Source: MnGeo

Description: Derived from 2014 lidar data for Washington and Chisago counties. The data displays the index and intermediate or 10ft and 2ft intervals, respectively of the terrain.

Publication: 2014-06-27

More information: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/elevation/lidar.html#data

Source: MPCA

Description: The Altered Watercourse Project was a joint effort between the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Minnesota Geospatial Information Office (MnGeo) to create a statewide inventory of streams that have been hydrologically altered (e.g. channelized, ditched or impounded). The dataset was created to support MPCA's water quality monitoring and assessment program and provides information about stream habitats that have been compromised through such alteration.

The project entailed digitization of Geographic Information System (GIS) 'events' on to the United States Geological Survey's National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) stream linework. The events were then categorized as one of four types: Altered, Natural, Impounded, or No definable channel, based upon a standardized methodology and criteria. These categorizations were performed manually by GIS technicians using visible interpretation of multiple years of aerial photography, LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging)-based elevation data, and various other reference data in ArcGIS 10.0.

Beginning in 2018, some custom linework was added to the dataset to represent streams that were not present in the NHD. These custom line features do not have a Reachcode, and have a note in the Permanent ID field and the Source Feature ID. These line features will be incorporated into the NHD in the future.

Publication: 2019-01-01

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-altered-watercourse

Source: MPCA

Description: This is a set of the waterbodies assessed by MPCA's surface water quality assessment process for the 2022 303(d)/305(b) integrated report to EPA.

Publication: 2022-05-04

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-assessed-water-2022

Source:DNR

Description: Pollution Sensitivity of the Bedrock Surface characterizes the relative rate of vertical travel time of a contaminant that moves conservatively with or within water from the land surface to the buried bedrock surface. Legacy maps from the County Geologic Atlas program were used and modified to reflect the bedrock surface since some legacy maps were created for specific units or aquifers. These data will be updated with every new atlas.

Publication: 2016-02-11

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/geos-hydrogeology-atlas-hg01

Source:Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR)

Description: The Watershed Health Index approach identifies and analyzes data that characterizes the principal components of watershed health at the Major Watershed and Catchment scales. For each of the principal components (Geomorphology, Connectivity, Hydrology, Biology, and Water Quality) indices and underlying metrics have been developed that describe the relative health of the system. The generated values are scaled from 0 to 100 to provide a statewide comparable index of relative health risk.

Publication:2021-04-26

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-watershed-health-assessment

Source: Chisago County

Description: Chisago County parcels

Publication: 2023-10-18

Source: MN Department of Health

Description: Drinking water supply management area (DWSMA) vulnerability is an assessment of the likelihood for a potential contaminant source within the drinking water supply management area to contaminate a public water supply well based on the aquifer's inherent geologic sensitivity; and the chemical and isotopic composition of the groundwater.

Publication: 2019-03-08

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-drinking-water-supply

Source: BWSR

Description: Conservation easements are a critical component of the state’s efforts to improve water quality by reducing soil erosion, phosphorus and nitrogen loading, and improving wildlife habitat and flood attenuation on private lands. Easements protect the state’s water and soil resources by permanently restoring wetlands, adjacent native grassland wildlife habitat complexes and permanent riparian buffers. In cooperation with county Soil & Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), BWSR's easement programs compensate landowners for granting conservation easements and establishing native vegetation habitat on economically marginal, flood-prone, environmentally sensitive or highly erodible lands.

Publication: 2023-08-11

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/bdry-bwsr-rim-cons-easements

Source: BWSR

Description: This Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) is a score of multiple ecological benefits on a 0-300 scale, 300 being the most valuable from a conservation perspective. It combines a soil erosion risk layer, water quality risk layer, and a wildlife habitat quality layer all scored 100 points each

Source: Bolton and Menk, Inc.

Description: This dataset is part of Forest Lake's 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update.

Publication: August 2018

Source: Bolton and Menk, Inc.

Description: This dataset is part of Scandia's 2040 Comprehensive Plan.

Publication: October 2019

Source: DNR

Description: This is the complete GAP Stewardship database containing land ownership information for the entire state of Minnesota. These lands are managed for a variety of economic, environmental, and recreational uses. Attribute fields describe ownership, administrator, and conservation management code. The base cartography is derived from mathematically subdivided PLS sections. The forty acre polygons have been dissolved on the ownership values in the attribute table. Ownership reflects surface features only. Ownership is only as current as the source information and should not be considered comprehensive for the entire state. Conservation management codes are based upon the owning or administrating entity. Land interest is expressed only when some organization owns or administers more than 50 percent of a forty.

