Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/41362
ADMINISTERING AGENCY Sensitive Landscape Area of Critical Environmental Concern Cooperative Management and Protection Area EPA Class I Air-Quality Restriction Area Forest Reserve Memorial Parkway Migratory Bird Refuge National Antelope Refuge National Battlefield National Bison Range National Conservation Area National Elk Refuge National Game Refuge and Wildlife Preserve National Historic Area National Historic Landmark National Historic Park National Historic Site National Historical Park National Historical Reserve National Memorial National Monument National Natural Landmark National Park National Preserve National Primitive Area National Recreation Area National Reserve National Scenic & Historic Trail National Scenic Area National Scenic Highway National Scenic Research Area National Seashore National Volcanic Monument National Wildlife Range National Wildlife Refuge Other Congressionally Designated Area Outstanding Natural Area Research Natural Area Roadless Area Special Management Area Special Resource Management Area Wild & Scenic River Wilderness Area Wilderness Character Review Area Wilderness Study Area Wildlife Management Area Sources BLM Field Offices USFS NPS USFS BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM USFS USFS NPS BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM, USFS* NPS BLM BLM USFS BLM, USFS* BLM NPS, USFS* USFS USFS USFS BLM USFS BLM BLM USFS USFS USFS USFS BLM BLM USGS, BLM BLM*, USFS*, USGS BLM BLM*, USFS*, USGS BLM BLM X U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X *Collects or maintains data only in the area it administers lTable 1. Sensitive landscape categories are shown, listing the data sources and administering agencies. 24 GEO W ORLD / AUGUST 2O11 X X X X X National Park Service X X Navigating Sensitive Issues GIS proved indispensible in supporting the immense task of designating corridors on federal lands in an 11-state area of the western United States. The des- ignation work required analysts to determine corridor locations, analyze potential environmental impacts and define management practices to minimize impacts. The process resulted in an extensive database that included federal land jurisdictions, extents of dozens of categories of protective management designations (e.g., National Parks and Wilderness Areas), and scores of environmental mapping layers and base map layers. Although much of the GIS data came from public sources, some weren't available for the full study area, or they varied in content, quality and spa- tial extent. Essential data layers were compiled early in the project, and additions and improvements were made to the database. One of the project's most important GIS layers was the Surface Management Agency database maintained by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land Resources Project Office. This layer provided land jurisdictions for the various federal agencies managing lands in the study area. Protective land-management designations consti- tuted another major category of information. Federal agencies have unique and agency-specific land-use cat- egories, such as BLM's Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Roadless Areas, which are associated with each agency's mis- sion. Other land-use categories, such as National Monuments, are defined across federal agencies. Table 1 lists the many sensitive landscape designa- tions and data sources used for the project. GIS helped identify and avoid likely corridor constraints (such as wilderness areas) early in the process, and, as a result, the environmental analyses that were required for final corridor designation focused on areas with the greatest uncertainty with regard to environmental impacts. To select the corridors, a four-step process was used (see Figure 2), which started with simple straight lines connecting general supply-and-demand areas, and then continued with increasing levels of location refine- ment, stakeholder participation and issues considered. Figure 3 shows two corridors that were designated X X X X near the California/Nevada border. Although corridor 18-23 is only a quarter-mile wide in much of this area, it illustrates the foresight of the Section 368 corridor- planning process in recognizing the need for increased capacity to get power into southern California from the north, despite limited space within existing facilities and restricted-land barriers in California. As a result, corridor 18-224 is well positioned to handle transmis- sion of solar-generated electricity from new facilities proposed in Nevada as well as provide additional capac- ity for increased north/south transmission. Infrastructure Management