U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station 20160211 FINAL Vector Digital Data Set (Polygon) Unpublished Data http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F7CC0XRV Coates, P.S. Casazza, M.L. Brussee, B.E. Ricca, M.A. Gustafson, K.B Overton, C.T. Sanchez-Chopitea, E. Kroger, T. Mauch, K. Niell, L. Howe, K. Gardner, S. Espinosa, S. Delehanty, D.J. 2014 Publication (Other) U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1163, 83 p. Reston, VA USGS http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141163 This shapefile represents habitat suitability categories (High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat) derived from a composite, continuous surface of sage-grouse habitat suitability index (HSI) values for Nevada and northeastern California during summer¸ which is a surrogate for habitat conditions during the sage-grouse brood-rearing period. Summary of steps to create Habitat Categories: HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX: The HSI was derived from a generalized linear mixed model (specified by binomial distribution and created using ArcGIS 10.2.2) that contrasted data from multiple environmental factors at used sites (telemetry locations) and available sites (random locations). Predictor variables for the model represented vegetation communities at multiple spatial scales, water resources, habitat configuration, urbanization, roads, elevation, ruggedness, and slope. Vegetation data was derived from various mapping products, which included NV SynthMap (Petersen 2008, SageStitch (Comer et al. 2002, LANDFIRE (Landfire 2010), and the CA Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP 2006). The analysis was updated to include high resolution percent cover within 30 x 30 m pixels for Sagebrush, non-sagebrush, herbaceous vegetation, and bare ground (C. Homer, unpublished; based on the methods of Homer et al. 2014, Xian et al. 2015 ) and conifer (primarily pinyon-juniper, P. Coates, unpublished). The pool of telemetry data included the same data from 1998 - 2013 used by Coates et al. (2014); additional telemetry location data from field sites in 2014 were added to the dataset. The dataset was then split according calendar date into three seasons (spring, summer, winter). Summer included telemetry locations (n = 11,743) from July to mid-October. All age and sex classes of marked grouse were used in the analysis. Sufficient data (i.e., a minimum of 100 locations from at least 20 marked Sage-grouse) for modeling existed in 10 subregions for spring and summer, and seven subregions in winter, using all age and sex classes of marked grouse. It is important to note that although this map is composed of HSI values derived from the seasonal data, it does not explicitly represent habitat suitability for reproductive females (i.e., nesting and with broods). Insufficient data were available to allow for estimation of this habitat type for all seasons throughout the study area extent. A Resource Selection Function (RSF) was calculated for each subregion using R software (v 3.13) and using generalized linear models to derive model-averaged parameter estimates for each covariate across a set of additive models. Subregional RSFs were transformed into Habitat Suitability Indices, and averaged together to produce an overall statewide HSI whereby a relative probability of occurrence was calculated for each raster cell during the summer season. In order to account for discrepancies in HSI values caused by varying ecoregions within Nevada, the HSI was divided into north and south extents using a slightly modified flood region boundary (Mason 1999) that was designed to represent respective mesic and xeric regions of the state. North and south HSI rasters were each relativized according to their maximum value to rescale between zero and one, then mosaicked once more into a state-wide extent. HABITAT CATEGORIZATION: Using the same ecoregion boundaries described above, the habitat classification dataset (an independent data set comprising 10% of the total telemetry location sample) was split into locations falling within respective north and south regions. HSI values from the composite and relativized statewide HSI surface were then extracted to each classification dataset location within the north and south region. The distribution of these values were used to identify class break values corresponding to 0.5 (high), 1.0 (moderate), and 1.5 (low) standard deviations (SD) from the mean HSI. These class breaks were used to classify the HSI surface into four discrete categories of habitat suitability: High, Moderate, Low, and Non-Habitat. In terms of percentiles, High habitat comprised greater than 30.9 % of the HSI values, Moderate comprised 15 – 30.9%, Low comprised 6.7 – 15%, and Non-Habitat comprised less than 6.7%.The classified north and south regions were then clipped by the boundary layer and mosaicked to create a statewide categorical surface for habitat selection. Each habitat suitability category was converted to a vector output where gaps within polygons less than 1.2 million square meters were eliminated, polygons within 500 meters of each other were connected to create corridors and polygons less than 1.2 million square meters in one category were incorporated to the adjacent category. The final step was to mask major roads that were buffered by 50m (Census, 2014), lakes (Peterson, 2008) and urban areas, and place those masked areas into the non-habitat category. The existing urban layer (Census 2010) was not sufficient for our needs because it excluded towns with a population lower than 1,500. Hence, we masked smaller towns (populations of 100 to 1500) and development with Census Block polygons (Census 2015) that had at least 50% urban development within their boundaries when viewed with reference imagery (ArcGIS World Imagery Service Layer). REFERENCES: California Forest and Resource Assessment Program (CFRAP). 2006. Statewide Land Use / Land Cover Mosaic. [Geospatial data.] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata-sw-rangeland-assessment_data.php Census 2010. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Urban Areas [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2014. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Roads [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Census 2015. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Blocks [Geospatial data.] U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Overton, C.T., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Kroger, T., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Howe, K., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J. 2014, Spatially explicit modeling of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern California—A decision-support tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1163, 83 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141163. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) Comer, P., Kagen, J., Heiner, M., and Tobalske, C. 2002. Current distribution of sagebrush and associated vegetation in the western United States (excluding NM). [Geospatial data.] Interagency Sagebrush Working Group, http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov Homer, C.G., Aldridge, C.L., Meyer, D.K., and Schell, S.J. 2014. Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Sagebrush Characterization with Regression Trees over Wyoming, USA; Laying a Foundation for Monitoring. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 14, Elsevier, US. LANDFIRE. 2010. 1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type Layer. [Geospatial data.] U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ Mason, R.R. 1999. The National Flood-Frequency Program—Methods For Estimating Flood Magnitude And Frequency In Rural Areas In Nevada U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 123-98 September, 1999, Prepared by Robert R. Mason, Jr. and Kernell G. Ries III, of the U.S. Geological Survey; and Jeffrey N. King and Wilbert O. Thomas, Jr., of Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-123-98/ Peterson, E. B. 2008. A Synthesis of Vegetation Maps for Nevada (Initiating a 'Living' Vegetation Map). Documentation and geospatial data, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City, Nevada, http://www.heritage.nv.gov/gis Xian, G., Homer, C., Rigge, M., Shi, H., and Meyer, D. 2015. Characterization of shrubland ecosystem components as continuous fields in the northwest United States. Remote Sensing of Environment 168:286-300. NOTE: This file does not include habitat areas for the Bi-State management area and the spatial extent is modified in comparison to Coates et al. 2014 These data provide the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council, and other wildlife managers, with an additional resource to aid in planning and management of Greater Sage-grouse populations. Our study area was defined by the Nevada Department of Wildlife's Sage-grouse Population Management Units plus a 10-km buffer. 19990522 20131031 See Supplemental Info Complete As needed -121.11494925 -113.762591355 42.114352348 37.536720971 None Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Sagebrush Ecosystem Council ISO 19115 Topic Categories biota boundaries environment USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:56afbf75e4b036ee44b8dfc3 None North America United States Great Basin Nevada California None 2015 None The authors of these data require that users direct any questions pertaining to appropriate use or assistance with understanding limitations and interpretation of the data to the individuals/organization listed in the Point of Contact section. U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center Peter Coates Research Wildlife Biologist Mailing and Physical