This inventory was conducted to provide ownership and administration information for the Gap Analysis Project, an effort to identify gaps in biodiversity protection. Currency ranges from 1976-2007, although the information is predominantly from 1983-1985.

DNR Divisions Shown: Ecological Services, Enforcement, Fish and Wildlife, Forestry, Lands and Minerals, Parks and Recreation, Trails and Waterways, Waters and Minnesota DNR Undifferentiated

State Departments Shown: Agriculture, Corrections, Military Affairs, Transportation and State Undifferentiated

County Agencies Shown: County, County Admin/State Forest, County Admin/State Owned and County Admin/State Park.

Federal Agencies Shown: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, U.S. Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management and Farmers Home Administration.

Publication: 2008-05-01

More information: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/land_own_general.html

Source: USDA

Description: The 202310 Gridded SSURGO dataset was created for use in national, regional, and state-wide resource planning and analysis of soils data. The dataset consists of soils data in raster, vector and attribute tables. The raster map layer data can be readily combined with other national, regional, and local raster layers, e.g., National Land Cover Database (NLCD), the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Crop Data Layer, or the National Elevation Dataset (NED).

Publication: 2023-11-01

More information: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/

Source: MPCA

Description: This is a set of the impaired waterbodies as determined by MPCA's surface water quality assessment process for the 2022 reporting cycle to US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Waterbodies declared impaired prior to 2022 are also included in this dataset unless they have been delisted. The waterbodies included in the dataset are made available for public comment as part of the impaired waters list.

Note that for the purpose of submitting the impaired waters list to EPA, waterbodies partially or wholly within Indian reservation boundaries are published in separate datasets. The MPCA still considers these waters impaired and has an interest in restoring them. The MPCA respectfully requests that the waters partially or wholly within Indian reservations be symbolized differently on map products so that viewers can differentiate them from waters not intersecting Indian reservations.

These waterbodies are a subset and enhancement of the 1:24,000 scale National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). In cases where the NHD does not include a feature that MPCA has assessed, a feature is added by MPCA. Since the impaired waterbodies are a small subset of the NHD, only that subset is included in the dataset. This dataset includes impaired waterbodies that have not yet had a TMDL plan approved by the US EPA.

Publication: 2022-05-04

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-impaired-water-2022

Source: MPCA

Description: This is a set of the impaired waterbodies as determined by MPCA's surface water quality assessment process for the 2022 reporting cycle to US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Waterbodies declared impaired prior to 2022 are also included in this dataset unless they have been delisted. The waterbodies included in the dataset are made available for public comment as part of the impaired waters list.

Note that for the purpose of submitting the impaired waters list to EPA, waterbodies partially or wholly within Indian reservation boundaries are published in separate datasets. The MPCA still considers these waters impaired and has an interest in restoring them. The MPCA respectfully requests that the waters partially or wholly within Indian reservations be symbolized differently on map products so that viewers can differentiate them from waters not intersecting Indian reservations.

These waterbodies are a subset and enhancement of the 1:24,000 scale National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). In cases where the NHD does not include a feature that MPCA has assessed, a feature is added by MPCA. Since the impaired waterbodies are a small subset of the NHD, only that subset is included in the dataset. This dataset includes impaired waterbodies that have not yet had a TMDL plan approved by the US EPA.

Publication: 2022-05-04

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-impaired-water-2022

Source: DNR

Description: This layer was created to identify Lakes of Phosphorus Sensitivity Significance (LPSS) within Minnesota. Available lake data were analyzed to classify lakes based on sensitivity to nutrient pollution.

Phosphorus sensitivity was estimated for each lake by predicting how much water clarity would be reduced with additional phosphorus loading to the lake. A phosphorus sensitivity significance index was formulated to prioritize lakes as they relate to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) policy objective of focusing on high quality, unimpaired lakes at greatest risk of becoming impaired. The phosphorus sensitivity significance index, which is a function of phosphorus sensitivity, lake size, lake total phosphorus concentration, proximity to MPCA's phosphorus impairment thresholds, and watershed disturbance, was used to determine the lake's Priority Class.

