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.

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.

Montana Managed Areas Map Service includes federal, state, local, and privately managed lands. Federal: National Parks; 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; Department of DefenseState: Montana DNRC State Forest, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks State Parks and Wildlife Management Areas, University system agricultural landsLocal County and City ParksPrivate: Montana Private Conservation Lands including The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and American PrairieThe full metadata record for the Managed Areas Web Map Service is available from the Montana State Library Data List. Complete metadata for the Montana Managed Areas data set is also available.Conservation Easements registered with the State of Montana. No public assess is implied.The Public Lands layer represents publicly administered lands of Montana, federal, local, state and tribal.The Montana Cadastral Framework shows the taxable parcels and tax-exempt parcels for most of Montana.Visit the Montana State Library Administrative Boundaries page and Cadastral Framework page, as well as the Montana Natural Heritage Land Management Mapping page for additional information.

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/ .

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

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.

The Digital Geologic-GIS Map of Glacier National Park, Montana is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables, and is available in the following GRI-supported GIS data formats: 1.) a 10.1 file geodatabase (glac_geology.gdb), a 2.) Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) geopackage, and 3.) 2.2 KMZ/KML file for use in Google Earth, however, this format version of the map is limited in data layers presented and in access to GRI ancillary table information. The file geodatabase format is supported with a 1.) ArcGIS Pro map file (.mapx) file and individual Pro layer (.lyrx) files (for each GIS data layer), as well as with a 2.) 10.1 ArcMap (.mxd) map document (glac_geology.mxd) and individual 10.1 layer (.lyr) files (for each GIS data layer). The OGC geopackage is supported with a QGIS project (.qgz) file. Upon request, the GIS data is also available in ESRI 10.1 shapefile format. Contact Stephanie O'Meara (see contact information below) to acquire the GIS data in these GIS data formats. In addition to the GIS data and supporting GIS files, three additional files comprise a GRI digital geologic-GIS dataset or map: 1.) this file (glac_geology.gis_readme.pdf), 2.) the GRI ancillary map information document (.pdf) file (glac_geology.pdf) which contains geologic unit descriptions, as well as other ancillary map information and graphics from the source map(s) used by the GRI in the production of the GRI digital geologic-GIS data for the park, and 3.) a user-friendly FAQ PDF version of the metadata (glac_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Please read the glac_geology_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the GIS data and other map files. Google Earth software is available for free at: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html. QGIS software is available for free at: https://www.qgis.org/en/site/. Users are encouraged to only use the Google Earth data for basic visualization, and to use the GIS data for any type of data analysis or investigation. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Division funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/geologic-resources-inventory-products.htm. For more information about the Geologic Resources Inventory Program visit the GRI webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/gri,htm. At the bottom of that webpage is a "Contact Us" link if you need additional information. You may also directly contact the program coordinator, Jason Kenworthy (jason_kenworthy@nps.gov). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: U.S. Geological Survey. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (glac_geology_metadata.txt or glac_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:100,000 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 50.8 meters or 166.7 feet of their actual _location as presented by this dataset. Users of this data should thus not assume the _location of features is exactly where they are portrayed in Google Earth, ArcGIS, QGIS or other software used to display this dataset. All GIS and ancillary tables were produced as per the NPS GRI Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 2.3. (available at: https://www.nps.gov/articles/gri-geodatabase-model.htm).

