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/ .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

These data are part of a larger 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, are currently being digitized on a state-by-state basis from the 7.5-minute (1:24, 000-scale) and the 15-minute (1:48, 000 and 1:62,500-scale) archive of the USGS Historical Topographic Maps Collection, 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. To date, the compilation of 400,000-plus point and polygon mine symbols from approximately 51,000 maps of 17 western states (AZ, CA, CO, ID, KS, MT, ND, NE, NM, NV, OK, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY and western TX) has been completed. The process renders not only a more complete picture of exploration and mining in the western U.S., but an approximate time line of when these activities occurred. The 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. The data are presented as three groups of layers based on the scale of the source maps. No reconciliation between the data groups was done.

This statewide land cover theme is a digital raster map of natural vegetation communities and disturbances (e.g. wildland fire) and human land use activities for Montana. The basemap is adapted from the LANDFIRE 2016 Remap (LF 2.0.0) Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) classification, which used 30 m resolution Landsat multi-spectral imagery that represented circa 2016 ground conditions. The EVT product contained the distribution of ecological systems classification units developed by NatureServe, and also included semi-natural (ruderal) vegetation types within the U.S. National Vegetation Classification (NVC). The EVT mapping was developed using decision tree models, field data, Landsat imagery, elevation, and biophysical gradient data. Detailed metadata for EVT can be found at https://www.landfire.gov/vegetation/evt. Initial Data Sources and Processing Steps 2020 – 2021: The original LANDFIRE EVT raster was downloaded, clipped to the boundary of Montana, and projected from NAD 1983 Albers (meters) to NAD 1983-2011 State Plane Montana FIPS 2500 (meters). It was initially modified using state-specific datasets such as the 2017 MSDI Transportation Framework, the 2020 Montana Department of Revenue Final Land Unit (FLU) classification of private agricultural land, the USFS VMAP products and the Montana Ecological Groups; as well as national datasets such as SSURGO soils, the USGS Land Change Monitoring, Assessment, and Projection (LCMAP) and Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) rasters. Additional updates include reassignment of certain EVT classes and cross referencing some EVT classes to a modified version of ecological systems for Montana (Montana Field Guide for Ecological Systems, https://fieldguide.mt.gov/displayES_LCLU.aspx). EVT classes were further reassigned where there was disagreement with the expected species range described in the Montana Field Guide. For a detailed description of these initial steps see data processing steps Section 1. Ecological Group Data Processing Steps 2021-2023: EVT classes were reassigned based on visual inspection of each ecological group and informed by ancillary datasets, such as ecological group attributes, NAIP imagery, SSURGO soils, and elevation and its derivatives. The methods implemented in revising the original LANDFIRE 2016 REMAP product represent a successful proof of concept for performing locationally specific updates rather than only systematic statewide revisions. Project funding and time constraints precluded addressing all errors of omission and commission in the original LANDFIRE 2016 Remap product that could have been revised using methods developed for updating Landfire EVT for Montana Land Cover. For a detailed description see data processing steps Section 2.

Version 10.0 (Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico added) 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.Datasets were developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center (GGGSC). Compilation work was completed by USGS National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) interns: Emma L. Boardman-Larson, Grayce M. Gibbs, William R. Gnesda, Montana E. Hauke, Jacob D. Melendez, Amanda L. Ringer, and Alex J. Schwarz; USGS student contractors: Margaret B. Hammond, Germán Schmeda, Patrick C. Scott, Tyler Reyes, Morgan Mullins, Thomas Carroll, Margaret Brantley, and Logan Barrett; and by USGS personnel Virgil S. Alfred, Damon Bickerstaff, E.G. Boyce, Madelyn E. Eysel, Stuart A. Giles, Autumn L. Helfrich, Alan A. Hurlbert, Cheryl L. Novakovich, Sophia J. Pinter, and Andrew F. Smith.USMIN project website: https://www.usgs.gov/USMIN

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

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.

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 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 54-km search radius.

Interactive map of wildfires currently active in Montana.Current wildfire locations, perimeters, and historic fire perimeters are based on the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) Wildland Fire Open Data.Cadastral, public lands, and structures/addresses layers are based on the Cadastral and Structures/Addresses Framework datasets maintained by the Montana State Library.Photo by John McColgan - Edited by Fir0002 [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.For more information or to report issues with this application, please contact the Montana State Library: geoinfo@mt.gov