The goal of this list was to objectively prioritize lakes based on their sensitivity to phosphorus pollution. Lakes identified as nutrient-impaired or proposed for nutrient impairment listing are also included.

Many Minnesota lakes have not been sampled for lake phosphorus, and this list will be periodically revised as additional data become available.

Publication: 2022-01-01

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-lakes-phosphorus-sensitivity

Source: USGS

More information: https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/4f5545cce4b018de15819ca9

Source: MN DNR

Description: This data layer represents areas with varying levels of native biodiversity that may contain high quality native plant communities, rare plants, rare animals, and/or animal aggregations. Initially, boundaries of sites are determined by review of aerial photography in order to identify potential areas of native biodiversity based on native vegetation. In subsequent field investigations, MBS assesses the ecological characteristics of the site and the presence of rare species. A biodiversity significance rank is assigned on the basis of the number of rare species, the quality of the native plant communities, size of the site, and context within the landscape. Following field investigations, site boundaries sometimes are revised, or sites added, to incorporate critical habitat for rare plants and rare animals. In these instances, the quality of native plant communities is not the primary criteria for ranking the site. MBS Sites that are found to be disturbed are retained in the layer as negative data and are given the Biodiversity Significance rank of "Below." Those disturbed areas within MBS Sites and all areas outside MBS Sites are lands where native plant communities have been seriously altered or destroyed by human activities such as farming, recent logging, draining, and development.

Publication: 2023-09-07

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/biota-mcbs-sites-of-biodiversity

Source:DNR

Description: The data was computed by a revised SWB model for the simulation period of 1980 to 2016. Documented in a report by the DNR "Transient NMLG Model Analysis and Revisions".

Publication: 2018-08-01

More information: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/gwmp/area-ne-model.html

Source: MN DNR

Description: This dataset contains results of the Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS), State Park land cover data, Forestry native plant community data, and Wildlife Management Areas land cover data. It includes polygons representing the highest quality native plant communities remaining in surveyed areas (typically counties). These native plant communities are important areas for conservation.

Native plant communities (sometimes also referred to as "natural communities") are groups of native plants that interact with each other and their surrounding environment in ways not greatly altered by modern human activity or by introduced plant or animal species. These groups of native species form recognizable units, such as an oak forest, a prairie, or a marsh, that tend to repeat across the landscape and over time.

Native plant communities are generally classified and described by considering vegetation, hydrology, land forms, soils, and natural disturbance regimes. The native plant community types and subtypes in this data layer are classified primarily by vegetation and major habitat features.

Areas that are not mapped as native plant community polygons primarily represent: 1) land where modern human activities such as farming, overgrazing, wetland drainage, recent logging and residential and commercial development have destroyed or greatly altered the natural vegetation; and 2) native plant community polygons that were below minimal size criteria.

Note: some areas that are not mapped are important for conservation. They may include habitat for native plants and animals, corridors for animal movement, buffers surrounding high quality natural areas and open space, and target areas for restoration.

Publication: 2024-02-21

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/biota-dnr-native-plant-comm

Source: DNR

Description: This wetland classification scheme was originally developed for a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) effort to establish protective permit thresholds for groundwater appropriations subject to DNR regulation. The classification of various wetland types were made in consultation with wetland professionals from several state and federal agencies and from academia and were helpful in discussing the potential effects of groundwater withdrawals. However, they are based on best professional judgment, not empirical data, and are subject to revision and further clarification. The basic units of classification are the wetland native plant communities (NPC) as described in the series of Field Guides to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota (MnDNR 2005a, 2005b, 2003). The NPCs are grouped into readily recognizable wetland type categories.

Publication: 2024-02-22

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/biota-dnr-groundwater-npc

Source: DNR

Description: Native prairie polygons are a subset of a larger database of DNR Native Plant Communities and are the result of that classification system and protocol.

As a subset of the DNR Native Plant Communities dataset, this dataset contains selected native plant community classifications (prairies) that result from the Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS), State Park land cover data, Forestry native plant community data, and Wildlife Management Areas land cover data. It includes polygons representing the highest quality native prairie communities remaining in surveyed areas. These native prairie communities are important areas for conservation.

Native plant communities (sometimes also referred to as "natural communities") are groups of native plants that interact with each other and their surrounding environment in ways not greatly altered by modern human activity or by introduced plant or animal species. These groups of native species form recognizable units, such as an oak forest, a prairie, or a marsh, that tend to repeat across the landscape and over time.

