This is an ArcGIS Online web service updated by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife GIS Unit on March 4, 2025 for distributing Colorado administrative GIS data in a web service format for public distribution.Colorado Parks and Wildlife Public GIS Data Update ScheduleAdministrative Boundary GIS Data1) First Week in February – to match any changes in Sheep, Goat, or Big Game GMU boundaries published in the Big Game Brochure.2) First Week in March – to update changes in administrative boundaries Regions, Areas, and Districts.3) First Week in August – to update Public Access Properties at the beginning of Big Game hunting seasons.4) First Week in September – to update Walk In Access program property boundaries.5) First Week in November – to update Walk In Access program property boundaries (late season).

Colorado Parks and Wildlife Regional Service Centers (RSC's) focus on customer service, landowner issues, volunteer coordination, information and education, law enforcement, county land use planning, Area and property administration. This GIS dataset represents the Regional Service Center Boundaries for Colorado Parks and Wildlife. It was derived from the CO_DISTS coverage and simplified into the three RSC's in Colorado; Northeast, Southeast Northwest and Southwest. Attributes for this coverage and its contents are: RSC (contains the location of the RSC), RSC_PHONE (contains the phone number for the RSC).

This is an ArcGIS Online web service updated by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife GIS Unit on March 4, 2025 for distributing Colorado administrative GIS data in a web service format for public distribution.

This web map created by the Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology GIS team, serves as a basemap specific to the state of Colorado. The basemap includes general layers such as counties, municipalities, roads, waterbodies, state parks, national forests, national wilderness areas, and trails.Layers:Layer descriptions and sources can be found below. Layers have been modified to only represent features within Colorado and are not up to date. Layers last updated February 23, 2023. Colorado State Extent: Description: “This layer provides generalized boundaries for the 50 States and the District of Columbia.” Notes: This layer was filtered to only include the State of ColoradoSource: Esri Living Atlas USA States Generalized Boundaries Feature LayerState Wildlife Areas:Description: “This data was created by the CPW GIS Unit. Property boundaries are created by dissolving CDOWParcels by the property name, and property type and appending State Park boundaries designated as having public access. All parcel data correspond to legal transactions made by the CPW Real Estate Unit. The boundaries of the CDOW Parcels were digitized using metes and bounds, BLM's GCDB dataset, the PLSS dataset (where the GCDB dataset was unavailable) and using existing digital data on the boundaries.” Notes: The state wildlife areas layer in this basemap is filtered from the CPW Managed Properties (public access only) layer from this feature layer hosted in ArcGIS Online Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife CPW Admin Data Feature LayerMunicipal Boundaries:Description: "Boundaries data from the State Demography Office of Colorado Municipalities provided by the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)"Source: Colorado Information Marketplace Municipal Boundaries in ColoradoCounties:Description: “This layer presents the USA 2020 Census County (or County Equivalent) boundaries of the United States in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is updated annually as County (or County Equivalent) boundaries change. The geography is sources from US Census Bureau 2020 TIGER FGDB (National Sub-State) and edited using TIGER Hydrology to add a detailed coastline for cartographic purposes. Geography last updated May 2022.” Notes: This layer was filtered to only include counties in the State of ColoradoSource: Esri USA Census Counties Feature LayerInterstates:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing Highways Notes: Interstates are filtered by route sign from this CDOT Highways layer Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Highways REST EndpointU.S. Highways:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing Highways Notes: U.S. Highways are filtered by route sign from this CDOT Highways layer Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Highways REST EndpointState Highways:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing Highways Notes: State Highways are filtered by route sign from this CDOT Highways layer Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Highways REST EndpointMajor Roads:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing major roads Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Major Roads REST EndpointLocal Roads:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing local roads Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Local Roads REST EndpointRail Lines:Description: Authoritative data from the Colorado Department of Transportation representing rail lines Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Rail Lines REST EndpointCOTREX Trails:Description: “The Colorado Trail System, now titled the Colorado Trail Explorer (COTREX), endeavors to map every trail in the state of Colorado. Currently their are nearly 40,000 miles of trails mapped. Trails come from a variety of sources (USFS, BLM, local parks & recreation departments, local governments). Responsibility for accuracy of the data rests with the source.These data were last updated on 2/5/2019” Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife CPW Admin Data Feature LayerNHD Waterbodies:Description: “The National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDplus) maps the lakes, ponds, streams, rivers and other surface waters of the United States. Created by the US EPA Office of Water and the US Geological Survey, the NHDPlus provides mean annual and monthly flow estimates for rivers and streams. Additional attributes provide connections between features facilitating complicated analyses.”Notes: This layer was filtered to only include waterbodies in the State of ColoradoSource: National Hydrography Dataset Plus Version 2.1 Feature LayerNHD Flowlines:Description: “The National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDplus) maps the lakes, ponds, streams, rivers and other surface waters of the United States. Created by the US EPA Office of Water and the US Geological Survey, the NHDPlus provides mean annual and monthly flow estimates for rivers and streams. Additional attributes provide connections between features facilitating complicated analyses.”Notes: This layer was filtered to only include flowline features in the State of ColoradoSource: National Hydrography Dataset Plus Version 2.1 Feature LayerState Parks:Description: “This data was created by the CPW GIS Unit. Property boundaries are created by dissolving CDOWParcels by the property name, and property type and appending State Park boundaries designated as having public access. All parcel data correspond to legal transactions made by the CPW Real Estate Unit. The boundaries of the CDOW Parcels were digitized using metes and bounds, BLM's GCDB dataset, the PLSS dataset (where the GCDB dataset was unavailable) and using existing digital data on the boundaries.” Notes: The state parks layer in this basemap is filtered from the CPW Managed Properties (public access only) layer from this feature layer Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife CPW Admin Data Feature LayerDenver Parks:Description: "This dataset should be used as a reference to locate parks, golf courses, and recreation centers managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation in the City and County of Denver. Data is based on parcel ownership and does not include other areas maintained by the department such as medians and parkways. The data should be used for planning and design purposes and cartographic purposes only."Source: City and County of Denver Parks REST EndpointNational Wilderness Areas:Description: “A parcel of Forest Service land congressionally designated as wilderness such as National Wilderness Area.”Notes: This layer was filtered to only include National Wilderness Areas in the State of ColoradoSource: United States Department of Agriculture National Wilderness Areas REST EndpointNational Forests: Description: “A depiction of the boundaries encompassing the National Forest System (NFS) lands within the original proclaimed National Forests, along with subsequent Executive Orders, Proclamations, Public Laws, Public Land Orders, Secretary of Agriculture Orders, and Secretary of Interior Orders creating modifications thereto, along with lands added to the NFS which have taken on the status of 'reserved from the public domain' under the General Exchange Act. The following area types are included: National Forest, Experimental Area, Experimental Forest, Experimental Range, Land Utilization Project, National Grassland, Purchase Unit, and Special Management Area.”Notes: This layer was filtered to only include National Forests in the State of ColoradoSource: United States Department of Agriculture Original Proclaimed National Forests REST Endpoint