The Digital Geologic-GIS Maps of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, Montana and Wyoming is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables, and is available in the following GRI-supported GIS data formats: 1.) a 10.1 file geodatabase (bica_geology.gdb), a 2.) Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) geopackage, and 3.) 2.2 KMZ/KML file for use in Google Earth, however, this format version of the map is limited in data layers presented and in access to GRI ancillary table information. The file geodatabase format is supported with a 1.) ArcGIS Pro map file (.mapx) file (bica_geology.mapx) and individual Pro layer (.lyrx) files (for each GIS data layer), as well as with a 2.) 10.1 ArcMap (.mxd) map document (bica_geology.mxd) and individual 10.1 layer (.lyr) files (for each GIS data layer). The OGC geopackage is supported with a QGIS project (.qgz) file. Upon request, the GIS data is also available in ESRI 10.1 shapefile format. Contact Stephanie O'Meara (see contact information below) to acquire the GIS data in these GIS data formats. In addition to the GIS data and supporting GIS files, three additional files comprise a GRI digital geologic-GIS dataset or map: 1.) a readme file (bica_geology_gis_readme.pdf), 2.) the GRI ancillary map information document (.pdf) file (bica_geology.pdf) which contains geologic unit descriptions, as well as other ancillary map information and graphics from the source map(s) used by the GRI in the production of the GRI digital geologic-GIS data for the park, and 3.) a user-friendly FAQ PDF version of the metadata (bica_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Please read the bica_geology_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the GIS data and other map files. Google Earth software is available for free at: https://www.google.com/earth/versions/. QGIS software is available for free at: https://www.qgis.org/en/site/. Users are encouraged to only use the Google Earth data for basic visualization, and to use the GIS data for any type of data analysis or investigation. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Division funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/geologic-resources-inventory-products.htm. For more information about the Geologic Resources Inventory Program visit the GRI webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/gri.htm. At the bottom of that webpage is a "Contact Us" link if you need additional information. You may also directly contact the program coordinator, Jason Kenworthy (jason_kenworthy@nps.gov). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (bica_geology_metadata.txt or bica_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:250,000 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 127 meters or 416.7 feet of their actual _location as presented by this dataset. Users of this data should thus not assume the _location of features is exactly where they are portrayed in Google Earth, ArcGIS, QGIS or other software used to display this dataset. All GIS and ancillary tables were produced as per the NPS GRI Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 2.3. (available at: https://www.nps.gov/articles/gri-geodatabase-model.htm).

The Digital Geologic-GIS Map of Rocky Mountain National Park and Vicinity, Colorado is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables, and is available in the following GRI-supported GIS data formats: 1.) an ESRI file geodatabase (romo_geology.gdb), a 2.) Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) geopackage, and 3.) 2.2 KMZ/KML file for use in Google Earth, however, this format version of the map is limited in data layers presented and in access to GRI ancillary table information. The file geodatabase format is supported with a 1.) ArcGIS Pro 3.X map file (.mapx) file (romo_geology.mapx) and individual Pro 3.X layer (.lyrx) files (for each GIS data layer). The OGC geopackage is supported with a QGIS project (.qgz) file. Upon request, the GIS data is also available in ESRI shapefile format. Contact Stephanie O'Meara (see contact information below) to acquire the GIS data in these GIS data formats. In addition to the GIS data and supporting GIS files, three additional files comprise a GRI digital geologic-GIS dataset or map: 1.) a readme file (romo_geology_gis_readme.pdf), 2.) the GRI ancillary map information document (.pdf) file (romo_geology.pdf) which contains geologic unit descriptions, as well as other ancillary map information and graphics from the source map(s) used by the GRI in the production of the GRI digital geologic-GIS data for the park, and 3.) a user-friendly FAQ PDF version of the metadata (romo_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Please read the romo_geology_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the GIS data and other map files. Google Earth software is available for free at: https://www.google.com/earth/versions/. QGIS software is available for free at: https://www.qgis.org/en/site/. Users are encouraged to only use the Google Earth data for basic visualization, and to use the GIS data for any type of data analysis or investigation. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Division funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/geologic-resources-inventory-products.htm. For more information about the Geologic Resources Inventory Program visit the GRI webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/gri.htm. At the bottom of that webpage is a "Contact Us" link if you need additional information. You may also directly contact the program coordinator, Jason Kenworthy (jason_kenworthy@nps.gov). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: U.S. Geological Survey. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (romo_geology_metadata.txt or romo_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:50,000 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 25.4 meters or 83.3 feet of their actual location as presented by this dataset. Users of this data should thus not assume the location of features is exactly where they are portrayed in Google Earth, ArcGIS Pro, QGIS or other software used to display this dataset. All GIS and ancillary tables were produced as per the NPS GRI Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 2.3. (available at: https://www.nps.gov/articles/gri-geodatabase-model.htm).

