We will use three existing data products produced by this projects investigators

First, we will use DR. Reinhardts conifer prioritization and simulated conifer treatment spatial datasets. Based on current and potential future conifer cover, invasive annual grass (IAG) risk, and other factors, the resultant maps characterize where the management of conifer encroachment would yield the greatest conservation benefit. We will further refine this dataset with updated conifer expansion estimates provided by DR. Scott morford (university of montana). Second, we will use DR. Cross greater sage-grouse network-prioritized functional connectivity cumulative current map (cross ET AL. 2023A, 2023B). This map spatially depicts the magnitude of gene flow among network-connected nodes (breeding ground- LEK -clusters) and can be used to identify where actions to maintain and restore priority functional connectivity for sage-grouse should be of greatest benefit to range-wide connectivity. Third, we will leverage the recently-produced structural connectivity model based on the revised and updated sagebrush ecological integrity (SEI) produced by theobald ET AL. (in review). These maps identify the most intact sagebrush ecosystem accounting for stability through time. We propose the integration of these three products to identify areas where conifer mitigation would most benefit functional connectivity for sagebrush obligates (under the umbrella of greater sage-grouse), and that should preserve the landscapes fostering the greatest structural connectivity for all sagebrush reliant species. Mitigation in these areas should result in both no regrets and high conservation impact outcomes: no regrets in that there exists both low IAG threat, and low expected IAG vulnerability following conifer mitigation, as well as high conservation impact in that there will be both functional and structural connectivity benefits in high-connectivity landscapes. We propose assessing how potential conifer management actions will affect connectivity with a three-pronged approach: (1) identifying areas that have lost connectivity but that which could be restored via management actions. We term this class of areas restore. (2) identifying areas at risk of losing connectivity, but where the loss could be prevented via management actions. We term this class of areas prevent. (3) identifying where these restore and prevent landscapes align with core sagebrush areas, growth opportunity areas, and other rangeland areas as defined using SEI within the SCD.