Description: This dataset is a modified version (June 2015) of the FWS developed data depicting “Highly Important Landscapes”, as outlined in Memorandum FWS/AES/058711 and provided to the Wildlife Habitat Spatial analysis Lab on October 29th 2014. Other names and acronyms used to refer to this dataset have included: Areas of Significance (AoSs - name of GIS data set provided by FWS), Strongholds (FWS), and Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs - BLM). The BLM will refer to these data as Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs). Data were provided as a series of ArcGIS map packages which, when extracted, contained several datasets each. Based on the recommendation of the FWS Geographer/Ecologist (email communication, see data originator for contact information) the dataset called “Outiline_AreasofSignificance” was utilized as the source for subsequent analysis and refinement. Metadata was not provided by the FWS for this dataset. For detailed information regarding the dataset’s creation refer to Memorandum FWS/AES/058711 or contact the FWS directly. Several operations and modifications were made to this source data, as outlined in the “Description” and “Process Step” sections of this metadata file. Generally: The source data was named by the Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab to identify polygons as described (but not identified in the GIS) in the FWS memorandum. The Nevada/California EIS modified portions within their decision space in concert with local FWS personnel and provided the modified data back to the Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab. Gaps around Nevada State borders, introduced by the NVCA edits, were then closed as was a large gap between the southern Idaho & southeast Oregon present in the original dataset. Features with an area below 40 acres were then identified and, based on FWS guidance, either removed or retained. Guidance from BLM WO resulted in the removal of additional areas including: non-habitat with BLM surface or subsurface management authority, all areas within the Lander EIS boundary, and areas outside of PHMA once EISs had updated PHMA designation.While private lands and lands managed by other agencies may be within the SFA boundaries, BLM decisions will only apply to BLM managed lands.Several Modifications from the original FWS dataset have been made. Below is a summary of each modification.1. The data as received from FWS.2. Edited to name SFAs by Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab:Upon receipt of the “Outiline_AreasofSignificance” dataset from the FWS, a copy was made and the one existing & unnamed record was exploded in an edit session within ArcMap. A text field, “AoS_Name”, was added. Using the maps provided with Memorandum FWS/AES/058711, polygons were manually selected and the “AoS_Name” field was calculated to match the names as illustrated. Once all polygons in the exploded dataset were appropriately named, the dataset was dissolved, resulting in one record representing each of the seven SFAs identified in the memorandum.3. The NVCA EIS made modifications in concert with local FWS staff. Metadata and detailed change descriptions were not returned with the modified data. Contact Leisa Wesch, GIS Specialist, BLM Nevada State Office, 775-861-6421, lwesch@blm.gov, for details.4. Once the data was returned to the Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab from the NVCA EIS, gaps surrounding the State of NV were closed. These gaps were introduced by the NVCA edits, exacerbated by them, or existed in the data as provided by the FWS. The gap closing was performed in an edit session by either extending each polygon towards each other or by creating a new polygon, which covered the gap, and merging it with the existing features. In addition to the gaps around state boundaries, a large area between the S. Idaho and S.E. Oregon SFAs was filled in. To accomplish this, ADPP habitat (current as of January 2015) and BLM GSSP SMA data were used to create a new polygon representing PHMA and BLM management that connected the two existing SFAs.5. In an effort to simplify the FWS dataset, features whose areas were less than 40 acres were identified and FWS was consulted for guidance on possible removal. To do so, features from #4 above were exploded once again in an ArcMap edit session. Features whose areas were less than forty acres were selected and exported (770 total features). This dataset was provided to the FWS and then returned with specific guidance on inclusion/exclusion via email by Lara Juliusson (lara_juliusson@fws.gov). The specific guidance was:a. Remove all features whose area is less than 10 acresb. Remove features identified as slivers (the thinness ratio was calculated and slivers identified by Lara Juliusson according to https://tereshenkov.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/fighting-sliver-polygons-in-arcgis-thinness-ratio/) and whose area was less than 20 acres.c. Remove features with areas less than 20 acres NOT identified as slivers and NOT adjacent to other features.d. Keep the remainder of features identified as less than 40 acres.To accomplish “a” and “b”, above, a simple selection was applied to the dataset representing features less than 40 acres. The select by location tool was used, set to select identical, to select these features from the dataset created in step 4 above. The records count was confirmed as matching between the two data sets and then these features were deleted. To accomplish “c” above, a field (“AdjacentSH”, added by FWS but not calculated) was calculated to identify features touching or intersecting other features. A series of selections was used: first to select records < 20 acres that were not slivers, second to identify features intersecting other features, and finally another to identify features touching the boundary of other features. Once the select by locations were applied, the field “AdjacentSH” was calculated to identify the features as touching, intersecting or not touching other features. Features identified as not touching or intersecting were selected, then the select by location tool was used , set to select identical, to select these features from the dataset created in step 4 above. The records count was confirmed as matching between the two data sets and then these features were deleted. 530 of the 770 features were removed in total.6. Based on direction from the BLM Washington Office, the portion of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument (UMRBNM) that was included in the FWS SFA dataset was removed. The BLM NOC GSSP NLCS dataset was used to erase these areas from #5 above. Resulting sliver polygons were also removed and geometry was repaired.7. In addition to removing UMRBNM, the BLM Washington Office also directed the removal of Non-ADPP habitat within the SFAs, on BLM managed lands, falling outside of Designated Wilderness’ & Wilderness Study Areas. An exception was the retention of the Donkey Hills ACEC and adjacent BLM lands. The BLM NOC GSSP NLCS datasets were used in conjunction with a dataset containing all ADPP habitat, BLM SMA and BLM sub-surface management unioned into one file to identify and delete these areas.8. The resulting dataset, after steps 2 – 8 above were completed, was dissolved to the SFA name field yielding this feature class with one record per SFA area.9. The "Acres" field was added and calculated.10. All areas within the Lander EIS were erased from the dataset (ArcGIS 'Erase' function) and resulting sliver geometries removed.11. Data were clipped to Proposed Plan PHMA.12. The "Acres" field was re-calculated
Copyright Text: Created by the USFWS in October 2014. Modified by the BLM in January and June 2015.