This information was derived from the 1:24,000 scale Digital Rastor Graphics (DRG's). Data were digitized on-screen using the Arc/Info module to create a Mountain Goat Hunting Unit polygon coverage. Where available, coincident lines were use from other available data. If these data were available but not at 1:24,000 scale or better, digitizing was done directly from the DRG, with the exception of Hydro Unit (HUC) boundaries, which were pulled from the Division's HUC coverages. Digitizing and attributing were done by the GIS Group of Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Label points have multiple attributes and linear features are attributed with the feature name that makes up that portion of the GMU boundary.

Colorado Parks & Wildlife web application to allow users to turn on range layer data for wildlife species occurring in Colorado.Abert's Squirrel Overall Range Grouped Layers: Amphibians Blanchard's (Northern) Cricket Frog HUC 12 Presence Canyon Tree Frog HUC 12 Presence Couch's Spadefoot HUC 12 Presence Great Basin Spadefoot HUC 12 Presence Great Plains (Western) Narrow-mouthed Toad HUC 12 Presence Northern Leopard Frog HUC 12 Presence Plains Leopard Frog HUC 12 Presence Western Green Toad HUC 12 Presence Wood Frog HUC 12 Presence Grouped Layers: Bald Eagle Bald Eagle Nest Sites Bald Eagle Communal Roosts Bald Eagle Roost Sites Bald Eagle Summer Forage Bald Eagle Winter Concentration Bald Eagle Winter Forage Bald Eagle Winter Range Grouped Layers: Bats Allen's Big-eared Bat Overall Range Big Brown Bat Overall Range Big Free-tailed Bat Overall Range Brazilian Free-tailed Bat Overall Range California Myotis Overall Range Canyon Bat Overall Range Fringed Myotis Overall Range Hoary Bat Overall Range Little Brown Myotis Overall Range Long-eared Myotis Overall Range Long-legged Myotis Overall Range Pallid Bat Overall Range Red Bat Overall Range Silver-haired Bat Overall Range Spotted Bat Overall Range Townsends Big-eared Bat Overall Range Tri-colored Bat Overall Range Western Small-footed Myotis Overall Range Yuma Myotis Overall Range Grouped Layers: Bighorn Sheep Bighorn Migration Patterns Bighorn Migration Corridors Bighorn Production Area Bighorn Summer Concentration Area Bighorn Summer Range Bighorn Mineral Lick Bighorn Water Source Bighorn Severe Winter Range Bighorn Winter Concentration Area Bighorn Winter Range Bighorn Overall Range Grouped Layers: Birds American Bittern Breeding Range Band-tailed Pigeon Breeding Range Barrow Goldeneye Breeding Range Black Swift Breeding Range Black Tern Breeding Range Bobolink Breeding Range Brewer Sparrow Breeding Range Brown-capped Rosy Finch Breeding Range Brown-capped Rosy Finch Overall Range Burrowing Owl Breeding Range Cassin Finch Breeding Range Cassin Sparrow Breeding Range Chestnut-collared Longspur Breeding Range Ferruginous Hawk Breeding Range Golden Eagle Breeding Range Grace Warbler Breeding Range Grasshopper Sparrow Breeding Range Gray Vireo Breeding Range Juniper Titmouse Breeding Range Lark Bunting Breeding Range Lazuli Bunting Breeding Range Least Tern Breeding Range Lewis Woodpecker Breeding Range Long-billed Curlew Breeding Range McCown Longspur Breeding Range Mountain Plover Breeding Range Northern Bobwhite Breeding Range Northern Goshawk Breeding Range Northern Harrier Breeding Range Olive-sided Flycatcher Breeding Range Pinyon Jay Breeding Range Piping Plover Breeding Range Prairie Falcon Breeding Range Purple Martin Breeding Range Rufous Hummingbird Migration Range Sage Sparrow Breeding Range Swainson Hawk Breeding Range Upland Sandpiper Breeding Range Veery Breeding Range Virginia Warbler Breeding Range Western Snowy Plover Breeding Range White-faced Ibis Breeding Range Grouped Layers: Black Bear Black Bear Human Conflict Area Black Bear Fall Concentration Black Bear Summer Concentration Black Bear Overall Range Black-footed Ferret Release Sites Grouped Layers: Black-tailed Prairie Dog Black-tailed Prairie Dog Colony Potential Occurrence Black-tailed Prairie Dog Overall Range Grouped Layers: Bobwhite Quail Bobwhite Quail Concentration Area Bobwhite Quail Overall Range Boreal Toad Overall Range Botta's Pocket Gopher Overall Range Grouped Layers: Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Production Area Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Winter Range Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Overall Range Dwarf Shrew Overall Range Grouped Layers: Elk Elk Migration Patterns Elk Highway Crossings Elk Summer Concentration Area Elk Summer Range Elk Production Area Elk Limited Use Area Elk Resident Population Area Elk Migration Corridors Elk Severe Winter Range Elk Winter Concentration Area Elk Winter Range Elk Overall Range Grouped Layers: Fish Arkansas Darter HUC 12 Presence Bluehead Sucker HUC 12 Presence Bonytail HUC 12 Presence Brassy Minnow HUC 12 Presence Colorado Pikeminnow HUC 12 Presence Common Shiner HUC 12 Presence Cutthroat Trout HUC 12 Presence Flannelmouth Sucker HUC 12 Presence Flathead Chub HUC 12 Presence Humpback Chub HUC 12 Presence Iowa Darter HUC 12 Presence Lake Chub HUC 12 Presence Mountain Sucker HUC 12 Presence Northern Redbelly Dace HUC 12 Presence Orange-spotted