The following habitat management areas were used in the creation of this feature class: <br />

PHMA: Areas identified as having the highest habitat value for maintaining sustainable GRSG populations and include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas.

GHMA: Areas that are occupied seasonally or year-round and are outside of PHMAs.

IHMA: Areas in Idaho that provide a management buffer for and that connect patches of PHMAs. IHMAs encompass areas of generally moderate to high habitat value habitat or populations but that are not as important as PHMAs.

OHMA: Areas in Nevada and Northeastern California, identified as unmapped habitat in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, that are within the Planning Area and contain seasonal or connectivity habitat areas.

RHMA: Areas with ongoing or imminent impacts containing substantial and high-quality GRSG habitat that historically supported sustainable GRSG populations. Management actions would emphasize restoration for the purpose of establishing or restoring sustainable GRSG populations. Areas are delineated using key, core, and connectivity data or maps and other resource information.

LCHMA: Areas in NW CO that have been identified as broader regions of connectivity important to facilitate the movement of GRSG and maintain ecological processes.

Anthro Mountain: An additional 41,200 acres of National Forest System lands in the Anthro Mountain portion of the Carbon Population Area in Utah that are managed as neither PHMA nor GHMA. These areas are identified as “Anthro Mountain.” In the BLM’s ARMPA, these areas are considered split-estate, where the BLM merely administers the mineral estate.

Each state's data was submitted/resubmitted as follows:

Colorado, January 2016: Previously submitted ROD data for PHMA, GHMA, and LCHMA was retained for this file, per BLM CO State Office.

Idaho, August 2018: Idaho habitat resubmissions from August 2018 were restricted to Idaho political state boundaries to realign Idaho ARMPA plans with the State of Idaho Sage-Grouse Management Plan (Idaho Greater Sage-Grouse Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment, March 2019). The following changes were made to Idaho habitat designations:

"This plan amendment provides greater flexibility to modify habitat management area boundaries based on new data through collaborative process with interagency partners. Approximately 50,000 acres of PHMA was reclassified as IHMA to provide the necessary lek routes in IHMA for calculating population triggers. While IHMA is not as protective as PHMA, this change will still protect Greater Sage-Grouse because in this Conservation Area, the IHMA is managed as PHMA because a habitat trigger has been tripped as a result of habitat loss from the Soda Fire" (Idaho Greater Sage-Grouse Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment, March 2019).

For information on Idaho PHMA/GHMA located within MT political state boundaries, see Montana/Dakotas explanation below.

Montana/North Dakota/South Dakota, 2015, resubmitted April 2019: Data from Montana/Dakotas EIS was modified. Habitat in SW MT that was previously part of the Idaho EIS was submitted. Areas of GHMA previously included in the Butte Field Office &amp; the Upper Missouri River Breaks N.M. (UMRBNM) are omitted from this compilation because neither of these planning areas were revised or amended in 2015 with management decisions specific to sage-grouse habitat delineations. These data were originally incorporated in previous versions of the BLM dataset to facilitate cumulative effects analyses at regional and range-wide scales. PHMA has been retained in UMRBNM to facilitate the BSU scale disturbance and sagebrush availability estimates described in the Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework, included as appendices in the adjacent planning area Land Use Plans. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks should be contacted for the most current sage-grouse habitat data in these areas.

Nevada/California, April 2019: HMA boundaries (PHMA, GHMA, and OHMA) have been adjusted "so that they reflect the best available science based on updates to habitat data and use modeling (Coates et al. 2016) and are consistent with HMA boundaries identified by the State of Nevada and recommended by CDFW. This will provide consistency in management across jurisdictions and to third parties operating on public and state or private lands in Nevada and northeastern California" (Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment, March 2019).

Oregon, July 2018: Attributes (PHMA/GHMA) that were previously labeled incorrectly in some small areas of the Beaty's PAC-Lakeview District were fixed.

Utah, 2017-2018: The data submitted for Anthro Mtn in April 2017 has been retained in this file.

Utah's PHMA habitat was resubmitted in July of 2018. At this time, GHMA habitat was removed as a category for Utah:

"Areas that were formerly identified as GHMA would no longer be managed as such, and corresponding management would be removed. This would maintain and likely accelerate the declining trends in Greater Sage-Grouse populations and habitat. However, this loss would be minimal in context of state-wide populations because 95 percent of Utah’s Greater Sage-Grouse populations are supported by habitat located within PHMA" (Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Reseource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement, November 2018).

Wyoming, October 2017: On October 27, 2017 the WY state director signed maintenance actions for the Wyoming Sage-Grouse ARMPA, Buffalo RMP, Cody RMP, and Worland RMP that changed WY PHMA boundaries, bringing them into consistency with the Wyoming Core Areas (version 4) from the current Governor's executive order 2015-4. The updated PHMA boundaries were also adopted by the Lander RMP. USFS managed areas in SW WY, formerly associated with the 2015 UT ARMPA have been updated to reflect only PHMA as the USFS plan revision process has not completed. The retention of the PHMA in these areas was coordinated with the USFS and solely to facilitate the BSU scale disturbance and sagebrush availability estimates described in the Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework. Updates may be made at any time following the completion of the USFS planning process.