{
 "currentVersion": 10.81,
 "serviceDescription": "",
 "mapName": "Layers",
 "description": "",
 "copyrightText": "",
 "supportsDynamicLayers": true,
 "layers": [
  {
   "id": 0,
   "name": "National_COMB_WithMidPointsOctober2014",
   "parentLayerId": -1,
   "defaultVisibility": true,
   "subLayerIds": null,
   "minScale": 0,
   "maxScale": 0,
   "type": "Feature Layer",
   "geometryType": "esriGeometryPolygon"
  },
  {
   "id": 1,
   "name": "National_CONV_WithMidPointsOctober2014",
   "parentLayerId": -1,
   "defaultVisibility": false,
   "subLayerIds": null,
   "minScale": 0,
   "maxScale": 0,
   "type": "Feature Layer",
   "geometryType": "esriGeometryPolygon"
  },
  {
   "id": 2,
   "name": "National_CBNG_WithMidPointsOctober2014",
   "parentLayerId": -1,
   "defaultVisibility": false,
   "subLayerIds": null,
   "minScale": 0,
   "maxScale": 0,
   "type": "Feature Layer",
   "geometryType": "esriGeometryPolygon"
  }
 ],
 "tables": [],
 "spatialReference": {"wkt": "PROJCS[\"NAD_1983_Albers\",GEOGCS[\"GCS_North_American_1983\",DATUM[\"D_North_American_1983\",SPHEROID[\"GRS_1980\",6378137.0,298.257222101]],PRIMEM[\"Greenwich\",0.0],UNIT[\"Degree\",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION[\"Albers\"],PARAMETER[\"False_Easting\",0.0],PARAMETER[\"False_Northing\",0.0],PARAMETER[\"Central_Meridian\",-106.0],PARAMETER[\"Standard_Parallel_1\",43.5],PARAMETER[\"Standard_Parallel_2\",48.0],PARAMETER[\"Latitude_Of_Origin\",42.5],UNIT[\"Meter\",1.0]]"},
 "singleFusedMapCache": false,
 "initialExtent": {
  "xmin": -280179.3940048944,
  "ymin": -362994.6403490916,
  "xmax": 1149117.6465457596,
  "ymax": 430922.7183746595,
  "spatialReference": {"wkt": "PROJCS[\"NAD_1983_Albers\",GEOGCS[\"GCS_North_American_1983\",DATUM[\"D_North_American_1983\",SPHEROID[\"GRS_1980\",6378137.0,298.257222101]],PRIMEM[\"Greenwich\",0.0],UNIT[\"Degree\",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION[\"Albers\"],PARAMETER[\"False_Easting\",0.0],PARAMETER[\"False_Northing\",0.0],PARAMETER[\"Central_Meridian\",-106.0],PARAMETER[\"Standard_Parallel_1\",43.5],PARAMETER[\"Standard_Parallel_2\",48.0],PARAMETER[\"Latitude_Of_Origin\",42.5],UNIT[\"Meter\",1.0]]"}
 },
 "fullExtent": {
  "xmin": -590627.2248997386,
  "ymin": -610531.210195479,
  "xmax": 500473.9809266483,
  "ymax": 766945.4328417312,
  "spatialReference": {"wkt": "PROJCS[\"NAD_1983_Albers\",GEOGCS[\"GCS_North_American_1983\",DATUM[\"D_North_American_1983\",SPHEROID[\"GRS_1980\",6378137.0,298.257222101]],PRIMEM[\"Greenwich\",0.0],UNIT[\"Degree\",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION[\"Albers\"],PARAMETER[\"False_Easting\",0.0],PARAMETER[\"False_Northing\",0.0],PARAMETER[\"Central_Meridian\",-106.0],PARAMETER[\"Standard_Parallel_1\",43.5],PARAMETER[\"Standard_Parallel_2\",48.0],PARAMETER[\"Latitude_Of_Origin\",42.5],UNIT[\"Meter\",1.0]]"}
 },
 "minScale": 0,
 "maxScale": 0,
 "units": "esriMeters",
 "supportedImageFormatTypes": "PNG32,PNG24,PNG,JPG,DIB,TIFF,EMF,PS,PDF,GIF,SVG,SVGZ,BMP",
 "documentInfo": {
  "Title": "Projected Number O&G Wells Combined for MT, ND, SD, WY",
  "Author": "Richard Sojda",
  "Comments": "PROJECTED NUMBER OF O&G WELLS FOR MT, ND, SD, WY BASED ON BLM'S RFD. \n\nNotes for Converting BLM\u2019s Reasonable Foreseeable Future Projections for Oil and Gas Wells into Standardized Numerical Categories:  MT, ND, SD, WY\n\nRichard S. Sojda\n26 May 2014\n\n1.\tSpatial data for WY and SD was provided via email by Cathy Stilwell, GIS Specialist, BLM, Casper, WY\n\n2.\tSpatial data for MT \u2013 HiLine was obtained from:  http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/malta_field_office/rmp/hiline_rmp/gis_maps.html\n\n3.\tSpatial Data for MT \u2013 Dillon was provided via email by Laurie Blinn, GIS Specialist, BLM, Dillon, MT\n\n4.\tSpatial data for MT - Miles City was obtained from:\nhttp://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/miles_city_field_office/rmp/draft_rmp/miles_city_draft_rmp.html\n\n5.\tAttribute table data were examined from the BLM Development Potential spatial data layers.  The column labels differed among Field Office\u2019s (e.g, \u201cpotential\u201d, \u201cdevpot\u201d, \u201cdevelopment\u201d, etc.)\na.\tThe non-quantified categories included: VERY HIGH, HIGH, MODERATE, LOW, NONE, NEGLIGIBLE, NOT ASSESSED.\nb.\tDifferent offices examined oil separate from gas; others combined the projection.\nc.