| ArcGIS REST Services Directory |
| Home > services > GMUG_Proposed_Final_Plan_Oct_2023 (FeatureServer) > All Layers and Tables | | API Reference |
These data represent Timber Suitability under Alternative D for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. These data were created using the Timber Suitability Tool (USFS 2020) in ArcGIS Desktop (version 10.8.1, ESRI 2011). These data were last updated on September 26, 2022.
References
ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
USFS. 2020, May. Timber Suitability Analysis for Land Management Planning. Technical Guide.
These data represent Timber Suitability under the No Action Alternative for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. These data were last updated on August 25, 2022.
Lands evaluated for suitability for timber production in the 1991 Amended Land and Resource Management Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests.
"GREEN" is conifer (including ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, Englemann spruce, blue spruce, subalpine fir, Douglas-fir, limber pine, bristlecone pine). "ORANGE" is aspen.
Areas considered APPROPRIATE for timber production are classified as
[SUITABILITY] = "GREEN" and [SUITABILITY_DESC] = "SUITABLE CONIFER" or [SUITABILITY] = "ORANGE" and [SUITABILITY_DESC] = "SUITABLE ASPEN".
Areas considered NOT APPROPRIATE for timber production are coded with a number or number/letter combination following the timber type in the [SUITABILITY] attribute (i.e. "GREEN 1" or "ORANGE 1,2,3,5B")
Correspondingly areas considered NOT APPROPRIATE for timber production have a description of the code in the [SUITABILITY_DESC] attribute (i.e. [SUITABILITY_DESC] = "NOT SUITABLE - SURFACE ROCK CONIFER" or [SUITABILITY_DESC] = "NOT SUITABLE - SURFACE ROCK, LOW PRODUCTIVITY, STEEP SLOPE/ACCESS, VISUALLY SENSITIVE ASPEN"
Codes for individual rationale include:
1 - SURFACE ROCK, areas identifified as not appropriate because surface rock was present in sufficient size and quantity to make logging impractical due to timber breakage during felling and sever limitations on skidding abilities.
2 - LOW PRODUCTIVITY areas identified as not appropriate because forested stands are either isolated and/or marginal because of small size, dry sites, or low productivity sites.
3 - STEEP SLOPE/ ACCESS areas identified as not appropriate because slopes are greater than 40% and sites where the timber stands occur are not reasonably accessible due to either high road construction costs through steep terrain or because of excessive road construction mileages..
5A - IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE areas identified as not appropriate because irreversible damage would likely occur if timber management and associated road building activities were to occur, primarily due to highly unstable soils.
5B - VISUALLY SENSITIVE areas identified as not appropriate because other resource values were considered higher than timber and timber management activities were not compatible.
Analysis process is described in Appendix B of the 1991 FEIS for the 1991 Amendment for the Land and Resource Management Plan.
These data represent Timber Suitability under the Preferred Alternative for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. These data were created using the Timber Suitability Tool (USFS 2020) in ArcGIS Desktop (version 10.8.1, ESRI 2011). These data were last updated on September 26, 2022.
References
ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
USFS. 2020, May. Timber Suitability Analysis for Land Management Planning. Technical Guide.
These data represent Timber Suitability under Alternative C for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. These data were created using the Timber Suitability Tool (USFS 2020) in ArcGIS Desktop (version 10.8.1, ESRI 2011). These data were last updated on September 96, 2022.
References
ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
USFS. 2020, May. Timber Suitability Analysis for Land Management Planning. Technical Guide.
These data represent the Scenic Resource Inventory under Alternative D for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. These data were created using the Scenery Management Tool (USFS 2020) in ArcGIS Desktop (version 10.8.1, ESRI 2011). These data were last updated on October 18 2022.
The Scenery_ScenicClasses feature class is initially derived from Scenery Management System inventories and includes polygons created by combining Scenic Attractiveness and Visibility to derive scenic importance within a landscape.
The value given to each polygon is based on a matrix in the Landscape Aesthetics Handbook (page 4-16) and includes the values of concern levels, distance zones, seen area, and scenic attractiveness. Up to seven categories are derived from this matrix.