Sunfish HUC 12 Presence Orangethroat Darter HUC 12 Presence Plains Minnow HUC 12 Presence Plains Topminnow HUC 12 Presence Razorback Sucker HUC 12 Presence Rio Grande Chub HUC 12 Presence Rio Grande Sucker HUC 12 Presence Roundtail Chub HUC 12 Presence Southern Redbelly Dace HUC 12 Presence Stonecat HUC 12 Presence Suckermouth Minnow HUC 12 Presence Grouped Layers: Geese Canada Geese Molting Area Canada Geese Brood Concentration Area Canada Geese Foraging Area Canada Geese Production Area Canada Geese Winter Concentration Area Canada Geese Winter Range Snow Geese Winter Range Grouped Layers: Great Blue Heron Great Blue Heron Nesting Area Great Blue Heron Foraging Area Great Blue Heron Historic Nest Area Grouped Layers: Greater Prairie Chicken Greater Prairie Chicken Production Area Greater Prairie Chicken Overall Range Greater Prairie Chicken Historic Range Grouped Layers: Greater Sage Grouse Greater Sage Grouse Brood Area Greater Sage Grouse Production Area Greater Sage Grouse Severe Winter Range Greater Sage Grouse Winter Range Greater Sage Grouse Linkages Greater Sage Grouse Priority and General Habitat Greater Sage Grouse Overall Range Greater Sage Grouse Historic Habitat Gunnison's Prairie Dog Overall Range Grouped Layers: Gunnison's Sage Grouse Gunnison's Sage Grouse Historic Habitat Gunnison's Sage Grouse Brood Area Gunnison's Sage Grouse Production Area Gunnison's Sage Grouse Severe Winter Range Gunnison's Sage Grouse Winter Range Gunnison's Sage Grouse Occupied Habitat Gunnison's Sage Grouse Overall Range Kit Fox Historic Overall Range Grouped Layers: Least Tern Least Tern Production Area Least Tern Foraging Area Grouped Layers: Lesser Prairie Chicken Lesser Prairie Chicken CHAT Priority Areas Lesser Prairie Chicken Estimated Occupied Range Lesser Prairie Chicken Production Area Lesser Prairie Chicken Historic Range Lynx Habitat Grouped Layers: Moose Moose Migration Patterns Moose Priority Habitat Moose Concentration Area Moose Summer Range Moose Winter Range Moose Overall Range Grouped Layers: Mountain Goat Mountain Goat Mineral Lick Mountain Goat Migration Corridors Mountain Goat Production Area Mountain Goat Concentration Area Mountain Goat Summer Range Mountain Goat Winter Range Mountain Goat Overall Range Grouped Layers: Mountain Lion Mountain Lion Human Conflict Area Mountain Lion Peripheral Range Mountain Lion Overall Range Grouped Layers: Mule Deer Mule Deer Migration Patterns Mule Deer Highway Crossing Mule Deer Concentration Area Mule Deer Summer Range Mule Deer Limited Use Area Mule Deer Resident Population Area Mule Deer Migration Corridors Mule Deer Severe Winter Range Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Mule Deer Winter Range Mule Deer Overall Range New Mexico Jumping Mouse Overall Range Olive-backed Pocket Mouse Overall Range Grouped Layers: Osprey Osprey Nest Sites Osprey Foraging Area Grouped Layers: Peregrine Falcon Peregrine Falcon Nesting Area Peregrine Falcon Potential Nesting Pika Overall Range Grouped Layers: Piping Plover Piping Plover Foraging Area Piping Plover Production Area Grouped Layers: Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse Production Area Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse Overall Range Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Overall Range Grouped Layers: Pronghorn Pronghorn Migration Patterns Pronghorn Concentration Area Pronghorn Limited Use Area Pronghorn Resident Population Area Pronghorn Migration Corridors Pronghorn Severe Winter Range Pronghorn Winter Concentration Pronghorn Winter Range Pronghorn Perennial Water Pronghorn Overall Range Pygmy Rabbit Overall Range Pygmy Shrew Overall Range Grouped Layers: Reptiles Black-necked Gartersnake Overall Range Bullsnake Overall Range Coachwhip Overall Range Common Gartersnake Overall Range Common Kingsnake Overall Range Common Lesser Earless Lizard Overall Range Common Sagebrush Lizard Overall Range Common Side-blotched Lizard Overall Range Desert Nightsnake And Chihuahuan Nightsnake Overall Range Desert Spiny Lizard Overall Range Diploid Checkered Whiptail Overall Range Eastern Collared Lizard Overall Range Eastern Hog-nosed Snake Overall Range Glossy Snake Overall Range Great Plains Ratsnake Overall Range Great Plains Skink Overall Range Hernandez's Short-horned Lizard Overall Range Lined Snake Overall Range Long-nosed Leopard Lizard Overall Range Long-nosed Snake Overall Range Massasauga Overall Range Massasauga

This information was derived from the 1:24,000 scale Digital Rastor Graphics (DRG's). Data were digitized on-screen using the Arc/Info module to create a Big Game Management Unit (GMU) polygon coverage. Where available, coincident lines were use from other available data. If these data were available but not at 1:24,000 scale or better, digitizing was done directly from the DRG, with the exception of Hydro Unit (HUC) boundaries, which were pulled from the Division's HUC coverages. Digitizing and attributing were done by the GIS Group of Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Label points have multiple attributes and linear features are attributed with the feature name that makes up that portion of the GMU boundary.

