These data depict the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) for the state of Montana and are based on Geographic Coordinate Data Base (GCDB) coordinate data. GCDB is the authoritative source for PLSS data.These data are compliant with the Cadastal National Spatial Data Infrastructure (CadNSDI) publication standards.NOTE: These data are in NAD 1983 (2011) StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500.Complete metadata is available at https://mslservices.mt.gov/Geographic_Information/Data/DataList/datalist_Details.aspx?did={9025D5DE-05C1-406F-A8B4-6A3E39EF3B8D}.This feature service is available for offline use. Data update processes require the Montana State Library to delete replicas created for offline use monthly, which will require users to recreate offline map areas. Users will see an “Update Failed” message when trying to sync to a replica that has been deleted.

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 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 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.

Montana lands with conservation easements. This layer shows private lands parcels on which a public agency or qualified Land Trust has placed a Conservation Easement in cooperation with the land owner. According to State Law (Montana Code Annotated 76-6-207) easements must be recorded in the county where the land lies. The county clerk and recorder shall provide a copy of the conservation easement to the Department of Revenue office in that county within 30 days. The Montana Department of Revenue updates this dataset typically once a month.

Map features in this data set are not intended as a legal depiction of public or private surface land ownership boundaries and should not be used in place of a survey conducted by a licensed land surveyor. The data are derived from the Montana Cadastral parcel layer.

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.

This spatial data set provides information pertaining to the known land use and disturbance history for lands within the March 2018 administrative boundary of (Park, state). Land use and disturbance history presented here are not a comprehensive record of all potential land uses and disturbances but rather a record of known and documented land uses and disturbances based on the best available information. Additional land use and disturbance information may exist but due to time and budget constraints may not have been discovered during the research and development of this data set. The information in this data set was gathered through a variety of sources including but not limited to communication with National Park Service staff, historical documents, land patent records, online information searches, aerial imagery, historical photographs, and spatial data repositories. Data are presented as polygon features, each with a unique area number, its total area (in acres) and the percent of the park the area covers. Polygons were delineated based on existing GIS layers in park records, or, when these were not available, they were digitized using ESRI Arc Map 10.5.1 in conjunction with USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service NAIP orthoimagery based on written descriptions of locations (e.g., Township and Range Survey System) or maps in information sources. History of each polygon is described for one or more of five land use or disturbance types: cultivation, structures, excavation, grazing, and other disturbance. Each land use or disturbance type has six attribute fields. The first field indicates if there is evidence of the land use or disturbance type in the polygon. "Yes" indicates there is evidence and a

This map forms part of the Montana State Geological Map.

The Ennis 1:100,000 quadrangle lies within both the Laramide (Late Cretaceous to early Tertiary) foreland province of southwestern Montana and the northeastern margin of the middle to late Tertiary Basin and Range province.

The oldest rocks in the quadrangle are Archean high-grade gneiss, and granitic to ultramafic intrusive rocks that are as old as about 3.0 Ga. The gneiss includes a supracrustal assemblage of quartz-feldspar gneiss, amphibolite, quartzite, and biotite schist and gneiss. The basement rocks are overlain by a platform sequence of sedimentary rocks as old as Cambrian Flathead Quartzite and as young as Upper Cretaceous Livingston Group sandstones, shales, and volcanic rocks.

The Archean crystalline rocks crop out in the cores of large basement uplifts, most notably the "Madison-Gravelly arch" that includes parts of the present Tobacco Root Mountains and the Gravelly, Madison, and Gallatin Ranges. These basement uplifts or blocks were thrust westward during the Laramide orogeny over rocks as young as Upper Cretaceous. The thrusts are now exposed in the quadrangle along the western flanks of the Gravelly and Madison Ranges (the Greenhorn thrust and the Hilgard fault system, respectively). Simultaneous with the west-directed thrusting, northwest-striking, northeast-side-up reverse faults formed a parallel set across southwestern Montana; the largest of these is the Spanish Peaks fault, which cuts prominently across the Ennis quadrangle.