National Scenery Management System Inventory Mapping Protocols include instructions for identifying the appropriate feature classes for analysis, assigning concern level values using scenery management subject matter expertise, resource integration, or public collaboration, and documenting rationale.
The complete process is included in the Landscape Aesthetics Handbook and National Scenery Management System Inventory Mapping Protocols listed below, under "References".
Associated National Applications: Land Management Plan revision, watershed assessments, mid-scale assessments, project level planning, and monitoring.
This Scenery Management System Inventory was completed in 2017 by the Forest Recreation Staff and the USDA Forest Service Enterprise Program.
01/20/2021 Update: Corrections identified when developing Scenic Integrity Objectives for Forest Plan Revision. Scenic Classes re-created with updated Scenery_ScenicAttractive and Scenery_Visibility. Edits also match the updated national data dictionary.
Data Dictionary attribute: scenic_classes with values of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. Generally, scenic classes 1 and 2 have high public value for scenery, classes 3, 4, and 5 have moderate value for scenery and classes 6 and 7 have low public value for scenery (Agricultural Handbook 701).
References
ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
USFS. 2020, July. National Scenery Management System Inventory Mapping Protocols. Technical Guide.
These data represent the Scenic Resource Inventory under the No Action Alternative for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. These data are current as of January 2017.
These data represent the Scenic Resource Inventory under the Preferred Alternative for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. These data were created using the Scenery Management Tool (USFS 2020) in ArcGIS Desktop (version 10.8.1, ESRI 2011). These data were last updated on October 18 2022.
The Scenery_ScenicClasses feature class is initially derived from Scenery Management System inventories and includes polygons created by combining Scenic Attractiveness and Visibility to derive scenic importance within a landscape.
The value given to each polygon is based on a matrix in the Landscape Aesthetics Handbook (page 4-16) and includes the values of concern levels, distance zones, seen area, and scenic attractiveness. Up to seven categories are derived from this matrix.
National Scenery Management System Inventory Mapping Protocols include instructions for identifying the appropriate feature classes for analysis, assigning concern level values using scenery management subject matter expertise, resource integration, or public collaboration, and documenting rationale.
The complete process is included in the Landscape Aesthetics Handbook and National Scenery Management System Inventory Mapping Protocols listed below, under "References".
Associated National Applications: Land Management Plan revision, watershed assessments, mid-scale assessments, project level planning, and monitoring.
This Scenery Management System Inventory was completed in 2017 by the Forest Recreation Staff and the USDA Forest Service Enterprise Program.
01/20/2021 Update: Corrections identified when developing Scenic Integrity Objectives for Forest Plan Revision. Scenic Classes re-created with updated Scenery_ScenicAttractive and Scenery_Visibility. Edits also match the updated national data dictionary.
Data Dictionary attribute: scenic_classes with values of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. Generally, scenic classes 1 and 2 have high public value for scenery, classes 3, 4, and 5 have moderate value for scenery and classes 6 and 7 have low public value for scenery (Agricultural Handbook 701).
References
ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
USFS. 2020, July. National Scenery Management System Inventory Mapping Protocols. Technical Guide.
These data represent the Scenic Resource Inventory under Alternative C for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. These data were created using the Scenery Management Tool (USFS 2020) in ArcGIS Desktop (version 10.8.1, ESRI 2011). These data were last updated on October 18 2022.
The Scenery_ScenicClasses feature class is initially derived from Scenery Management System inventories and includes polygons created by combining Scenic Attractiveness and Visibility to derive scenic importance within a landscape.
The value given to each polygon is based on a matrix in the Landscape Aesthetics Handbook (page 4-16) and includes the values of concern levels, distance zones, seen area, and scenic attractiveness. Up to seven categories are derived from this matrix.
National Scenery Management System Inventory Mapping Protocols include instructions for identifying the appropriate feature classes for analysis, assigning concern level values using scenery management subject matter expertise, resource integration, or public collaboration, and documenting rationale.
The complete process is included in the Landscape Aesthetics Handbook and National Scenery Management System Inventory Mapping Protocols listed below, under "References".