This information was derived from the 1:24,000 scale Digital Rastor Graphics (DRG's). Data were digitized on-screen using the Arc/Info module to create a Big Game Management Unit (GMU) polygon coverage. Where available, coincident lines were use from other available data. If these data were available but not at 1:24,000 scale or better, digitizing was done directly from the DRG, with the exception of Hydro Unit (HUC) boundaries, which were pulled from the Division's HUC coverages. Digitizing and attributing were done by the GIS Group of Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Label points have multiple attributes and linear features are attributed with the feature name that makes up that portion of the GMU boundary.

The Sheeprocks (UT) was revised to resync with the UT habitat change as reflected in the Oct 2017 habitat data, creating the most up-to-date version of this dataset. Data submitted by Wyoming in February 2018 and by Montana and Oregon in May 2016 were used to update earlier versions of this feature class. The biologically significant unit (BSU) is a geographical/spatial area within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats which is used as the basis for comparative calculations to support evaluation of changes to habitat. This BSU unit, or subset of this unit is used in the calculation of the anthropogenic disturbance threshold and in the adaptive management habitat trigger. BSU feature classes were submitted by individual states/EISs and consolidated by the Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab. They are sometimes referred to as core areas/core habitat areas in the explanations below, which were consolidated from metadata submitted with BSU feature classes. These data provide a biological tool for planning in the event of human development in sage-grouse habitats. The intended use of all data in the BLM's GIS library is to support diverse activities including planning, management, maintenance, research, and interpretation. While the BSU defines the geographic extent and scale of these two measures, how they are calculated differs based on the specific measures to reflect appropriate assessment and evaluation as supported by scientific literature.There are 10 BSUs for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana GRSG EIS sub-region. For the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment FEIS the biologically significant unit is defined as: a geographical/spatial area within greater sage-grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats which is used as the basis for comparative calculations to support evaluation of changes to habitat. Idaho: BSUs include all of the Idaho Fish and Game modeled nesting and delineated winter habitat, based on 2011 inventories within Priority and/or Important Habitat Management Area (Alternative G) within a Conservation Area. There are eight BSUs for Idaho identified by Conservation Area and Habitat Management Area: Idaho Desert Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Desert Conservation Area - Important, Idaho Mountain Valleys Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Mountain Valleys Conservation Area - Important, Idaho Southern Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Southern Conservation Area - Important, Idaho West Owyhee Conservation Area - Priority, and Idaho West Owyhee Conservation Area - Important. Raft River : Utah portion of the Sawtooth National Forest, 1 BSU. All of this areas was defined as Priority habitat in Alternative G. Raft River - Priority. Montana: All of the Priority Habitat Management Area. 1 BSU. SW Montana Conservation Area - Priority. Montana BSUs were revised in May 2016 by the MT State Office. They are grouped together and named by the Population in which they are located: Northern Montana, Powder River Basin, Wyoming Basin, and Yellowstone Watershed. North and South Dakota BSUs have been grouped together also. California and Nevada's BSUs were developed by Nevada Department of Wildlife's Greater Sage-Grouse Wildlife Staff Specialist and Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team Representative in January 2015. Nevada's Biologically Significant Units (BSUs) were delineated by merging associated PMUs to provide a broader scale management option that reflects sage grouse populations at a higher scale. PMU boundarys were then modified to incorporate Core Management Areas (August 2014; Coates et al. 2014) for management purposes. (Does not include Bi-State DPS.) Within Colorado, a Greater Sage-Grouse GIS data set identifying Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) was developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 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. Colorado Greater Sage Grouse managment zones based on CDOW GrSG_PopRangeZones20120609.shp. Modified and renumbered by BLM 06/09/2012. The zones were modified again by the BLM in August 2012. The BLM discovered areas where PPH and PGH were not included within the zones. Several discrepancies between the zones and PPH and PGH dataset were discovered, and were corrected by the BLM. Zones 18-21 are linkages added as zones by the BLM. In addition to these changes, the zones were adjusted along the UT-CO boundary and WY-CO boundary to be coincident with the county boundaries dataset. This was requested by Karin Eichhoff, GIS Specialist at the CPW. She provided the county boundaries dataset to the BLM. Greater sage grouse GIS data set identifying occupied, potential and vacant/unknown habitats in Colorado. The data set was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife biologist and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in the winter of 2005. Occupied Habitat: 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. Vacant or Unknown Habitat: Suitable habitat for sage-grouse that is separated (not contiguous) from occupied habitats that either: 1) Has not been adequately inventoried, or 2) Has not had documentation of grouse presence in the past 10 years Potentially Suitable Habitat: Unoccupied habitats that could be suitable for occupation of sage-grouse if practical restoration were applied. Soils or other historic information (photos, maps, reports, etc.) indicate sagebrush communities occupied these areas. As examples, these sites could include areas overtaken by pinyon-juniper invasions or converted rangelandsUpdate October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat and management zones, 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. Oregon submitted updated BSU boundaries in May 2016 and again in October 2016, which were incorporated into this latest version. In Oregon, the Core Area maps and data were developed as one component of the Conservation Strategy for sage-grouse. Specifically, these data provide a tool in planning and identifying appropriate mitigation in the event of human development in sage-grouse habitats. These maps will assist in making

PSTGrouseProductionArea is an ESRI SDE Feature Class showing production areas for Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) in Colorado. Production Areas are defined as areas that include 90% of sharp-tailed grouse nesting or brood rearing habitat. This is mapped as a buffer zone of 1.25 miles around active dancing grounds in PSTGrouseLeks and clipped to PSTGrouseOverallRange. This information was derived from field personnel. A variety of data capture techniques were used including drawing on mylar overlays at 1:50,000 scale USGS county mapsheets and implementation of the SmartBoard Interactive Whiteboard using stand-up, real-time digitizing at various scales (Cowardin, M., M. Flenner. March 2003. Maximizing Mapping Resources. GeoWorld 16(3):32-35).