description: "West Mojave Route Network Project Travel Management Area 5 - Map 12 of 20 (Shows Route Designations Decisions for Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4, Planning Area Boundary, Travel Management Area Boundary, Subregion Boundaries, Field Office Boundaries, Surface Management Agencies, Land Ownership, Route Designations, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Sensitive Resource Receptors, Restricted Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Off-highway Vehicle Open Areas, National Monument Boundaries, Special Recreation Management Areas, Desert Linkage Network, Soil Erosion, Air Quality Management Districts, California Air Basins, and Unusual Plant Assemblages) n n n1. Travel Management Area 5 - Map 12 of 20 n2. WEMO Map Index Figure (Locator Map) n3. Map and Resource Data n n a. Labels ni. Route Designation n Motorized n Non-BLM n Non-Mechanized n Non-Motorized n Transportation Linear Disturbance n Route with Subdesignation n WEMO Planning Area n WEMO Travel Management Area n WEMO Subregion n BLM Field Office Boundary nii. Land Ownership n Bureau of Land Management n Forest Service n National Park Service n Fish and Wildlife Service n Bureau of Reclamation n Bureau of Indian Affairs n Department of Defense n Other Federal n State n Local Government n Private n iii. Resource Data n Area within 1/4 mile of a sensitive receptor n Area within 1 mile of a sensitive receptor n Residential Area n Area of Critical Environmental Concern n National Conservation Lands n Special Recreation Management Area n Desert Linkage Network n Area Prone to Erosion Due to Slopes Greater than 10 Percent niv. Air Quality Management Districts n Mojave Desert n v. California Air Basins n Mojave Desert n vi. Unusual Plant Assemblage n None n n b. Base Data n i. City or Town (Data Source: USGS Geographic Names Inventory System) nii. Major Roads (Data Source: US Census TIGER/Line) n iii. County Boundary (Data Source: ESRI) niv. BLM Field Office Boundary (Data Source: BLM State Office) n n c. WEMO Planning Boundaries n i. WEMO Planning Area (Data Source: BLM State Office) n ii. Travel Management Area 5 (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n iii. Subregions -(Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n n d. Project Alternatives n i. Alternative 1 - No Action (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n ii. Alternative 2 Conservation (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n iii. Alternative 3 Increased Access (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n iv. Alternative 4 - Preferred (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n n e. Non-BLM Routes or routes not under BLM jurisdiction (Data Source: BLM State Office) n n f. Resource Descriptions and Data Sources n n i. Residential Area are areas near residences (Data Source: BLM State Office) n ii. Wilderness Areas are areas that include federally designated wildernesses (Data Source: BLM State Office) n iii. Area of Critical Environmental Concern are federally protected areas with special natural resources (Data Source: BLM State Office) n iv. National Monuments are federally designated through Presidential Proclamation (Data Source: BLM State Office) n v. National Conservation Lands are lands that the Bureau of Land Management for conservation purposes federally designates these (Data Source: BLM State Office) n vi. Areas Prone to Erosion are areas that are likely to experience erosion (Data Source: BLM State Office) n vii. Air Quality Management Districts are federally designated air quality districts with boundaries (Data Source: CA Air Resource Board) n viii. California Air Basins are designated by California with boundaries (Data Source: CA Air Resource Board) n"; abstract: "West Mojave Route Network Project Travel Management Area 5 - Map 12 of 20 (Shows Route Designations Decisions for Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4, Planning Area Boundary, Travel Management Area Boundary, Subregion Boundaries, Field Office Boundaries, Surface Management Agencies, Land Ownership, Route Designations, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Sensitive Resource Receptors, Restricted Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Off-highway Vehicle Open Areas, National Monument Boundaries, Special Recreation Management Areas, Desert Linkage Network, Soil Erosion, Air Quality Management Districts, California Air Basins, and Unusual Plant Assemblages) n n n1. Travel Management Area 5 - Map 12 of 20 n2. WEMO Map Index Figure (Locator Map) n3. Map and Resource Data n n a. Labels ni. Route Designation n Motorized n Non-BLM n Non-Mechanized n Non-Motorized n Transportation Linear Disturbance n Route with Subdesignation n WEMO Planning Area n WEMO Travel Management Area n WEMO Subregion n BLM Field Office Boundary nii. Land Ownership n Bureau of Land Management n Forest Service n National Park Service n Fish and Wildlife Service n Bureau of Reclamation n Bureau of Indian Affairs n Department of Defense n Other Federal n State n Local Government n Private n iii. Resource Data n Area within 1/4 mile of a sensitive receptor n Area within 1 mile of a sensitive receptor n Residential Area n Area of Critical Environmental Concern n National Conservation Lands n Special Recreation Management Area n Desert Linkage Network n Area Prone to Erosion Due to Slopes Greater than 10 Percent niv. Air Quality Management Districts n Mojave Desert n v. California Air Basins n Mojave Desert n vi. Unusual Plant Assemblage n None n n b. Base Data n i. City or Town (Data Source: USGS Geographic Names Inventory System) nii. Major Roads (Data Source: US Census TIGER/Line) n iii. County Boundary (Data Source: ESRI) niv. BLM Field Office Boundary (Data Source: BLM State Office) n n c. WEMO Planning Boundaries n i. WEMO Planning Area (Data Source: BLM State Office) n ii. Travel Management Area 5 (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n iii. Subregions -(Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n n d. Project Alternatives n i. Alternative 1 - No Action (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n ii. Alternative 2 Conservation (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n iii. Alternative 3 Increased Access (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n iv. Alternative 4 - Preferred (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n n e. Non-BLM Routes or routes not under BLM jurisdiction (Data Source: BLM State Office) n n f. Resource Descriptions and Data Sources n n i. Residential Area are areas near residences (Data Source: BLM State Office) n ii. Wilderness Areas are areas that include federally designated wildernesses (Data Source: BLM State Office) n iii. Area of Critical Environmental Concern are federally protected areas with special natural resources (Data Source: BLM State Office) n iv. National Monuments are federally designated through Presidential Proclamation (Data Source: BLM State Office) n v. National Conservation Lands are lands that the Bureau of Land Management for conservation purposes federally designates these (Data Source: BLM State Office) n vi. Areas Prone to Erosion are areas that are likely to experience erosion (Data Source: BLM State Office) n vii. Air Quality Management Districts are federally designated air quality districts with boundaries (Data Source: CA Air Resource Board) n viii. California Air Basins are designated by California with boundaries (Data Source: CA Air Resource Board) n"