Associated National Applications: Land Management Plan revision, watershed assessments, mid-scale assessments, project level planning, and monitoring.
This Scenery Management System Inventory was completed in 2017 by the Forest Recreation Staff and the USDA Forest Service Enterprise Program.
01/20/2021 Update: Corrections identified when developing Scenic Integrity Objectives for Forest Plan Revision. Scenic Classes re-created with updated Scenery_ScenicAttractive and Scenery_Visibility. Edits also match the updated national data dictionary.
Data Dictionary attribute: scenic_classes with values of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. Generally, scenic classes 1 and 2 have high public value for scenery, classes 3, 4, and 5 have moderate value for scenery and classes 6 and 7 have low public value for scenery (Agricultural Handbook 701).
References
ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
USFS. 2020, July. National Scenery Management System Inventory Mapping Protocols. Technical Guide.
These data represent the Summer Recreational Opportunity Spectrum under the Preferred Alternative and Alternatives C and D for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. These data were created using the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum Tool (USFS 2019) in ArcGIS Desktop (version 10.8.1, ESRI 2011). These data were last updated on October 22, 2022.
References
ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
USFS. 2019, August. National Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Inventory Mapping Protocol. Technical Guide.
These data represent the Summer Recreational Opportunity Spectrum under the No Action Alternative for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. These represent lands evaluated for recreational opportunities in the 1991 Amended Land and Resource Management Plan for GMUG and updated with Forest staff input. These data were last updated on June 1, 2023.
The following codes represent the ROS categories:
SP2R = SPNM, SPM, RN, R
SP2RN = SPNM, SPM, RN
RNR = RN, R
NA = ROS was Not Addressed within the Rx descriptions/guidance
SPM = Semi Primitive Motorized
SPNM = Semi Primitive Non Motorized
RN = Roaded Natural
R = Rural
PRW = Pristine Wilderness
PMW = Primitive Wilderness
SPW = Semi Primitive Wilderness
These data represent the Winter Recreational Opportunity Spectrum under the No Action Alternative for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. These data represent the winter ROS classes from the in 1983 GMUG forest plan and have been updated with Forest staff input including digital spatial data and hard copy maps. These data were last updated on May 15, 2020.
Motorized and non-motorized recreation settings would continue to be managed as they are as of the release of these data, consistent with the pertinent motorized or winter travel management plan and other site-specific decisions, until such time as those decisions are updated.
No explicit Winter ROS classes existed in the 1983 forest plan. However, according to law, designated Wilderness (~18% of forests) has been, and would continue to be, managed consistent with a Primitive Winter ROS setting. Outside of wilderness, where there is no established travel management plan, such as a winter travel management plan in portions of the Gunnison Basin, the ROS settings would be driven largely by snow conditions and recreationists’ access and ability.
These data represent the Winter Recreational Opportunity Spectrum under the Preferred Alternative for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. These data were created using the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum Tool (USFS 2019) in ArcGIS Desktop (version 10.8.1, ESRI 2011). These data were last updated on September 29, 2022.
References
ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
USFS. 2019, August. National Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Inventory Mapping Protocol. Technical Guide
These data represent the Winter Recreational Opportunity Spectrum under the Preferred Alternative and Alternatives C and D for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. These data were created using the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum Tool (USFS 2019) in ArcGIS Desktop (version 10.8.1, ESRI 2011). These data were last updated on September 28, 2022.
References
ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
USFS. 2019, August. National Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Inventory Mapping Protocol. Technical Guide.
These data represent the Winter Recreational Opportunity Spectrum under Alternatives D for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. These data were created using the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum Tool (USFS 2019) in ArcGIS Desktop (version 10.8.1, ESRI 2011). These data were last updated on September 29, 2022.
References
ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
USFS. 2019, August. National Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Inventory Mapping Protocol. Technical Guide.
These data represent the Management Overlay for Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) as part of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. This overlay was created by buffering half a mile on either side of the centerline of river/stream channel and classifying WSR eligibility based on established WSR criteria (https://www.rivers.gov/documents/wsr-act.pdf). These data were last updated on November 2, 2022.