Beginning in late Eocene time, extensive volcanism of the Absorka Volcanic Supergroup covered large parts of the area; large remnants of the volcanic field remain in the eastern part of the quadrangle. The volcanism was concurrent with, and followed by, middle Tertiary extension. During this time, the axial zone of the "Madison-Gravelly arch," a large Laramide uplift, collapsed, forming the Madison Valley, structurally a complex down-to-the-east half graben. Basin deposits as thick as 4,500 m filled the graben.

Pleistocene glaciers sculpted the high peaks of the mountain ranges and formed the present rugged topography.

Compilation scale is 1:100,000. Geology mapped between 1988 and 1995. Compilation completed 1997. Review and revision completed 1997. Archive files prepared 1998-02.

Fencing is a major anthropogenic feature affecting human relationships, ecological processes, and wildlife distributions and movements, but its impacts are difficult to quantify due to a widespread lack of spatial data. We created a fence model and compared outputs to a fence mapping approach using satellite imagery in two counties in southwest Montana, USA to advance fence data development for use in research and management. The model incorporated road, land cover, ownership, and grazing boundary spatial layers to predict fence locations. We validated the model using data collected on randomized road transects (n = 330). The model predicted 34,706.4 km of fences with a mean fence density of 0.93 km/km2 and a maximum density of 14.9 km/km2. We also digitized fences using Google Earth Pro in a random subset of our study area in survey townships (n = 50). The Google Earth approach showed greater agreement (K = 0.76) with known samples than the fence model (K = 0.56) yet was unable to map fences in forests and was significantly more time intensive. We also compared fence attributes by land ownership and land cover variables to assess factors that may influence fence specifications (e.g., wire heights) and types (e.g., number of barbed wires). Private lands were more likely to have fences with lower bottom wires and higher top wires than those on public lands with sample means at 22 cm and 26.4 cm, and 115.2 cm and 110.97, respectively. Both bottom wire means were well below recommended heights for ungulates navigating underneath fencing (≥ 46 cm), while top wire means were closer to the 107 cm maximum fence height recommendation. We found that both fence type and land ownership were correlated (χ2 = 45.52, df = 5, p = 0.001) as well as fence type and land cover type (χ2 = 140.73, df = 15, p = 0.001). We provide tools for estimating fence locations, and our novel fence type assessment demonstrates an opportunity for updated policy to encourage the adoption of “wildlife-friendlier” fencing standards to facilitate wildlife movement in the western U.S. while supporting rural livelihoods. Methods For the fence model and fence density layers, the data was adapted from publicly available spatial layers informed by local expert opinion in Beaverhead and Madison Counties, MT. Data used included Montana Department of Transportation road layers, land ownership data from Montana State Library cadastral database, land cover data from the 2019 Montana Department of Revenue Final Land Unit (FLU), and railroad data from the Montana State Library. The data was processed in ArcMap 10.6.1 to form a hierarchical predictive fence location and density GIS model. For the Google Earth mapped fences, data was collected by examining satellite imagery and tracing visible fence lines in Google Earth Pro version 7.3.3 (Google 2020) within the bounds of 50 random survey township polygons in Beaverhead and Madison Counties.