ElkWinterConcentrationArea is an ESRI SDE Feature Class that shows winter concentration areas for elk in the state of Colorado. This dataset represents that part of the winter range of elk where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green-up, or during a site specific period of winter as defined for each Data Analysis Unit. This information was derived from field personnel. A variety of data capture techniques were used including drawing on mylar overlays at 1:50,000 scale USGS county mapsheets and implementation of the SmartBoard Interactive Whiteboard using stand-up, real-time digitizing at various scales (Cowardin, M., M. Flenner. March 2003. Maximizing Mapping Resources. GeoWorld 16(3):32-35).

The Colorado Lesser Prairie Chicken EOR isan area which encompasses all known seasonal activities within the observed range of the lesser prairie chicken. The range was mapped and edited by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Bird Conservation Coordinator, CPW Area 12 Wildlife Biologist (where the bird range is located) and the CPW GIS Unit. The purpose of this layer is to indicate suitable range within Colorado for the Lesser Prairie Chicken based on suitable habitat present. Data used to help map the range include area soil data, CRP property and location of known Lesser Prairie Chicken leks.The range was separated into two Ecoregions Sandsage and Shortgrass to indicate the habitat type the range falls in.As a component of the 5-Year Review of the Range-wide Conservation Plan (Van Pelt et al. 2013), the Interstate Working Group (IWG) evaluated and re-mapped (as necessary) the Estimated Occupied Range (EOR) along with the Focal Areas (CHAT 1) and Connectivity Zones (CHAT 2) across lesser prairie-chicken (LPC) range in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. The IWG used the criteria below to adjust the EOR and Focal Area and Connectivity Zone delineations. The proposed mapping revisions are based on best available science and local knowledge. The IWG presented the initial proposed mapping changes to the LPC State Implementation Teams for review in late 2019 and early 2020. Recommended changes to the range-wide EOR boundary will be included in the 10-year review of the RWP. The current 5-year Review will only recommend changes to Focal Areas (CHAT 1) and Connectivity Areas (CHAT 2) such that there is no change to the EOR+10 in the RWP (Van Pelt et. al 2013) and associated area of coverage for the LPC Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) (USFWS 2014). However, individual states may decide to use the updated EOR mapping for land-use recommendations and targeting habitat conservation and restoration. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) will use current biologically-based mapping for LPC conservation in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife revised LPC mapping was completed by Liza Rossi (Bird Conservation Coordinator), Jonathan Reitz (Lamar Terrestrial Biologist), and Michelle Flenner (GIS Specialist) in July 2019. CPW made adjustments to the EOR as well as Focal Areas (CHAT 1) and Connectivity Zones (CHAT 2). Mapping adjustments were based on the information below.The EOR was expanded to include the majority of documented leks, including areas in Cheyenne County not included in 2013. The northern portion of the proposed EOR would connect to Kansas and be included in the Shortgrass/CRP Mosaic Ecoregion rather than the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion. Jonathan Reitz increased CPW lek searching effort in spring 2019 in order to help inform CHAT (Focal Area and Connectivity Zones) mapping and EOR review and revisions. He increased efforts in anticipation that the IWG would be reviewing and proposing changes to the CHAT layers and potentially EOR as part of the 5-year RWP review. During 2019 intensified lek searches, Jonathan identified multiple new leks in Cheyenne County. However, a lek in eastern and northern Cheyenne County near the Kansas state line, but outside mapped EOR, has been documented since 2015. For proposed changes in Cheyenne County, we used lek data to include areas outside of the current EOR, but which now clearly have lesser prairie-chickens. LPC leks (many of which are mixed LPC and greater prairie-chicken leks) in this area have also been located by consultants surveying for wind companies. For the proposed changes in Baca County, it is important to note that we used locations from translocated LPC, which have changed our understanding of LPC habitat use in southeastern Colorado. The translocated LPC are using CRP grasslands and portions of shortgrass and mid-grass prairie that were not originally included in the sand sagebrush prairie CHAT mapping. 2013 CHAT mapping focused largely on sandy soils and excluded many of the soils associated with shortgrass and mid-grass areas. We are proposing to reduce the EOR in Prowers County based on local knowledge of LPC use in the area. Although there is a single historic lek identified in this area, this lek was only documented during a single year and had only three birds on it.The proposed changes were presented at the Colorado LPC State Implementation Team Meeting in Lamar on November 14, 2019. The group there was supportive of the changes and thought we should reflect our biological understanding of LPC distribution rather than being confined by the 2013 RWP covered area. CPW is proposing these changes to reflect current distribution of LPC in Colorado. CPW updates Species Activity Mapping (SAM) every four years across Colorado. SAM mapping will be updated for the CPW SE Region in 2020 and the updated Colorado EOR as well as proposed CHAT 1 and CHAT 2 will be incorporated in CPW mapping. The proposed changes were reviewed and agreed to by CPW Area 12 personnel at an Area Meeting on February 5, 2020. Although CPW will move forward with this mapping for Colorado conservation efforts, formal changes to the covered area of the RWP (2013 EOR +10, Van Pelt et al. 2013) or the Range-wide Oil and Gas Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the Lesser Prairie-Chicken (CCAA, USFWS 2014) will be evaluated through the 10-Year Review of the RWP or an update to the CCAA). Changes to the CHAT mapping will be presented as part of the 5-year Review to the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Initiative Council. USFWS. 2014. Range-Wide Oil and Gas Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the Lesser Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) in Colorado Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. 78 FR 76639.Van Pelt, W.E., S. Kyle, J. Pitman, D. Klute, G. Beauprez, D. Schoeling, A. Janus, J. Haufler. 2013. The Lesser Prairie-Chicken Range-wide Conservation Plan. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Pp.367.Interstate Working Group Members include: Kent Fricke, chair (Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism), Liza Rossi (Colorado Parks and Wildlife), Brett Cooper (Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation), Grant Beauprez (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish), and Russell Martin (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department).

