Managers require quantitative yet tractable tools that can identify areas for restoration yielding effective benefits for targeted wildlife species and the ecosystems they inhabit. A spatially explicit conservation planning tool that guides effective sagebrush restoration for sage-grouse can be made more effective by integrating baseline maps describing existing (pre-restoration) habitat suitability, and the distribution and abundance of breeding sage-grouse. Accordingly, we provide two rasters. The first is a floating point raster file informed by lek data, and derived from: 1) utilization distributions weighted by lek attendance, and 2) a non-linear probability of space-use relative to distance to lek. The second is a floating point raster file of baseline sage-grouse habitat modeled as a resource selection function and then relativized to bracket values between 1.0 (highest modeled suitability) and 0.0 (lowest modeled suitability). Note that this map differs slightly from previous unpublished maps of Bi-State habitat suitability owing to differences in data inputs and modeling methods. These data support the following publication: Ricca, M.A., Coates, P.S., Gustafson, K.B., Brussee, B.E., Chambers, J.C., Espinosa, S.P., Gardner, S.C., Lisius, S., Ziegler, P., Delehanty, D.J., and Casazza, M.L., 2018, A conservation planning tool for greater sage-grouse using indices of species distribution, resilience, and resistance, Ecological Applications, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eap.1690

Successful adaptive management hinges largely upon integrating new and improved sources of information as they become available. Updating management tools for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus, hereafter referred to as “sage-grouse”) populations, which are indicators for the large-scale health of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystems in the Great Basin of North America, provide a timely example for this tenet. Recently developed spatially-explicit habitat maps derived from empirical data played a key role in the conservation of this species facing listing under the Endangered Species Act. The spatial data provided herein apply resource selection function parameters that informed published maps of seasonal and annual habitat suitability and management areas for sage-grouse across combined population management units in Nevada and northeastern California as identified by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (Coates et al. 2016), to a previously unmapped area of northeastern California spanning 1,169,765 hectares. These data can be mosaicked or merged by users within a geographic information system with previously published mapping products from Coates et al. (2016) to make a seamless product that extends across the extent of known sage-grouse range in northeastern California. Please refer to Coates et. al. (2016) for further details on methodology. Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J., 2016, Spatially explicit modeling of annual and seasonal habitat for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Nevada and Northeastern California—An updated decision-support tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1080, 160 p., http://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161080.

Successful adaptive management hinges largely upon integrating new and improved sources of information as they become available. Updating management tools for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus, hereafter referred to as “sage-grouse”) populations, which are indicators for the large-scale health of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystems in the Great Basin of North America, provide a timely example for this tenet. Recently developed spatially-explicit habitat maps derived from empirical data played a key role in the conservation of this species facing listing under the Endangered Species Act. The spatial data provided herein apply resource selection function parameters that informed published maps of seasonal and annual habitat suitability and management areas for sage-grouse across combined population management units in Nevada and northeastern California as identified by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (Coates et al. 2016), to a previously unmapped area of northeastern California spanning 1,169,765 hectares. These data can be mosaicked or merged by users within a geographic information system with previously published mapping products from Coates et al. (2016) to make a seamless product that extends across the extent of known sage-grouse range in northeastern California. Please refer to Coates et. al. (2016) for further details on methodology. Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J., 2016, Spatially explicit modeling of annual and seasonal habitat for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Nevada and Northeastern California—An updated decision-support tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1080, 160 p., http://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161080.

A vector representation of greater sage-grouse example management categories, derived from the original raster version. Researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey, in close cooperation with multiple state and federal resource agency partners, sought to map sage-grouse distribution and produce example habitat designations in these states. Herein, we report results of our primary study objective, which was to map sage-grouse distribution and create example habitat management and priority designations, based on more than a decade of location and survival data collected from marked sage-grouse across the study region. This version of the management areas is a generalized representation of the raster version. When utilizing this product at smaller extents, we recommend using the raster version because it provides more fine-scaled detail.

Rasters representing Greater Sage-grouse (hereafter sage-grouse) habitat selection indices (HSI), habitat selection categories, HSI combined with space-use, and example management categories. Researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey, in close cooperation with multiple state and federal resource agency partners, sought to map sage-grouse distribution and produce example habitat designations in these states. Herein, we report results of our primary study objective, which was to map sage-grouse distribution and create example habitat management and priority designations, based on more than a decade of location and survival data collected from marked sage-grouse across the study region.

Rasters representing Greater Sage-grouse (hereafter sage-grouse) habitat selection indices (HSI), habitat selection categories, HSI combined with space-use, and example management categories. Researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey, in close cooperation with multiple state and federal resource agency partners, sought to map sage-grouse distribution and produce example habitat designations in these states. Herein, we report results of our primary study objective, which was to map sage-grouse distribution and create example habitat management and priority designations, based on more than a decade of location and survival data collected from marked sage-grouse across the study region.