The Digital Geologic-GIS Map of the Yellowstone National Park and Vicinity, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables, and is available in the following GRI-supported GIS data formats: 1.) a 10.1 file geodatabase (yell_geology.gdb), a 2.) Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) geopackage, and 3.) 2.2 KMZ/KML file for use in Google Earth, however, this format version of the map is limited in data layers presented and in access to GRI ancillary table information. The file geodatabase format is supported with a 1.) ArcGIS Pro map file (.mapx) file (yell_geology.mapx) and individual Pro layer (.lyrx) files (for each GIS data layer), as well as with a 2.) 10.1 ArcMap (.mxd) map document (yell_geology.mxd) and individual 10.1 layer (.lyr) files (for each GIS data layer). The OGC geopackage is supported with a QGIS project (.qgz) file. Upon request, the GIS data is also available in ESRI 10.1 shapefile format. Contact Stephanie O'Meara (see contact information below) to acquire the GIS data in these GIS data formats. In addition to the GIS data and supporting GIS files, three additional files comprise a GRI digital geologic-GIS dataset or map: 1.) this file (yell_geology_gis_readme.pdf), 2.) the GRI ancillary map information document (.pdf) file (yell_geology.pdf) which contains geologic unit descriptions, as well as other ancillary map information and graphics from the source map(s) used by the GRI in the production of the GRI digital geologic-GIS data for the park, and 3.) a user-friendly FAQ PDF version of the metadata (yell_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Please read the yell_geology_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the GIS data and other map files. Google Earth software is available for free at: https://www.google.com/earth/versions/. QGIS software is available for free at: https://www.qgis.org/en/site/. Users are encouraged to only use the Google Earth data for basic visualization, and to use the GIS data for any type of data analysis or investigation. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Division funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/geologic-resources-inventory-products.htm. For more information about the Geologic Resources Inventory Program visit the GRI webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/gri,htm. At the bottom of that webpage is a "Contact Us" link if you need additional information. You may also directly contact the program coordinator, Jason Kenworthy (jason_kenworthy@nps.gov). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (yell_geology_metadata.txt or yell_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:62,500 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 63.5 meters or 208.3 feet of their actual _location as presented by this dataset. Users of this data should thus not assume the _location of features is exactly where they are portrayed in Google Earth, ArcGIS, QGIS or other software used to display this dataset. All GIS and ancillary tables were produced as per the NPS GRI Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 2.3. (available at: https://www.nps.gov/articles/gri-geodatabase-model.htm).