GunnSageGrouseProductionArea is an ESRI SDE Feature Class that shows production areas for Gunnison's Sage Grouse (Centrocercus minimus) in Colorado. Production Areas are defined as areas that would include the majority of important Gunnison's Sage Grouse nesting habitat. These are mapped as a four-mile buffer zone around active leks in GunnSageGrouseLeks. As of 9/8/2016 these buffer zones are no longer clipped to GunnSageGrouseOverallRange per directive from Jon Holst, CPW Energy Resource Specialist - SW Region. This information was derived from field personnel. A variety of data capture techniques were used including drawing on mylar overlays at 1:50,000 scale USGS county mapsheets and implementation of the SmartBoard Interactive Whiteboard using stand-up, real-time digitizing at various scales (Cowardin, M., M. Flenner. March 2003. Maximizing Mapping Resources. GeoWorld 16(3):32-35).

This dataset represents the consolidated submissions of GRSG habitat management areas from each individual BLM ARMP & ARMPA/Records of Decision (ROD) and for subsequent updates. These data were submitted to the BLM’s Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab in March 2016 and were updated for UT in April of 2017, WY in October of 2017 (Lander and Bighorn EIS) and May 2022 (Buffalo and NinePlan EIS); CO in February of 2020, NVCA in July 2022, HiLine (GHMA only) in July 2022, and Oregon in August 2022. August 2022 Update: OR - New habitat data was submitted by Oregon EIS as part of the Allocation Decision Analysis data call in 2022. Data that was submitted earlier was updated to reflect SFA designations in Aug 2022.July 2022 Update: NVCA and HiLine (GHMA only) - New habitat data was submitted by NVCA and HiLine EISs as part of the Allocation Decision Analysis data call in 2022. May 2022 Update: WY - New habitat data was submitted by Wyoming EISs Buffalo and Nine Plan as part of the Allocation Decision Analysis data call in 2022. February 2020 Update: CO - In February 2016, the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado (AGNC) hired a consultant (Olsson) to help further refine CPW’s greater sage-grouse habitat maps in Northwest Colorado. The Olsson consultation team, have utilized CPW’s contemporary and rigorous habitat models and developed their own to produce revised PHMA and GHMA habitat data. These spatial datasets (i.e., habitat maps) are specifically designed to meet the management intent of the ARMPA and have been produced for formal submittal to the BLM for incorporation into Northwest Colorado Land and Resource Management Plans. The updated habitat delineations for NWCO include Undesignated Habitat (UDH) to address concerns surrounding the management of privately held irrigated agricultural lands. The BLM's NWCO Sage-Grouse Plan has no management decisions associated with this habitat designation. October 2017 Update: WY - 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.April 2017 Update: UT - The interagency team reconvened in late 2016 to review State of Utah GRSG populations and the BLM’s 2015 and 2016 wildfire data. Of the ten soft triggers and seven hard triggers evaluated, only one population soft trigger and one population hard trigger have been met, both within the Sheeprocks population area of Fillmore and Salt Lake Field Offices. Appendix I of the ARMPA includes “hard-wired” changes in management that were finalized in the 2015 Record of Decision, listed in Appendix I Table I.1 (Specific Management Responses). The PHMA in the Sheeprocks population has changed as a result of this, and the change is reflected in this data.The following habitat management areas were used in the creation of this feature class: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 in Montana EISs 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 CO EIS that have been identified as broader regions of connectivity important to facilitate the movement of GRSG and maintain ecological processes.UDH: In CO EIS, An Undesignated Habitat management prescription was developed to address concerns surrounding the management of privately held irrigated agricultural lands.Anthro Mountain: An additional 41,200 acres of National Forest System lands in the Anthro Mountain portion of the Carbon Population Area in Utah EIS 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.

Updated December, 2024CONCENTRATION AREA: That part of the range of a species where densities are 200% higher than the surrounding area during a specific season. OVERALL RANGE: The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of a population of moose. SUMMER RANGE: That part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located during the summer months. This summer time frame will be delineated with specific start/end dates for each moose population within the state (ex: May 1 to Sept 15). Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range. WINTER RANGE: That part of the overall range where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the winter months. This winter time frame will be delineated with specific start/end dates for each moose population within the state (ex: November 15 to April 1).This information was derived from Colorado Parks and Wildlife field personnel. Data was captured by digitizing through a SmartBoard Interactive Whiteboard using topographic maps and NAIP imagery at various scales (Cowardin, M., M. Flenner. March 2003. Maximizing Mapping Resources. GeoWorld 16(3):32-35). These data are updated on a four year rotation with one of the four Colorado Parks and Wildlife Regions updated each year. These data are not updated on a statewide level annually.

This information was derived from the 1:24,000 scale Digital Rastor Graphics (DRG's). Data were digitized on-screen using the Arc/Info module to create a Mountain Goat Hunting Unit polygon coverage. Where available, coincident lines were use from other available data. If these data were available but not at 1:24,000 scale or better, digitizing was done directly from the DRG, with the exception of Hydro Unit (HUC) boundaries, which were pulled from the Division's HUC coverages. Digitizing and attributing were done by the GIS Group of Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Label points have multiple attributes and linear features are attributed with the feature name that makes up that portion of the GMU boundary.