Version 10.0 of these data are part of a larger U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) project to develop an updated geospatial database of mines, mineral deposits, and mineral regions in the United States. Mine and prospect-related symbols, such as those used to represent prospect pits, mines, adits, dumps, tailings, etc., hereafter referred to as “mine” symbols or features, have been digitized from the 7.5-minute (1:24,000, 1:25,000-scale; and 1:10,000, 1:20,000 and 1:30,000-scale in Puerto Rico only) and the 15-minute (1:48,000 and 1:62,500-scale; 1:63,360-scale in Alaska only) archive of the USGS Historical Topographic Map Collection (HTMC), or acquired from available databases (California and Nevada, 1:24,000-scale only). Compilation of these features is the first phase in capturing accurate locations and general information about features related to mineral resource exploration and extraction across the U.S. The compilation of 725,690 point and polygon mine symbols from approximately 106,350 maps across 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PR) and the District of Columbia (DC) has been completed: Alabama (AL), Alaska (AK), Arizona (AZ), Arkansas (AR), California (CA), Colorado (CO), Connecticut (CT), Delaware (DE), Florida (FL), Georgia (GA), Hawaii (HI), Idaho (ID), Illinois (IL), Indiana (IN), Iowa (IA), Kansas (KS), Kentucky (KY), Louisiana (LA), Maine (ME), Maryland (MD), Massachusetts (MA), Michigan (MI), Minnesota (MN), Mississippi (MS), Missouri (MO), Montana (MT), Nebraska (NE), Nevada (NV), New Hampshire (NH), New Jersey (NJ), New Mexico (NM), New York (NY), North Carolina (NC), North Dakota (ND), Ohio (OH), Oklahoma (OK), Oregon (OR), Pennsylvania (PA), Rhode Island (RI), South Carolina (SC), South Dakota (SD), Tennessee (TN), Texas (TX), Utah (UT), Vermont (VT), Virginia (VA), Washington (WA), West Virginia (WV), Wisconsin (WI), and Wyoming (WY). The process renders not only a more complete picture of exploration and mining in the U.S., but an approximate timeline of when these activities occurred. These data may be used for land use planning, assessing abandoned mine lands and mine-related environmental impacts, assessing the value of mineral resources from Federal, State and private lands, and mapping mineralized areas and systems for input into the land management process. These data are presented as three groups of layers based on the scale of the source maps. No reconciliation between the data groups was done.

In 2015, agricultural irrigation withdrawals accounted for about 42 percent of the total freshwater withdrawals in the United States (Dieter and others, 2018). Consistent and accurate designations of irrigated agricultural lands, irrigation system type, conveyance systems, and water source (groundwater or surface water) are essential for the determination of irrigation water use and ultimately the sound management of our nation’s water resources. Several local, state, and federal agencies compile data (crops, irrigation, irrigation system type, etc.) that can be used to estimate irrigation withdrawals for agricultural. The format of these data varies from data tables, typically compiled at the county level, to spatial Geographic Information System (GIS) polygon layers of agricultural lands. These data sources are often incomplete, out of date, or inconsistently compiled. The USGS and the University of Wisconsin-Madison developed annual Landsat-based Irrigation Dataset (LANID), which consists of irrigation maps, derivative products, and manually collected ground reference data covering the conterminous US (CONUS) for the period of 1997–2017 (Xie and Lark, 2021a). These maps were developed using verified irrigated-lands GIS datasets (i.e. training data) coupled with remotely-sensed, 30-meter resolution Landsat-derived data. The current and future availability of verified field-level data is required to train and validate this and other models.

The GAP National Terrestrial Ecosystems - Ver 3.0 is a 2011 update of the National Gap Analysis Program Land Cover Data - Version 2.2 for the conterminous U.S. The GAP National Terrestrial Ecosystems - Version 3.0 represents a highly thematically detailed land cover map of the U.S. The map legend includes types described by NatureServe's Ecological Systems Classification (Comer et al. 2002) as well as land use classes described in the National Land Cover Dataset 2011 (Homer et al. 2015). These data cover the entire continental U.S. and are a continuous data layer. These raster data have a 30 m x 30 m cell resolution. GAP used the best information available to create the land cover data; however GAP seeks to improve and update these data as new information becomes available.

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.

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation's mission is to help ensure that Montana's land and water resources provide benefits for present and future generations. The Trust Lands Management Division administers and manages the state trust timber, surface, and mineral resources for the benefit of the common schools and the other endowed institutions in Montana, under the direction of the State Board of Land Commissioners.Land Offices are the Trust Land Division's primary geographic division. There are six land offices across the state of Montana.

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.

This map was developed to examine multi-scale spatial relationships between percentage of sagebrush and other response variables of interest. A map of sagebrush in the western United States was used as a base layer for a moving window analysis to calculate the percentage of the area classified as sagebrush within a 5-km search radius.

This raster includes Ecological System or Land Use Classes from the National GAP Land Cover Data (v2) that represent Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands in the Chihuahuan Desert REA Analysis Extent. See Process Steps.