During the plan revision process, the Forest Service must initiate the wild and scenic rivers process as detailed in Chapter 80 of the FS Handbook 1909.12. This process outlines three steps, each of which includes opportunities for you to provide input. The planning team did not conduct the third step of a suitability study for this Forest Plan Revision.
Evaluate Eligibility- Identify rivers to be studied and evaluate eligibility based on free-flowing characteristics and the presence of outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs).
Preliminary Classification- Classify eligible rivers as wild, scenic, or recreational, based on the level of development of the shoreline and the watercourse, level of access, and water quality.
Determine Suitability- Assess the eligible river’s potential for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS). (NOT part of this planning process).
As part of plan revision, the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forests have conducted an eligibility study with resource managers and specialists through the interdisciplinary team process, reviewing each segment to:
Determine the free-flowing condition (FSH 1909.12-2015-1, Section 82.71).
Evaluate outstandingly remarkable values, which are defined unique, rare, or exemplary features that are significant within the associated regions of comparison. Only one such value is needed for eligibility, the categories of which include: Scenery, Recreation, Geology, Fish, Wildlife, Prehistory, History, Other Values (Vegetation, Scientific, Paleontology).
Provide preliminary classification of eligible segments as wild, scenic, or recreational, based on the existing level of development in the river and surrounding corridor. River segments may have differing classifications when levels of human use and activity create different degrees of development, given that each segment is of sufficient length to warrant unique management.
The combined length of all the eligible river segments is approximately 113 miles, and the total number of eligible river corridor acres is approximately 36,500 acres. Acres of non-Forest Service land are included in this total, but restrictions DO NOT APPLY to private lands.
These data represent the Management Areas for Alternative C for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. Management Areas are current as of October 19, 2022 and were last updated on October 19, 2022.
Management area overlays are not included in this feature.
These data represent the Management Areas for Alternative D for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. Management Areas are current as of March 1, 2023 and were last updated on March 1, 2023.
Management area overlays are not included in this feature.
These data represent the No Action Alternative Management Areas for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. Management Areas are current as of February 16, 2023 and were last updated on February 16, 2023.
Management area overlays are not included in this feature.
These data represent the Preferred Alternative Management Areas for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. Management Areas are current as of October 19, 2022 and were last updated on October 19, 2022.
Management area overlays are not included in this feature.
Conservation Watershed Network - History and Purpose
Under the 2012 Planning Rule (FSH 1909.12 CH 23.13) a framework is laid out for plan components of the Revised Land Management Plan (RLMP) “… to provide for ecological conditions necessary to maintain the persistence or contribute to the recovery of native species within the plan area, including at-risk species identified in assessment.” If the Responsible Official determines that additional species specific plan components are needed to maintain the persistence or contribute to the recovery of at risk species, these specific plan components will be included in the RLMP.
The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest has therefore designated Conservation Watershed Networks (CWN). Conservation Watershed Networks are a specific subset of sub-watersheds (12-14 digit Hydrologic Unit Codes) where prioritization for long-term conservation and preservation of At Risk aquatic species occurs. These sub-watersheds were selected based upon the presence, conservation status or viability, and likely continued persistence for either native green lineage Colorado River cutthroat trout (green lineage CRCT) or boreal toad (BOR).
In the absence of hybridization and competition with non-native fishes, habitat quality and connectivity is the most important factor for the persistence of native cutthroat trout. Consequently, during the selection of CWN for cutthroat trout, sub-watersheds were designated based on two criteria:
Conservation status designated by the CRCT Conservation Team (2006).
Cutthroat trout populations which have greater than 90% genetic integrity are termed Conservation Populations.
AND
The inhabited stream length is at least 8km (~5 miles, Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000) OR the supporting watershed is at least 14.7 km2 (~3,600 ac, Harig and Fausch 2002).
Selection of boreal toad Conservation Watershed Networks is based on the BOR Recovery Teams criteria for population viability (Loeffler 2001). In order for the population to be considered viable:
There must be documented breeding activity andrecruitment to the population in at least four (4) out of the past ten (10) years.