BSUs were revised in May 2016. New data submitted by Montana and Oregon was used to update the earlier version of this feature class. The biologically significant unit (BSU) is a geographical/spatial area within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats which is used as the basis for comparative calculations to support evaluation of changes to habitat. This BSU unit, or subset of this unit is used in the calculation of the anthropogenic disturbance threshold and in the adaptive management habitat trigger. BSU feature classes were submitted by individual states/EISs and consolidated by the Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab. They are sometimes referred to as core areas/core habitat areas in the explanations below, which were consolidated from metadata submitted with BSU feature classes. These data provide a biological tool for planning in the event of human development in sage-grouse habitats. The intended use of all data in the BLM's GIS library is to support diverse activities including planning, management, maintenance, research, and interpretation. While the BSU defines the geographic extent and scale of these two measures, how they are calculated differs based on the specific measures to reflect appropriate assessment and evaluation as supported by scientific literature.There are 10 BSUs for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana GRSG EIS sub-region. For the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment FEIS the biologically significant unit is defined as: a geographical/spatial area within greater sage-grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats which is used as the basis for comparative calculations to support evaluation of changes to habitat. Idaho: BSUs include all of the Idaho Fish and Game modeled nesting and delineated winter habitat, based on 2011 inventories within Priority and/or Important Habitat Management Area (Alternative G) within a Conservation Area. There are eight BSUs for Idaho identified by Conservation Area and Habitat Management Area: Idaho Desert Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Desert Conservation Area - Important, Idaho Mountain Valleys Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Mountain Valleys Conservation Area - Important, Idaho Southern Conservation Area - Priority, Idaho Southern Conservation Area - Important, Idaho West Owyhee Conservation Area - Priority, and Idaho West Owyhee Conservation Area - Important. Raft River : Utah portion of the Sawtooth National Forest, 1 BSU. All of this areas was defined as Priority habitat in Alternative G. Raft River - Priority. Montana: All of the Priority Habitat Management Area. 1 BSU. SW Montana Conservation Area - Priority. Montana BSUs were revised in May 2016 by the MT State Office. They are grouped together and named by the Population in which they are located: Northern Montana, Powder River Basin, Wyoming Basin, and Yellowstone Watershed. North and South Dakota BSUs have been grouped together also. Within Colorado, a Greater Sage-Grouse GIS data set identifying Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) was developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 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. Colorado Greater Sage Grouse managment zones based on CDOW GrSG_PopRangeZones20120609.shp. Modified and renumbered by BLM 06/09/2012. The zones were modified again by the BLM in August 2012. The BLM discovered areas where PPH and PGH were not included within the zones. Several discrepancies between the zones and PPH and PGH dataset were discovered, and were corrected by the BLM. Zones 18-21 are linkages added as zones by the BLM. In addition to these changes, the zones were adjusted along the UT-CO boundary and WY-CO boundary to be coincident with the county boundaries dataset. This was requested by Karin Eichhoff, GIS Specialist at the CPW. She provided the county boundaries dataset to the BLM. Greater sage grouse GIS data set identifying occupied, potential and vacant/unknown habitats in Colorado. The data set was created by mapping efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife biologist and district officers during the spring of 2004, and further refined in the winter of 2005. Occupied Habitat: 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. Vacant or Unknown Habitat: Suitable habitat for sage-grouse that is separated (not contiguous) from occupied habitats that either: 1) Has not been adequately inventoried, or 2) Has not had documentation of grouse presence in the past 10 years Potentially Suitable Habitat: Unoccupied habitats that could be suitable for occupation of sage-grouse if practical restoration were applied. Soils or other historic information (photos, maps, reports, etc.) indicate sagebrush communities occupied these areas. As examples, these sites could include areas overtaken by pinyon-juniper invasions or converted rangelandsUpdate October 10, 2012: NHD water bodies greater than 100 acres were removed from GrSG habitat and management zones, 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.California and Nevada's BSUs were developed by Nevada Department of Wildlife's Greater Sage-Grouse Wildlife Staff Specialist and Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team Representative in January 2015. Nevada's Biologically Significant Units (BSUs) were delineated by merging associated PMUs to provide a broader scale management option that reflects sage grouse populations at a higher scale. PMU boundarys were then modified to incorporate Core Management Areas (August 2014; Coates et al. 2014) for management purposes. (Does not include Bi-State DPS.) Oregon submitted updated BSU boundaries in May 2016, which were incorporated into this latest version. In Oregon, Core Areas were defined by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to be used by BLM to map Oregon PACs, Priority Areas of Conservation for the Greater Sage-grouse RMP Amendments. The data was projected to R6 Albers and will be used as is. Core Area Approach to Habitat Mitigation for Greater Sage-Grouse in Oregon: The goal of these recommendations is to protect essential habitats to meet habitat and population objectives identified in this Plan. The objective of these

This is a layer package created by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife GIS Unit in 2017 for distributing Colorado state parks and wildlife GIS data for public distribution.

This file was updated on February 7, 2017.

