of the projects included land use classes that were employed to describe areas where natural vegetation has been altered. In many areas of the country these classes were derived from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). For the majority of classes and, in most areas of the country, a decision tree classifier was used to discriminate ecological system types. In some areas of the country, more manual techniques were used to discriminate small patch systems and systems not distinguishable through topography. The data contains multiple levels of thematic detail. At the most detailed level natural vegetation is represented by NatureServe's Ecological System classification (or in Hawaii the Hawaii GAP classification). These most detailed classifications have been crosswalked to the five highest levels of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC), Class, Subclass, Formation, Division and Macrogroup. This crosswalk allows users to display and analyze the data at different levels of thematic resolution. Developed areas, or areas dominated by introduced species, timber harvest, or water are represented by other classes, collectively refered to as land use classes; these land use classes occur at each of the thematic levels. Six layer files are included in the download packages to assist the user in displaying the data at each of the Thematic levels in ArcGIS.; abstract: This dataset combines the work of several different projects to create a seamless data set for the contiguous United States. Data from four regional Gap Analysis Projects and the LANDFIRE project were combined to make this dataset. In the Northwestern United States (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Wyoming) data in this map came from the Northwest Gap Analysis Project. In the Southwestern United States (Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) data used in this map came from the Southwest Gap Analysis Project. The data for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia came from the Southeast Gap Analysis Project and the California data was generated by the updated California Gap land cover project. The Hawaii Gap Analysis project provided the data for Hawaii. In areas of the county (central U.S., Northeast, Alaska) that have not yet been covered by a regional Gap Analysis Project, data from the Landfire project was used. Similarities in the methods used by these projects made possible the combining of the data they derived into one seamless coverage. They all used multi-season satellite imagery (Landsat ETM+) from 1999-2001 in conjunction with digital elevation model (DEM) derived datasets (e.g. elevation, landform) to model natural and semi-natural vegetation. Vegetation classes were drawn from NatureServe's Ecological System Classification (Comer et al. 2003) or classes developed by the Hawaii Gap project. Additionally, all of the projects included land use classes that were employed to describe areas where natural vegetation has been altered. In many areas of the country these classes were derived from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). For the majority of classes and, in most areas of the country, a decision tree classifier was used to discriminate ecological system types. In some areas of the country, more manual techniques were used to discriminate small patch systems and systems not distinguishable through topography. The data contains multiple levels of thematic detail. At the most detailed level natural vegetation is represented by NatureServe's Ecological System classification (or in Hawaii the Hawaii GAP classification). These most detailed classifications have been crosswalked to the five highest levels of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC), Class, Subclass, Formation, Division and Macrogroup. This crosswalk allows users to display and analyze the data at different levels of thematic resolution. Developed areas, or areas dominated by introduced species, timber harvest, or water are represented by other classes, collectively refered to as land use classes; these land use classes occur at each of the thematic levels. Six layer files are included in the download packages to assist the user in displaying the data at each of the Thematic levels in ArcGIS.

The Subsurface Mineral Estate (SSME) Geographic Information System (GIS) dataset depicts Federal mineral (or subsurface) interest in land parcels for the State of Montana. Other federal and state agencies information is not current and needs to be obtained from their respective entities. No attempt has been made to depict the mineral interest of non-federal entities. For Faster Data Access Select the File Geodatabase Download

Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nesting and late brood rearing habitat for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). For purposes of the analysis, it is defined as the extent of mapped nesting habitat derived by the use of a 10 km (6.2 mile) buffer around active leks to capture approximately 80% of nests (Connelly et. al 2013; Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 2012 unpublished data, Montana BLM Dillon Field Office 2014 unpublished data; and U.S. Forest Service 2014 unpublished data). Breeding habitat is inclusive of lek, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat (Connelly et. al 2000). Late brood-rearing (i.e. summer) habitat has not been mapped in detail for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Subregion (IDMT), but it is assumed for purposes of the analysis, that these areas are largely encompassed by and embedded within the mapped or estimated nesting habitat areas. Buffered Lek data for Idaho, Montana (Dillon Field Office), and the Raft River Unit of the Sawtooth National Forest in Utah were combined to create this layer. For Idaho, the portion of winter habitat that overlaps nesting habitat is included in this data. See Process Steps for more info. Citations: i) Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967–985. ii) Connelly, J.W., A. Moser, and D. Kemner. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse breeding habitats: Landscape-based​ ​comparisons. Grouse News 45. Research Reports.