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#8217;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#8217;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 1966 polygons included in this data release represent the main body portion of the 37 named glaciers of Glacier National Park (GNP) and 2 named glaciers on the U.S. Forest Service’s Flathead National Forest land. This is a subset of the original mapping effort derived from 1:24000 scale mapping of named glaciers and permanent snowfields within Glacier National Park, Montana which were digitized by Richard Menicke (Glacier National Park) and Carl Key (U.S. Geological Survey) in 1993. These data are based on USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle mapping published from 1966 through 1968 which were the result of the earliest park-wide aerial surveys of snow and ice features in GNP. Examination of the aerial photographs shows that seasonal snow was present at some of the glaciers, limiting the ability of the 1966-1968 cartographers to see and map the glacier ice margins. This resulted in some smoothed and generalized outlines of the glaciers where the cartographers were likely guessing where the ice margins were under the snow. In addition, some photographs show exposed glacier margin ice with irregular patterns that are not represented by the mapped ice margin. It appeared that the original cartographers used a more generalized outline for the glaciers and were not concerned with small scale ice features even when they were evident in the photographs. Despite the generalized nature of the glacier outlines, which were also limited by mapping technology and standards of the time, the dataset represents the baseline for the glacier margins derived from aerial photography. In several cases, because of the generalized nature of the 1966-1968 mapping, a glacier perimeter did not seem as if it reflected likely location in the basin topography. In these cases the original USGS aerial imagery was referred to for verification and revision if the error seemed significant. Specifics of margin revision are detailed in attribute files for those glaciers that warranted change as part of the time series analysis conducted by Dan Fagre and Lisa McKeon (USGS) in February - August, 2016. For each glacier, determination of what constituted the "main body" was made in accordance with USGS criteria outlined in Supplemental Information section of the xml file and some disconnected patches were eliminated in the interest of keeping this analysis strictly to glacier main bodies.

Missoula County Cadastral Data ResourcesA snapshot of property and parcel data for July 2022.Department of Revenue Orion SQL property record database provided as both an SQL database and as tables in a file geodatabase.File Geodatabase and Shapefile options for parcel polygon GIS data.Visit the Montana State Library Cadastral MSDI page for more information on cadastral data and Orion property database : MSDI Cadastral (mt.gov)The Montana Cadastral Framework shows the taxable parcels and tax-exempt parcels for most of Montana. The parcels contain selected information such as owner names, property and owner addresses, assessed value, agricultural use, and tax district information that were copied from the Montana Department of Revenue's ORION tax appraisal database. The data are maintained by the MT Department of Revenue, except for Ravalli, Silver Bow, Missoula, Flathead and Yellowstone counties that are maintained by the individual counties. The Revenue and county data are integrated by Montana State Library staff. Each parcel contains an attribute called ParcelID (geocode) that is the parcel identifier. View a pdf map of the counties that were updated this month here: https://ftpgeoinfo.msl.mt.gov/Data/Spatial/MSDI/Cadastral/Parcels/Statewide/MonthlyCadastralUpdateMap.pdf The parcel boundaries were aligned to fit with the Bureau of Land Management Geographic Coordinate Database (GCDB) of public land survey coordinates. Parcels whose legal descriptions consisted of aliquot parts of the public land survey system were created from the GCDB coordinates by selecting and, when necessary, subdividing public land survey entities. Other parcels were digitized from paper maps and the data from each map were transformed to fit with the appropriate GCDB boundaries.

Mineral resource occurrence data covering the world, most thoroughly within the U.S. This database contains the records previously provided in the Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) of USGS and the Mineral Availability System/Mineral Industry Locator System (MAS/MILS) originated in the U.S. Bureau of Mines, which is now part of USGS. The MRDS is a large and complex relational database developed over several decades by hundreds of researchers and reporters. While database records describe mineral resources worldwide, the compilation of information was intended to cover the United States completely, and its coverage of resources in other countries is incomplete. The content of MRDS records was drawn from reports previously published or made available to USGS researchers. Some of those original source materials are no longer available. The information contained in MRDS was intended to reflect the reports used as sources and is current only as of the date of those source reports. Consequently MRDS does not reflect up-to-date changes to the operating status of mines, ownership, land status, production figures and estimates of reserves and resources, or the nature, size, and extent of workings. Information on the geological characteristics of the mineral resource are likely to remain correct, but aspects involving human activity are likely to be out of date.