Native plant communities are generally classified and described by considering vegetation, hydrology, land forms, soils, and natural disturbance regimes. The native plant community types and subtypes in this data layer are classified primarily by vegetation and major habitat features.

Areas that are not mapped as native plant community polygons primarily represent: 1) land where modern human activities such as farming, overgrazing, wetland drainage, recent logging and residential and commercial development have destroyed or greatly altered the natural vegetation; and 2) native plant community polygons that were below minimal size criteria.

Note: some areas that are not mapped are important for conservation. They may include habitat for native plants and animals, corridors for animal movement, buffers surrounding high quality natural areas and open space, and target areas for restoration.

Publication: 2024-02-22

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/biota-dnr-native-prairies

Source: USGS

Description: The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in partnership with several federal agencies, has now developed and released seven National Land Cover Database (NLCD) products: NLCD 1992, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016, 2019, and 2021. Beginning with the 2016 release, land cover products were created for two-to-three-year intervals between 2001 and the most recent year. These products provide spatially explicit and reliable information on the Nation’s land cover and land cover change. NLCD continues to provide innovative, consistent, and robust methodologies for production of a multi-temporal land cover and land cover change database. NLCD 2021 adds an additional year to the map products produced for NLCD 2019, with a streamlined compositing process for assembling and preprocessing Landsat imagery and geospatial ancillary datasets; a temporally, spectrally, and spatially integrated land cover change analysis strategy; a theme-based post-classification protocol for generating land cover and change products; a continuous fields biophysical parameters modeling method; and a scripted operational system. The overall accuracy of the 2019 Level I land cover was 91%. Results from this study confirm the robustness of this comprehensive and highly automated procedure for NLCD 2021 operational mapping (see https://doi.org/10.1080/15481603.2023.2181143 for the latest accuracy assessment publication). Questions about the NLCD 2021 land cover product can be directed to the NLCD 2021 land cover mapping team at USGS EROS, Sioux Falls, SD (605) 594-6151 or mrlc@usgs.gov. See included spatial metadata for more details.

Publication: 2023-07-20

Source: MN DNR

Description: National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data for Minnesota provide information on the location, extent, and type of Minnesota wetlands. Natural resource managers use NWI data to improve the management, protection, and restoration of wetlands. Wetlands provide many ecological benefits including habitat for fish and wildlife, reducing floods, recharging, improving water quality, and supporting recreation.

These data were updated through a decade-long, multi-agency collaborative effort under leadership of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). Major funding was provided by the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund.

This is the first statewide update of the NWI for Minnesota since the original inventory in the mid-1980s. The work was completed in phases by dividing the state into five project areas. Those project areas have all been edgematched into a final seamless statewide dataset.

Ducks Unlimited (Ann Arbor, MI) and St. Mary’s University Geospatial Services (Winona, MN) conducted the wetland mapping and classification under contract to the MNDNR. The Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis Laboratory at the University of Minnesota provided support for methods development and field validation. The DNR Resource Assessment Office provided additional support for data processing, field checking, and quality control review.

The updated NWI data delineate and classify wetlands according to the system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979), which is consistent with the original NWI. The updated data also contain a simplified plant community classification (SPCC) and a simplified hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification. Quality assurance of the data included visual inspection, automated checks for attribute validity and topologic consistency, as well as a formal accuracy assessment based on an independent field verified data set. Further details on the methods employed can be found in the technical procedures document for this project located on the project website (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/wetlands/nwi_proj.html ).

Publication: 2019-05-23

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-nat-wetlands-inv-2009-2014

Source: EOR

Description: Overflow arrows created by EOR modeling

Publication: 2019

Source:DNR

Description: This dataset estimates the pollution sensitivity of near-surface materials from the transmission time of water through 3 feet of soil and 7 feet of surficial geology, to a depth of 10 feet from the land surface.

Publication: 2018-10-31

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/geos-hydrogeology-atlas-hg02

Source: MN DNR

Description: These are provisional representations of Public Waters Basins (lakes, wetlands) as depicted on the scanned paper regulatory maps and lists known as Public Waters Inventory (PWI). Public Waters (formerly called Protected Waters) are defined in MN Rule and are protected by specific permitting requirements.