The data set was created by preparing fine-scale population-specific Species Distribution Models (SDMs) to map revised PHMA and GHMA areas for each of the six greater sage-grouse populations within the current occupied range of Colorado. First, known presence locations of marked greater sage-grouse were used to train Random Forest and Resource Selection Function (RSF) models to estimate seasonal (e.g., breeding, summer-fall and winter) habitat suitability. Secondly, the seasonal model results were classified into high or low habitat suitability categories and subsequently compiled to produce a year-round habitat suitability map. Third, the resulting year-round habitat suitability maps were used to develop revised PHMA and GHMA areas for each population. Finally, the current occupied range for each population were modified to 1) exclude areas identified as unsuitable habitats and 2) include areas outside of current occupied range where evidence of sage-grouse occupancy exists.Data inputs into the RSF and Random Forest Models included presence data from GPS and VHF collar data provided to Olsson from CPW biologists, which was used to refine the models. A combination of vegetative and topographic predictors were employed at multiple scales in assessing the probability of habitat selection for the populations analyzed in this study. The predictors were analyzed at multiple spatial scales, as the literature demonstrates that habitat selection by a species occurs at some scales and not others (Mayor et al. 2009, Acker et al. 2017). The predictors were measured at five scales: 100 meters (m), 400 m, 1000 m, 1600 m, and 3200 m. These were selected to assess a range of local- to landscape-level scales that may influence habitat selection. Furthermore, these scales are comparable to scales assessed in other contemporary studies concerning habitat selection of greater sage-grouse (Doherty et al. 2010; Rice et al. 2016; Walker et al. 2016).Populations were also analyzed to assess utilization of smaller mapped aspen stands as compared to larger continuous forested stands of aspen and/or mixed-conifer. While greater-sage grouse tend to avoid larger forested areas, they will utilize smaller aspen stands (T. Apa pers. comm. 2016-2018). All presence locations for each population were sampled against mapped aspen stands to calculate 1) the rate of selection for aspen stands by the population, and 2) the acreage of each aspen stand utilized. The sampled stand acreages were subsequently graphed and examined to identify natural breaks in the data. Stands with acreages less than the natural break value and not directly adjacent to other forested stands were classified and analyzed separately as isolated aspen polygons which were included as potentially suitable habitat; the remaining aspen stands were classified as forested and integrated with mixed-conifer forests, which were assumed to be non-suitable habitat.Finally, the distance to forested areas was measured as a vegetative predictor using the Euclidean Distance tool in ArcGIS 10.4, excluding all isolated aspen patches and mixed-conifer patches less than 0.5 acres (and see previous paragraph).Vegetation types were derived from the Colorado Vegetation Classification Project (CVCP), a 25 m resolution raster dataset developed by CPW, which mapped landcover conditions through the periods from 1993to 1997. In addition, vegetation types were also derived from the 2001 LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) layer for areas adjacent to the study area in Utah and Wyoming to provide complete and continuous vegetation cover for populations abutting the state boundary. The LANDFIRE EVT is a 30 m resolution raster dataset developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) mapping landcover conditions from 2001 (LANDFIRE 2001). Vegetative types were classified into biologically relevant classes and subsequently measured as percent-proportion by dividing the number of cells for the particular class by the total number of cells within the radii of the five defined scales using ArcGIS 10.4. The assigned classes of vegetative types varied by population and are detailed in the population-specific reports provided to BLM.Topographic predictors were derived from the 10 m resolution National Elevation Dataset (NED) Digital Elevation Model (DEM) developed and maintained by the USGS. Key topographic predictors include aspect, Compound Topographic Index (CTI), elevation, percent slope, slope position and surface roughness. Aspect and percent slope were calculated in ArcGIS 10.4. CTI, slope position and surface roughness were calculated using the Geomorphology and Gradient Metrics toolbox (Evans et al. 2014). In addition, aspect was subsequently transformed using the TRASP method in the Geomorphology and Gradient Metrics toolbox. To develop the multi-scale predictors, CTI and percent slope were measured as the mean of all values within the radii of the five defined scales; slope position and surface roughness were calculated using the radii of the five defined scales.The following summary of the step-wise procedure was developed to convert the Random Forest and RSF continuous surface model results into revised Habitat Management Area Prescriptions. Details of these methods follow this list:1. Classify all seasonal Random Forest and RSF model results into high and low habitat suitability layers.2. Ensemble all Random Forest and RSF classified seasonal layers to form a single year-round annual habitat layer designating locations as either high or low habitat suitability.3. Convert all highly suitable locations to Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) and all locations designated as low habitat suitability to General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA).4. Classify all areas within a 0.6-mile radius from lek locations having an active or unknown status designation as PHMA, regardless of habitat suitability classification.5. Identify all irrigated agricultural lands and designate interiors as Undesignated Habitat (UDH).6. Review and apply site-specific manual conversions of initial management prescription designations based on CPW biologist and stakeholder input.7. Remove identified non-habitat areas from Current Occupied Range (COR). Expand COR in areas beyond the current population boundary where evidence exists to demonstrate occupation by greater sage-grouse.The previous habitat layer generated by CPW, only two habitat designations prescribed by the BLM ARMPA exist for assigning management approaches for conservation of the Colorado greater sage-grouse populations; PHMA and GHMA. PHMA have the highest conservation value based on a combination of habitat and sage-grouse population characteristics and are managed to minimize disturbance activities through No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations and implementing capped disturbance allowances. GHMA represent areas with lower greater sage-grouse occupancy and generally have marginal habitat conditions with fewer management restrictions that provide greater flexibility in land use activities.The initial step to applying PHMA and GHMA habitat management prescriptions involves converting all areas classified as highly suitable habitat in the population’s year-round classified habitat layer to PHMA, while the remaining low habitat suitability areas are converted to GHMA. Secondly, all lek locations with a CPW-prescribed active or unknown status designation are buffered with a 0.6-mile radius and the entirety of the interior of the buffer area is converted to PHMA. Third, the most recent mapped irrigated agricultural lands data was acquired from the Colorado Division of Water Resources for all applicable populations, then the following procedure described below were implemented to apply the Undesignated Habitat prescription to the interior of all irrigated agricultural lands.Undesignated HabitatThrough the course of this study, an additional management prescription was established by AGNC to address concerns regarding habitat management on privately held irrigated agricultural lands.An Undesignated Habitat(UDH) management prescription was developed to address concerns surrounding the management of privately held irrigated agricultural lands. The UDH prescription is applicable to all populations, excluding the Parachute-Piceance-Roan population (due to a lack of irrigated agricultural lands). UDH are areas of seasonally irrigated and harvested hay fields. These areas are utilized seasonally by sage-grouse, primarily in the late summer and fall, near edges where irrigated fields are adjacent and abutting sagebrush habitats. UDH is considered effective habitat, but it is the long-term irrigation and haying practices which have created and maintain this habitat type, and thus the unimpeded irrigation, haying operations and maintenance are not considered to be a negative impact to sage-grouse. While utilization of the edges of irrigated agricultural lands by sage-grouse is known to vary from population to population, studying grouse utilization on a population-specific basis proved problematic as most populations lacked adequate telemetry locations within irrigated agricultural lands to yield results with any level of confidence. For this reason, the North Park population was selected to analyze in detail due to the high number of telemetry points located within irrigated agricultural lands. Approximately 20 percent of all summer-fall telemetry locations for the North Park population occur within irrigated agricultural lands, compared to less than 1 percent to 3 percent utilization demonstrated in the remaining populations.All summer-fall telemetry locations occurring within irrigated agricultural lands were sampled to calculate the distance each point occurred from the edges of irrigated fields. The distances for each location were plotted in a histogram and subsequently reviewed by CPW and AGNC team consultants, revealing a natural break occurring in the