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.

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. Raster data in both ArcGIS Grid and ERDAS Imagine format is available for download at http://gis1.usgs.gov/csas/gap/viewer/land_cover/Map.aspx 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. In adition to the raster datasets the data is available in Web Mapping Services (WMS) format for each of the six NVC classification levels (Class, Subclass, Formation, Division, Macrogroup, Ecological System) at the following links. http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Class_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Subclass_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Formation_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Division_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Macrogroup_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_Ecological_Systems_Landuse/MapServer

The Digital Surficial Geologic-GIS Map of Mount Desert Island and Vicinity, Acadia National Park, Maine is composed of GIS data layers and GIS tables, and is available in the following GRI-supported GIS data formats: 1.) an ESRI file geodatabase (acad_surficial_geology.gdb), a 2.) Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) geopackage, and 3.) 2.2 KMZ/KML file for use in Google Earth, however, this format version of the map is limited in data layers presented and in access to GRI ancillary table information. The file geodatabase format is supported with a 1.) ArcGIS Pro 3.X map file (.mapx) file (acad_surficial_geology.mapx) and individual Pro 3.X layer (.lyrx) files (for each GIS data layer). The OGC geopackage is supported with a QGIS project (.qgz) file. Upon request, the GIS data is also available in ESRI shapefile format. Contact Stephanie O'Meara (see contact information below) to acquire the GIS data in these GIS data formats. In addition to the GIS data and supporting GIS files, three additional files comprise a GRI digital geologic-GIS dataset or map: 1.) a readme file (acad_geology_gis_readme.pdf), 2.) the GRI ancillary map information document (.pdf) file (acad_surficial_geology.pdf) which contains geologic unit descriptions, as well as other ancillary map information and graphics from the source map(s) used by the GRI in the production of the GRI digital geologic-GIS data for the park, and 3.) a user-friendly FAQ PDF version of the metadata (acad_surficial_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Please read the acad_geology_gis_readme.pdf for information pertaining to the proper extraction of the GIS data and other map files. Google Earth software is available for free at: https://www.google.com/earth/versions/. QGIS software is available for free at: https://www.qgis.org/en/site/. Users are encouraged to only use the Google Earth data for basic visualization, and to use the GIS data for any type of data analysis or investigation. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Division funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). For a complete listing of GRI products visit the GRI publications webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/geologic-resources-inventory-products.htm. For more information about the Geologic Resources Inventory Program visit the GRI webpage: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/gri.htm. At the bottom of that webpage is a "Contact Us" link if you need additional information. You may also directly contact the program coordinator, Jason Kenworthy (jason_kenworthy@nps.gov). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: Maine Geological Survey. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation section(s) of this metadata record (acad_surficial_geology_metadata.txt or acad_surficial_geology_metadata_faq.pdf). Users of this data are cautioned about the locational accuracy of features within this dataset. Based on the source map scale of 1:24,000 and United States National Map Accuracy Standards features are within (horizontally) 12.2 meters or 40 feet of their actual location as presented by this dataset. Users of this data should thus not assume the location of features is exactly where they are portrayed in Google Earth, ArcGIS Pro, QGIS or other software used to display this dataset. All GIS and ancillary tables were produced as per the NPS GRI Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 2.3. (available at: https://www.nps.gov/articles/gri-geodatabase-model.htm).

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.

This map depicts lands owned and/or administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge.