Publication: 2020-06-10

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-mn-public-waters

Source: MN DNR

Description: These are provisional representations of Public Waters Watercourses (streams, altered channels) as depicted on the scanned paper regulatory maps and lists known as Public Waters Inventory (PWI). Public Waters (formerly called Protected Waters) are defined in MN Rule and are protected by specific permitting requirements.

Publication: 2020-06-10

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-mn-public-waters

Source: Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc

Description: Pollution Sensitivity of the Bedrock Surface characterizes the relative rate of vertical travel time of a contaminant that moves conservatively with or within water from the land surface to the buried bedrock surface. Legacy maps from the County Geologic Atlas program were used and modified to reflect the bedrock surface since some legacy maps were created for specific units or aquifers. These data will be updated with every new atlas.

Publication: 2016-02-11

Source: BWSR

Description: This data layer represents a general risk score for potential soil erosion on a 0-100 point scale, 100 being the highest risk. Larger values indicate soils that have a higher potential to erode if no conservation practices were in place and overland sheet or rill runoff was present. A subset of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) was used to determine potential erosion values. The USLE is a multiplicative equation using the formula A =R x K x LS x C x P where: " A = potential long term average annual soil loss in tons/acre/year. " R = rainfall and runoff factor " K = soil erodibility factor " LS = slope length-gradient factor " C = crop/vegetation and management factor " P = support practice factor The R (Rainfall), K (Soil Erodibility), and LS (Length/Slope) factors were used and calculated based on NRCS spatial and tabular SSURGO soils data, statewide county based climate maps, as well as mathematical formulas based on standard USLE calculations. SSURGO stands for Soil Survey Geographic Database. The crop/vegetation and management factor and support practice factor were not used. This is because there are no reliable statewide spatial data that represent these factors. Although there exist statewide data depicting current cropping practices, there are no statewide data representing current tillage methods (e.g. fall plow, ridge tillage, no-till) or support practice (e.g. cross slope, contour farming, strip cropping) that are required for these calculations. Furthermore these factors are temporal and will therefore shift over time. Since only non-management factors were used, the resulting data layer should be viewed as a "worst-case" scenario, i.e. highest potential soil erosion of bare soil with no mitigating land use practices in place. Although quantitative soils loss numbers (tons/acre/year) may be exaggerated under this model, the resulting data layer is used here in a qualitative, comparative capacity in order to compare the relative differences in soil loss risk between various parts of the landscape.

Source: DNR

Description: This layer shows legally designated trout streams and trout stream tributaries as identified in Minnesota Rules Chapter 6264. See http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/6264/0050.html for legal descriptions and restrictions associated with designated trout waters.

This data set includes designated trout streams and their protected tributaries only. Users are encouraged to use the full resolution Stream Routes with Kittle Numbers and Mile Measures layer ( http://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-measured-kittle-routes ) as a base layer to visualize all streams (designated and not) to fully understand hydrological connectivity and impacts to trout resources.

Designated segments are maintained as tabular data and displayed as linear events on the Stream Routes with Kittle Numbers and Mile Measures layer ( http://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-measured-kittle-routes ).

Publication: 2020-05-14

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-trout-stream-designations

Source: Met Council

Description: Washington County parcels (2024 Q2)

Publication: 2024-04-01

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metrogis-plan-regional-parcels

Source: MN Department of Health

Description: Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) is the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) approved surface and subsurface area surrounding a public water supply well or well field that supplies a public water system, through which contaminants are likely to move toward and reach the well or well field.

Publication: 2019-07-15

More information: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-wellhead-protection-areas

Source: BWSR

Description: This data layer represents a general score for wildlife habitat quality on a 0-100 point scale, 100 being the highest risk. Larger values indicate higher potential wildlife habitat quality. The habitat mapping used in this plan was updated from the work done as part of Minnesota's Statewide Conservation and Preservation Plan. The primary goal of habitat mapping was to collate the available information for Minnesota that can be used to prioritize important areas for conservation (protection, acquisition, restoration) by integrating both positive (resources) and negative (threats to resources) information on biodiversity, habitat quality, outdoor recreation (e.g., hunting and fishing), and water quality. Positive components included features such as known occurrences of rare species, sites of biodiversity significance, or high levels of game species abundance, while negative components included the dominant drivers of environmental change as identified in Phase I of the plan. Negative influences on natural resources included such information as human development, land use, and road density. By acquiring and objectively processing information related to these components, it was possible to rank areas in Minnesota according to their conservation priority.