GSTC_GRSGHabitat_01 (FeatureServer)

View In: Map Viewer

Service Description: This geodatabase contains all Greater Sage-grouse habitat representing formal GRSG Records of Decision

Service ItemId: c436a3d49b204edbbab5ac14e9216d8f

Has Versioned Data: false

Max Record Count: 1000

Supported query Formats: JSON

Supports applyEdits with GlobalIds: True

Supports Shared Templates: True

Replicas

All Layers and Tables

Layers:

Description: Idaho: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 procesing steps. ***UPDATE***As of 09/17/2015, the areas of PHMA that were originally non-habitat in Sagebrush Focal Areas were removed from this dataset if they fell on NFS lands.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 01212015This habitat data provided for Alt G for the IDMT EIS has been clipped to the official IDMT FS GRSG EIS boundaries.Nevada / California:Full description of base data available at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/more_programs/geographic_sciences/gis/geospatial_data.htmlThis data has been isolated to NFS lands within the official NV/CA FS GRSG EIS boundaries.NW Colorado:This dataset is a combination of the General and Priority habitat component files that were provided to the FS. The following is the metdata associated with that data. This dataset does not include linkages, and has been isolated to NFS lands within the official NWCO FS GRSG EIS boundaries.Greater sage-grouse GIS data set identifying Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) within Colorado. This data is a combination of mapped grouse occupied range, production areas, and modeled habitat (summer, winter, and breeding).PPH is defined as areas of high probability of use (summer or winter, or breeding models) within a 4 mile buffer around leks that have been active within the last 10 years. Isolated areas with low activity were designated as general habitat.PGH is defined as Greater sage-grouse Occupied Range outside of PPH.Datasets used to create PPH and PGH:Summer, winter, and breeding habitat models. Rice, M. B., T. D. Apa, B. L. Walker, M. L. Phillips, J. H. Gammonly, B. Petch, and K. Eichhoff. 2012. Analysis of regional species distribution models based on combined radio-telemetry datasets from multiple small-scale studies. Journal of Applied Ecology in review.Production Areas are defined as 4 mile buffers around leks which have been active within the last 10 years (leks active between 2002-2011).Occupied range was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife –CPW) biologists and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in early 2012. Occupied Habitat is defined as areas of suitable habitat known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are mapped as occupied habitat unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use. Mapped from any combination of telemetry locations, sightings of sage grouse or sage grouse sign, local biological expertise, GIS analysis, or other data sources. This information was derived from field personnel. A variety of data capture techniques were used including the SmartBoard Interactive Whiteboard using stand-up, real-time digitizing atvarious scales (Cowardin, M., M. Flenner. March 2003. Maximizing Mapping Resources. GeoWorld 16(3):32-35).Update August 2012: This dataset was modified by the Bureau of Land Management as requested by CPW GIS Specialist, Karin Eichhoff. Eichhoff requested that this dataset, along with the GrSG managment zones (population range zones) dataset, be snapped to county boundaries along the UT-CO border and WY-CO border. The county boundaries dataset was provided by Karin Eichhoff. In addition, a few minor topology errors were corrected where PPH and PGH were overlapping.Update October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat, as requested by Jim Cagney, BLM CO Northwest District Manager. 6 water bodies in total were removed (Hog Lake, South Delaney, Williams Fork Reservoir, North Delaney, Wolford Mountain Reservoir (2 polygons)). There were two “SwampMarsh” polygons that resulted when selecting polygons greater than 100 acres; these polygons were not included. Only polygons with the attribute “LakePond” were removed from GrSG habitat. Utah:This data set was created to facilitate the BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy in the Utah Sub-Region. This data was developed and addressed, and used during preparation of an environmental impact statement to consider amendments to 14 BLM land use plans throughout the State of Utah, as well as 6 Forest Service land use plans. This planning process was initiated through issuance of a Notice of Intent published on December 6, 2011. This dataset is associated with the Final Environmental Impact Statement, released to the public via a Notice of Availability on May 29, 2015. The purpose of the planning process is to address protection of greater sage-grouse, in partial response to a March 2010 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that found the greater sage-grouse was eligible for listing under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act. The planning process will prepare a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in close coordination with the US Forest Service, which is a cooperating agency on this planning effort. The planning effort will address the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms found in the land use plans, and will address the myriad threats to grouse and their habitat that were identified by the FWS.The data include the identification of priority and general habitat management areas, as well as a portion occupied habtiat within the planning area identified as neither priority or general. Definitions of priority and general, as well as the management associated with each, is located in the Final EIS.This dataset has been isolated to NFS lands within the official UT FS GRSG EIS boundaries.Wyoming:This dataset shows the proposed Greater Sage-grouse Prioirity Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) (including Priority-Core and Priority-Connectivity) and General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA) for Alternative E within the Wyoming 9-Plan FS GRSG EIS boundaries. It was built, using the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset ("No Action" data) as a base. Alterations were made to reflect proposed changes under Alternative E in the WY 9-Plan GRSG EIS, which included adding areas of proposed 'Priority-Core' and 'Priority-Connectivity' (both delineations considered as PHMA), predominately within areas previously categorized as 'General' habitat.Please refer to the bottom of this section for more details on the data and workflow used in altering the 'No Action' data for Alternative E. This layer was initially completed on 08/27/2014, and later finalized for publication and distribution on 10/01/2015.The metadata associated with the Wyoming portion of the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset is listed below:Wyoming –PPHand PGH: FINAL DRAFT; Developed by the Wyoming Governor’s Sage-Grouse Implementation Team and Wyoming Game and Fish Department in cooperation with Wyoming BLM (PGH modified from Distribution of Sage-Grouse in North America. Schroeder et al., 2004).Alterations were only made to areas on the Bridger-Teton NF and the Thunder Basin NG. The following data was supplied:From the BTNF: (1) BT_added_occupied.shp; (2) BTProposedCoreSG_April2014.shpFrom TBNG: (1) ProposedSageGrouseCore.shpThe following general steps were taken to complete this dataset:1. The 'BT_added_occupied' dataset was merged with the existing PGH data from the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset. In places where the 'BT_added_occupied' data intersected exiting PPH or the proposed core or connectivity data, the PPH/core/connectivity delineation was maintained. 2. The 'BTProposedCoreSG_April2014' and 'ProposedSageGrouseCore' datasets were added to the existing PPH data from the "Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, 2012" dataset. Any overlap in the proposed core or connectivity data with existing PPH were maintained as existing PPH. 3. The dataset resulting from Step 2 was erased from the dataset resulting from Step 1.4. The dataset resulting from Step 3 was merged with the dataset resulting from Step 2.5. The dataset resulting from Step 4 was clipped to the official WY 9-Plan FS GRSG EIS Boundaries.

Copyright Text: The USDA Forest Service makes no warranty, expressed or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, reliability, completeness or utility of these geospatial data, or for the improper or incorrect use of these geospatial data. These geospatial data and related maps or graphics are not legal documents and are not intended to be used as such. The data and maps may not be used to determine title, ownership, legal descriptions or boundaries, legal jurisdiction, or restrictions that may be in place on either public or private land. Natural hazards may or may not be depicted on the data and maps, and land users should exercise due caution. The data are dynamic and may change over time. The user is responsible to verify the limitations of the geospatial data and to use the data accordingly.

Spatial Reference: 102039 (102039)

Initial Extent:

Full Extent:

Units: esriMeters

Child Resources: Replicas Info SharedTemplates

Supported Operations: Query ConvertFormat Get Estimates Create Replica Synchronize Replica Unregister Replica