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

(Link to Metadata) The EcologicOther_ELT (Ecological Land Type) data layer was developed by the Green Mountain National Forest in the early 1980's from aerial photography. Using stereo-pairs of 1:42000 aerial photographs units were mapped using techniques similar to those used by soil scientists to delineate soil-series. After the initial mapping, fieldwork was done to 1) verify and adjust unit designations and 2) develop unit descriptions. To do this, sample plots were established on photos in locations that appeared to be representative of particular ELT's, or in locations where there were questions about the accuracy of the designations. Adjustments to the ELT boundaries were made in the field when data on vegetation and edaphic and topographic features were collected at sample plots. On the north half of the Green Mountain National Forest, 60 different elts have been mapped, and 320 sample plots established to validate and describe the units. Polygons were drawn onto 1:24000 USFS Topographic Maps sheets (mylar). In 1993 these maps were given to the University of Vermont's Spatial Analysis Lab for digitizing. Automation was completed in the fall of 1993. Ecological land classification (ELC) is a cartographic approach to forest land delineation that defines units of land at different spatial scales that are hierarchical, nested, and homogeneous in their environmental and late-successional vegetational characteristics. The ecological land classification system in use on the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) in Vermont conforms to the guidelines defined by the National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units established by the USDA Forest Service. This classification system is meant to assist managers by allowing them to delineate ecosystems, assess resources, conduct environmental analyses, establish desired future conditions, and manage and monitor resources. Units at the ecological land type (ELT) scale have been mapped on the GMNF. These units are designed to assist managers in site specific, project-level planning. Average unit size for ELT's on the north half of the GMNF is 267 acres. The units are identified by a four-digit code that is based on landtype association, geomorphic process, soil depth, and moisture (refer to ELTCODE documentation).