Conservation planning efforts for sagebrush ecosystems of western North America increasingly focus on enhancing operational resilience though decision-support tools that link spatially explicit variation in soil and plant processes to outcomes of biotic and abiotic disturbances spanning large spatial extents. However, failure to consider higher trophic-level fauna (e.g. wildlife) in these tools can hinder efforts to operationalize resilience owing to spatiotemporal lags between slower reorganization of plant and soil processes following disturbance, and faster behavioral and demographic responses of fauna to disturbance. These spatial products provide additional examples for managers of sagebrush ecosystems and greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) populations in the Great Basin to aid with decisions regarding: 1) wildfire prevention, suppression, and management; and 2) removal of encroaching conifers. These products integrate models of ecological resilience mapped to variation in soil moisture and temperature regimes, wildlife risk and recovery processes, and potential ecological traps with measures of sage-grouse habitat selection and abundance. Please refer to Ricca and Coates (2019) and examples within for further details on methodology.

Conservation planning efforts for sagebrush ecosystems of western North America increasingly focus on enhancing operational resilience though decision-support tools that link spatially explicit variation in soil and plant processes to outcomes of biotic and abiotic disturbances spanning large spatial extents. However, failure to consider higher trophic-level fauna (e.g. wildlife) in these tools can hinder efforts to operationalize resilience owing to spatiotemporal lags between slower reorganization of plant and soil processes following disturbance, and faster behavioral and demographic responses of fauna to disturbance. These spatial products provide additional examples for managers of sagebrush ecosystems and greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) populations in the Great Basin to aid with decisions regarding: 1) wildfire prevention, suppression, and management; and 2) removal of encroaching conifers. These products integrate models of ecological resilience mapped to variation in soil moisture and temperature regimes, wildlife risk and recovery processes, and potential ecological traps with measures of sage-grouse habitat selection and abundance. Please refer to Ricca and Coates (2019) and examples within for further details on methodology.

This data release includes the results (and some input data) of a spatial conservation prioritization intended to guide management of sagebrush ecosystems in northwest Colorado. Stemming the loss and degradation of sagebrush ecosystems requires science-based tools to balance diverse habitat requirements of species and guide management actions to where they are most likely to successfully achieve desired outcomes. Through a series of end-user engagement workshops, we identified northwest Colorado as an ideal location for co-developing a decision support tool that can guide strategic conservation delivery by identifying optimal areas for specific sagebrush management actions. We partnered with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) staff to adapt a local application of the Prioritizing Restoration of Sagebrush Ecosystems Tool (PReSET) to address three primary sagebrush management actions implemented by CPW: 1) long-term conservation of important sagebrush habitat (SBConservation), 2) protection of fire vulnerable sagebrush habitat (SBWildfireProtection), and 3) restoration of sagebrush habitat where success was most likely (SBRestoration). To meet CPW objectives, we ran four iterations related to each conservation action using varied combinations of input data representing: a) vegetation only (VegOnly), b) vegetation and greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; Veg_GRSG), c) vegetation, greater sage-grouse, and sagebrush songbirds (Veg_GRSG_Songbirds), and d) vegetation and greater sage-grouse, constrained by the Sagebrush Conservation Design (Veg_GRSG_SCD). This structure culminated in twelve unique results outputs, where the base file name is composed of the problem number (e.g., Problem 1a), followed by the management action (e.g., _SBConservation) and the iteration (e.g., _VegOnly.tif). Each results layer depicts three tiers of prioritization: Tier 1) the highest priority sites totaling 50,000 acres, Tier 2) high priority sites totaling 100,000 acres, and Tier 3) medium priority sites totaling 150,000 acres. In total, each output file prioritizes 300,000 acres for management. Finally, to facilitate interpretation and reproducibility of our results, this data release also includes two planning unit layers (PlanningUnits_Problems1and2_PotentialSB.tif, PlanningUnits_Problem3_DegradedSB.tif) and three feature layers (SageConn_CCDConn_Loss1985_2020.tif, SBRecovery_SBCover_Drill_Artemisia_NoFire.tif, SBRecovery_SBCoverIncrease_Drill_Artemisia_NoFire.tif) we derived from published datasets specifically for this effort.

We expanded on previously developed methodology to incorporate information on habitat selection and survival during reproductive life stages and specific seasons with updated sage-grouse location and known fate datasets, while also including brood-rearing areas that are understood to be threatened and important for population persistence. We combined predictive habitat map surfaces for each life stage and season with updated information on current occupancy patterns to classify habitat based on its suitability and probability of occupancy. We carried out additional steps to delineate specific example habitat management areas, specifically (1) incorporated corridors connecting key nesting and brood-rearing habitat, (2) corrected outputs for pre-wildfire habitat conditions within areas burned in the last 16 years, and (3) masked out areas of anthropogenic development. Our methodological example of deriving habitat management areas was intended to help inform decisions by BLM and other land managers regarding conservation and management of sage-grouse. Associated data products in the form of habitat maps provide updated, detailed, and comprehensive information about the status of habitats and can be useful to partner agencies in their efforts to designate and rank habitats for this species of high conservation concern in Nevada and California, with full recognition that on-the-ground field data and local sources of information and expertise should be used in conjunction with inferences from these models.