OR
There has been an average observed total of at least, twenty (20) breeding adults at the breeding locality, producing an average of at least four (4) viable egg masses per year, with a stable number of breeding adults
AND
The population faces no known, significant and imminent threat to its habitat, health, and environmental conditions.
Although there are many documented observations of boreal toad across the GMUG NF, in the face of Chytridiomycosis, the amphibian fungal disease caused by Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis(Bd), the species has suffered severe declines in Colorado. Disease vectors are not well understood and many once robust populations have become extirpated after the detection of Bd.
Of the documented observances of boreal toad across the GMUG, only three currently support successful breeding. Two of these populations (Texas Creek and Upper East River sub-watersheds) are at high altitude sites within wilderness. It is thought that the remoteness of these sites has helped to prevent the intrusion of the invasive chytrid fungus. Unfortunately in the past two years Texas Creek has become positive for Bd. Currently it is unknown if the Texas Creek population has lost its viability due to Bd. To-date the other site, located in the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness, remains free of Bd. Every effort should be made to not only protect and conserve the Upper East River population but also keep it free of chytrid.
Similarly the final sub-watershed, Headwaters Buzzard Creek, is unique because even with the presence of chytrid, boreal toads are undergoing successful reproduction. Although the factors effecting this occurrence are not fully understood, it is possible that these toads have an innate resilience to chytrid. It remains, that management approaches and allowable activities within this sub-watershed should make every effect to maintain and protect the essential habitat supporting this unique population.
References
CRCT Conservation Team. 2006. Conservation agreement for Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. 10p.
Harig, A. L., & Fausch, K. D. (2002). Minimum habitat requirements for establishing translocated cutthroat trout populations. Ecological Applications, 12(2), 535-551.
Hilderbrand, R. H., & Kershner, J. L. (2000). Movement patterns of stream-resident cutthroat trout in Beaver Creek, Idaho–Utah. Transactions of the american Fisheries Society, 129(5), 1160-1170.
Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Land Management Handbook. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/planningrule/home/?cid=stelprd3828310
Loeffler, C. (ed.), 2001. Conservation plan and agreement for the management and recovery of the Southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas), Boreal Toad Recovery Team. 76 pp. + appendices.
Watershed and Subwatershed Description:
This data set is a complete digital hydrologic unit boundary layer to the Subwatershed (12-digit) 6th level for the entire United States. This data set consists of geo-referenced digital data and associated attributes created in accordance with the "Federal Guidelines, Requirements, and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset; Chapter 3 of Section A, Federal Standards, Book 11, Collection and Delineation of Spatial Data; Techniques and Methods 11-A3" (04/01/2009). http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/index.html . Polygons are attributed with hydrologic unit codes for 1st(Region), 2nd(Sub-Region), 3rd(Basin), and 4th(Sub-Basin) Hydrologic Unit Level codes, names, Sub-Basin acres and square miles. This data set was obtained from the source in July 2010.
These data represent the Management Overlay for Designated Trails as part of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. This overlay was created by buffering half a mile on either side of the centerline of nationally designated trails. These data represent both Designated Trail management and the underlying Management Area. These data were created on November 13, 2018 and last updated on November 13, 2018.
These data represent the Management Overlay for Scenic Byways as part of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision undertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule. This overlay was created by buffering half a mile on either side of the centerline of Scenic and Historic Byways in and around the GMUG National Forest and then clipping it to the Forest Boundary. These data represent both Scenic Byways management and the underlying Management Area. These data were created on November 13, 2018 and last updated on November 13, 2018.
These data represent the Management Overlay for Utility Corridors as part of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests (GMUG) Forest Plan Revisionundertaken under the 2012 Forest Planning Rule.This layer contains buffers of utility lines on the GMUG National Forest, comined with areas which have been designated (per the requirements of Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005) as West-wide energy corridors in Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service Records of Decision in connection with the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western States, November 2008. These data represent both utility corridor management and the underlying Management Area. These data were created on June 11, 2019 and last updated on June 11, 2019.