description: "West Mojave Route Network Project Travel Management Area 7 - Map 11 of 16 (Shows Route Designations Decisions for Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4, Planning Area Boundary, Travel Management Area Boundary, Subregion Boundaries, Field Office Boundaries, Surface Management Agencies, Land Ownership, Route Designations, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Sensitive Resource Receptors, Restricted Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Off-highway Vehicle Open Areas, National Monument Boundaries, Special Recreation Management Areas, Desert Linkage Network, Soil Erosion, Air Quality Management Districts, California Air Basins, and Unusual Plant Assemblages) n n n1. Travel Management Area 7 - Map 11 of 16 n2. WEMO Map Index Figure (Locator Map) n3. Map and Resource Data n n a. Labels ni. Route Designation n Motorized n Non-BLM n Non-Mechanized n Non-Motorized n Transportation Linear Disturbance n Route with Subdesignation n WEMO Planning Area n WEMO Travel Management Area n WEMO Subregion n BLM Field Office Boundary nii. Land Ownership n Bureau of Land Management n Forest Service n National Park Service n Fish and Wildlife Service n Bureau of Reclamation n Bureau of Indian Affairs n Department of Defense n Other Federal n State n Local Government n Private n iii. Resource Data n Area within 1/4 mile of a sensitive receptor n Area within 1 mile of a sensitive receptor n Residential Area n Wilderness Area n Area of Critical Environmental Concern n National Conservation Lands n Special Recreation Management Area n Desert Linkage Network n Area Prone to Erosion Due to Slopes Greater than 10 Percent niv. Air Quality Management Districts n Mojave Desert n v. California Air Basins n Mojave Desert n vi. Unusual Plant Assemblage n Western Mojave Desert Mojave Saltbrush Assemblage n n b. Base Data n i. City or Town (Data Source: USGS Geographic Names Inventory System) nii. Major Roads (Data Source: US Census TIGER/Line) n iii. County Boundary (Data Source: ESRI) niv. BLM Field Office Boundary (Data Source: BLM State Office) n n c. WEMO Planning Boundaries n i. WEMO Planning Area (Data Source: BLM State Office) n ii. Travel Management Area 7 (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n iii. Subregions -(Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n n d. Project Alternatives n i. Alternative 1 - No Action (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n ii. Alternative 2 Conservation (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n iii. Alternative 3 Increased Access (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n iv. Alternative 4 - Preferred (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n n e. Non-BLM Routes or routes not under BLM jurisdiction (Data Source: BLM State Office) n n f. Resource Descriptions and Data Sources n n i. Residential Area are areas near residences (Data Source: BLM State Office) n ii. Wilderness Areas are areas that include federally designated wildernesses (Data Source: BLM State Office) n iii. Area of Critical Environmental Concern are federally protected areas with special natural resources (Data Source: BLM State Office) n iv. National Monuments are federally designated through Presidential Proclamation (Data Source: BLM State Office) n v. National Conservation Lands are lands that the Bureau of Land Management for conservation purposes federally designates these (Data Source: BLM State Office) n vi. Areas Prone to Erosion are areas that are likely to experience erosion (Data Source: BLM State Office) n vii. Air Quality Management Districts are federally designated air quality districts with boundaries (Data Source: CA Air Resource Board) n viii. California Air Basins are designated by California with boundaries (Data Source: CA Air Resource Board) n"; abstract: "West Mojave Route Network Project Travel Management Area 7 - Map 11 of 16 (Shows Route Designations Decisions for Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4, Planning Area Boundary, Travel Management Area Boundary, Subregion Boundaries, Field Office Boundaries, Surface Management Agencies, Land Ownership, Route Designations, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Sensitive Resource Receptors, Restricted Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Off-highway Vehicle Open Areas, National Monument Boundaries, Special Recreation Management Areas, Desert Linkage Network, Soil Erosion, Air Quality Management Districts, California Air Basins, and Unusual Plant Assemblages) n n n1. Travel Management Area 7 - Map 11 of 16 n2. WEMO Map Index Figure (Locator Map) n3. Map and Resource Data n n a. Labels ni. Route Designation n Motorized n Non-BLM n Non-Mechanized n Non-Motorized n Transportation Linear Disturbance n Route with Subdesignation n WEMO Planning Area n WEMO Travel Management Area n WEMO Subregion n BLM Field Office Boundary nii. Land Ownership n Bureau of Land Management n Forest Service n National Park Service n Fish and Wildlife Service n Bureau of Reclamation n Bureau of Indian Affairs n Department of Defense n Other Federal n State n Local Government n Private n iii. Resource Data n Area within 1/4 mile of a sensitive receptor n Area within 1 mile of a sensitive receptor n Residential Area n Wilderness Area n Area of Critical Environmental Concern n National Conservation Lands n Special Recreation Management Area n Desert Linkage Network n Area Prone to Erosion Due to Slopes Greater than 10 Percent niv. Air Quality Management Districts n Mojave Desert n v. California Air Basins n Mojave Desert n vi. Unusual Plant Assemblage n Western Mojave Desert Mojave Saltbrush Assemblage n n b. Base Data n i. City or Town (Data Source: USGS Geographic Names Inventory System) nii. Major Roads (Data Source: US Census TIGER/Line) n iii. County Boundary (Data Source: ESRI) niv. BLM Field Office Boundary (Data Source: BLM State Office) n n c. WEMO Planning Boundaries n i. WEMO Planning Area (Data Source: BLM State Office) n ii. Travel Management Area 7 (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n iii. Subregions -(Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n n d. Project Alternatives n i. Alternative 1 - No Action (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n ii. Alternative 2 Conservation (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n iii. Alternative 3 Increased Access (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n iv. Alternative 4 - Preferred (Data Source: BLM Barstow Field Office) n n e. Non-BLM Routes or routes not under BLM jurisdiction (Data Source: BLM State Office) n n f. Resource Descriptions and Data Sources n n i. Residential Area are areas near residences (Data Source: BLM State Office) n ii. Wilderness Areas are areas that include federally designated wildernesses (Data Source: BLM State Office) n iii. Area of Critical Environmental Concern are federally protected areas with special natural resources (Data Source: BLM State Office) n iv. National Monuments are federally designated through Presidential Proclamation (Data Source: BLM State Office) n v. National Conservation Lands are lands that the Bureau of Land Management for conservation purposes federally designates these (Data Source: BLM State Office) n vi. Areas Prone to Erosion are areas that are likely to experience erosion (Data Source: BLM State Office) n vii. Air Quality Management Districts are federally designated air quality districts with boundaries (Data Source: CA Air Resource Board) n viii. California Air Basins are designated by California with boundaries (Data Source: CA Air Resource Board) n"

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.