Sec. 368 Corridor Label: Depicts names of designated Section 368 Energy CorridorsSec. 368 Corridor Milepost: This layer depicts milepost point locations along the designated (per the requirements of Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005) as West-wide energy corridor centerlines in Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service Records of Decision in connection with the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western States, November 2008. It is intended only as a means to describe locations along the designated corridors. Gaps in the corridor centerlines exist where federal land is not present and there are no designated corridors in these locations, however the gap distances are accounted for in the mileposting, and some mileposts exist in the gaps for continuity in the referencing system.Sec. 368 Designated Corridor - Current: This layer depicts areas which have been designated (per the requirements of Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005) as West-wide energy corridors in Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service management plans in connection with the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11Western States, November 2008 and the subsequent Records of Decision.Sec. 368 Designated Corridor - Historic: This layer depicts areas which have been Prohibited from Designation or Revised (per the requirements of Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005) as West-wide energy corridors in Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service management plans in connection with the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11Western States, November 2008 and the subsequent Records of Decision.Sec. 368 Designated Corridor Centerline: This layer depicts lines which have been designated (per the requirements of Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005) as West-wide energy corridor centerlines in Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service management plans in connection with the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11Western States, November 2008, and the subsequent Records of Decision. Each segment is also attributed with starting and ending mileposts.Regional Review Boundary: Regional review boundaries for Section 368 Energy Corridor reviews.Transmission Line (Wyoming BLM): This feature class contains existing above-ground transmission line geometry across the state of Wyoming. It was digitized from the 2015 NAIP aerial imagery dataset, and was checked for content against the Wyoming Infrastructure Authority data (via NREX) and Platts database data supplied by the BLM National Operations Center. This feature class will continue to be updated on an annual basis in correlation with the BLM's aviation hazards map products revision schedule.Legacy Locally Designated Corridor Area: The dataset consists of locally designated corridors. The dataset was created by combining corridors from multiple BLM sources. Datasets:Existing utility corridors on Kingman Field Office lands (received 9/3/14) Utah corridors (received 9/11/14)Designated BLM utility corridors in Montana (received 9/3/14)Utility corridors as identified by the Resource Management Plan on land managed by the USDOI Bureau of Land Management in the San Luis Valley in SouthCentral Colorado (received 5/14/09)Utility Corridors for the BLM California Desert District (received 7/10/09)Utility corridors in Nevada identified in various land use plans (received 9/3/14) Corridors in Nevada (received 11/3/08)Corridors in the Southern Nevada District Office (received 10/26/16) ROW Corridor designated in Gunnison RMP (received 10/20/2017)Text and map-based descriptions of corridors to remove in Arizona (received 11/8/2017)Legacy Locally Designated Corridor Centerline: This map is designed to display the utility corridors identified in various land use plans. It is a line coverage where lines are assigned labels of existing (some utility in the corridor) corridor, a designated (no utility using the corridor yet) corridor.BLM Solar Energy Zone: This dataset represents Solar Energy Zones available for utility-grade solar energy development under the Bureau of Land Management's Solar Energy Program Western Solar Plan. For details and definitions, see the website at http://blmsolar.anl.gov/sez/.BLM Solar Energy Zone Labels: This feature class was developed to represent Solar Energy Zones as part of the Bureau of Land Management's Solar Energy Program Western Solar Plan.BLM AZ Renewable Energy Dev. Areas: BLM RDEP ROD data. Restoration Design Energy Project Record of Decision, January 2013. This represents the REDA data based upon known resources listed in the ROD Table 2-1, Areas with Known Sensitive Resources (Eliminated from REDA Consideration), known at the time of January 2013. The REDAs may be changed in the future based upon changes in sensitive resources or further analysis and site specific analysis and new baseline data. RDEP decisions are only BLM-administered lands.Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, in conjunction with Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Incorporated (EMPSi).BLM DRECP Development Focus Area (DFA): This feature class represents Development Focus Areas (DFAs) in the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) Region.BLM DRECP Variance Land: This feature class represents Variance Process Lands in the DRECP.WGA Western Renewable Energy Zone: Depicts renewable energy zone points centered in "geographic areas with at least 1,500 MW of high quality renewable energy within a 100 mile radius", as developed by the Western Governors'Association and U.S. Department of Energy in June 2009. Methodology used to create the dataare described in the WGA report: "Western Renewable Energy Zones - Phase 1Report: Mapping concentrated, high quality resources to meet demand in the WesternInterconnection's distant markets." June 2009.

The Montana Public Lands data contains public administered lands that are recorded in the Montana Department of Revenue's tax appraisal database. Each public land polygon is attributed with the name of the public agency that owns it. The data are derived from the statewide Montana Cadastral Parcel layer.

The publicly administered lands of Montana, federal, local, state and tribal. Complete Metadata

This map service shows a static map image designed for display at approximately 1:100,000 scale. The map includes public land ownership, selected federal and state managed areas, lakes, streams, roads, the Public Land Survey system, 50-foot contours, shaded relief, and selected buildings and structures. The map was produced by the Montana State Library with the latest data that was available in January 2016. The map legend for the service is available at https://ftpgeoinfo.msl.mt.gov/Documents/Metadata/Reference100k.tif. The service is in the Web Mercator coordinate system. This coordinate system distorts the scale of maps of Montana so that everything appears to be about 40 percent larger than it really is. Any use of this service for making measurements must be done with software that understands the scale distortion. This typically includes on-line mapping services but does NOT include desktop mapping applications such as ArcGIS Destktop. The map is also available as a statewide MrSID image in Montana State Plane Coordinates and as individual 60x30-minute quadrangle MrSID images.

Montana Managed Areas Map Service includes The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Preserves, USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness, USDA Forest Service Special Interest Management Areas, Wilderness ALPS/WSA, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Outstanding Natural Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas, Montana DNRC State Forest, Montana Private Conservation Lands, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks State Parks and Wildlife Management Areas.View the full metadata record available from the Montana State Library Data List.