800 Business Park Drive, Suite D

Dixon CA 95620 US (530) 669-5073 (707) 678-5039 pcoates@usgs.gov U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station, Dixon. CA. Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Program, Carson City, NV. Environment as of Metadata Creation: Microsoft Windows 7 Version 6.1 (Build 7601) Service Pack 1; Esri ArcGIS 10.2.2 (Build 3552) Service Pack N/A (Build N/A) Accuracy of the habitat categorization was assessed with validation datasets comprising: 1) independent telemetry locations from the remaining, unused 10% of the sample sets from subregion resource selection modeling (RSF); 2) telemetry locations from regions that did not meet sample size criteria (i.e., non-RSF subregions); 3) lek locations. Because the number of telemetry locations collected for individual birds varied among study sites (e.g. VHF vs. GPS), we calculated the proportion of validation locations falling within habitat categories for each unique bird, and then averaged those proportions across all birds. Averages were then compared to a normal distribution with expected values based on standard deviations (expected high = 69.1%, moderate=15.0%, low=9.2%, none=6.7%). We found that all three datasets exceeded observed validation values from Coates et al. 2014. No formal logical accuracy tests were conducted. Data set is considered complete for the information presented, as described in the abstract. Users are advised to read the rest of the metadata record carefully for additional details. A formal accuracy assessment of the horizontal positional information in the data set has not been conducted. A formal accuracy assessment of the vertical positional information in the data set has either not been conducted, or is not applicable. Development of the data set by the agency / individuals identified in the 'Originator' element in the Identification Info section of the record. Unknown Vector G-polygon 4 Universal Transverse Mercator 11 0.9996 -117.0 0.0 500000.0 0.0 coordinate pair 0.6096 0.6096 Meter D_North_American_1983 GRS_1980 6378137.0 298.257222101 Attribute Table Table containing attribute information associated with the data set. Producer defined Habitat HSI values classified by class break values corresponding to 0.5 (High), 1.0 (Moderate), and 1.5 (Low) standard deviations (SD) from the mean HSI. See description for more details. U.S. Geological Survey High High quality habitat comprised cells with RSF values 0.5 SD from the mean. Producer defined Low Low quality habitat comprised cells with RSF values greater than 1.0 and less than 1.5 SD from the mean. Low comprised 6.7 - 15% of the HSI values. Producer defined Moderate Moderate quality habitat comprised cells with RSF values greater than 0.5 and less than 1.0 SD from the mean. Moderate comprised 15 - 30.9 percent of HSI values. Producer defined Non Non-Habitat comprised cells with RSF values greater than 1.5 SD from the mean. Comprised less than 6.7 percent of HSI values. Producer defined Acres Area in Acres. U.S. Geological Survey 5558742.10061 19356119.0638 The entity and attribute information provided here describes the tabular data associated with the data set. Please review the detailed descriptions that are provided (the individual attribute descriptions) for information on the values that appear as fields/table entries of the data set. The entity and attribute information was generated by the individual and/or agency identified as the originator of the data set. Please review the rest of the metadata record for additional details and information. U.S. Geological Survey - ScienceBase Mailing and Physical

Denver Federal Center, Building 810, Mail Stop 302

Denver CO 80225 US 1-888-275-8747 sciencebase@usgs.gov Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government Vector Digital Data Set (Polygon) http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F7CC0XRV None. No fees are applicable for obtaining the data set. 20200827 U.S. Geological Survey, PACIFIC REGION Mark Ricca Wildlife Biologist mailing address

800 Business Park Drive

Dixon CA 95620 530-669-5089 707-678-5039 mark_ricca@usgs.gov FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998 local time The authors of these data require that users direct any questions pertaining to appropriate use or assistance with understanding limitations and interpretation of the data to the individuals/organization listed in the Point of Contact section.