\tThe attribute tables contained non-quantified categories for the following FO/Districts/RMPs: Dillon, South Dakota, HiLine, Big Horn Basin, Casper, Kemmerer, Lander, Pinedale, and Rawlins.  However, sometimes oil categories were not quantified, sometimes gas were not, sometimes the combined were not.\nd.\tWhen numerical categories were provided, they were presented as ranges, e.g., 5-20 wells per township.  Numerical categories were not the same among offices, nor between oil and gas.\ne.\tAny areas classified as \u201cNot Assessed\u201d were given the value of \u201c0\u201d since they represent areas off-limits to oil and gas development, such as wilderness areas.\nf.\tDean Stilwell, BLM Casper, WY, provided midpoints for categories that he developed for the BLM as an attachment to an email on 22 May 2014 [StilwellEdits_DRAFT_notes_standardizing_RFD_categories_v2.docx].\n\n6.\tNotes where decisions on categories were made are highlighted in bright green.  Sometimes these decisions were arbitrary, but are so noted.\n\n7.\tWhen categories overlapped, e.g., 2-10 and 10-20, midpoints were calculated by starting the higher category with the next higher number.  In this example, 2-10 and 11-20.\n\n8.\tNon-quantified categories in the attribute tables of the spatial data were quantified when possible as follows. \nMT/ND/SD:\nBILLINGS:\nNo spatial data as of 30 April 2014\nDILLON:  \nOil & Gas Combined (Conventional and CBNG):\nLaurie Blinn, BLM informed me that these categories were based on geological expert opinion and were never quantified\nHILINE:\nOil & Gas Conventional:\nhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/mt/field_offices/malta/rmp/docs.Par.96769.File.dat/HiLine_OilGasRFD.pdf , \nFrom Page 68\nHigh:  54\nModerate:  70 [Note:  might High and Moderate be reversed?]\nLow:\nVery Low:\nFrom Page 77 [These are the ones used.]:\nHigh:  110\nModerate:  60\nLow:  11\nVery Low:  0.5\nCBNG:\nFrom Page 78:\nVery Low:  0.5\nNOTE:  The 2013 data provided appeared to be for both Conventional Oil & Gas and CGNG combined, as there was no distinction in the attribute table, and was treated that way.  However, in the RFD, a category was provided for CBNG and that was Very Low = 0.5.  Therefore, the combined values assigned were the Conventional Oil & Gas for all categories except Very Low, for which the two numbers were added to get 1.0. \nLEWISTOWN:\nNo spatial data as of 30 April 2014\nMILES CITY:\n\tOil & Gas Combined (Conventional and CBNG):\nBLM gave me the numeric equivalent for the categories\nHigh:  6 10 \nModerate:  3 - 5 \nLow:  1 - 2\nNORTH DAKOTA:\nNo spatial data as of 30 April 2014\nRFD is only in the preparation stage and not available\nSOUTH DAKOTA:\nOil & Gas Combined (Conventional and CBNG) : \nhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/mt/field_offices/south_dakota/rmp/rfd.Par.36496.File.dat/T_4.pdf\nAccessed 28 April 2014\nHigh: 15\nModerate: 6\nLow: 1.5\nVery Low:  0.5\nNone:  0\nAlthough the RFD document lists 5 categories, the spatial data only use 3: High,  Moderate, and Low; so, only those three were used and populated with the values above.\nWY:\nBIG HORN BASIN:\nhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/bighorn/docs/rfds.Par.94367.File.dat/OilandGas.pdf\nAccessed 28 April 2014\nOil & Gas Conventional:  PAGE 75:\nHigh: 100+wells  This category was not used in the spatial data.\nModerate: 20 to 100 wells\nLow:\u2028 2 to 100\nHigh: 41-100\nModerate:  21-40\nLow:  11-20\nVery Low:  2 \u2013 10\nNone:  0\nNegligible:  1 [This number was based on no category being provided between 0 and 2]\nCGNG (range):\nVery High:  >220\nHigh:  71 - 220\nModerate:  21 - 70\nLow:  5 - 20\nVery Low:  0 - 4\nNone:  0\nNegligible:  ? [0.5 was arbitrarily used since categories did not leave anything arithmetically for this category)\nPoint Estimates: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/buffalo/docs/rfd.Par.48552.File.dat/FinalBFORFD_2012.pdf\nAccessed 29 April 2014\nOil & Gas Conventional (point) [Table 5]:\nVery High:  129\nHigh: 70\nModerate:  30\nLow:  15\nVery Low:  6\nNone:  0\nNegligible:   0.5\nCBNG (point) [Table 6]:\nVery High:  >220\nHigh: 71 - 220\nModerate:  21 - 70\nLow:  6 - 20\nVery Low:  1 - 5\nNone:  0\nCASPER:\nhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/casper/docs.Par.27322.File.dat/03_rfd.pdf  [Table 14]\nAccessed 29 April 2014\nOil & Gas Conventional:\nHigh:  110\nModerate:  60\nLow:  11\nVery Low:  1\nCBNG:\nHigh:  144\nModerate:  60\nLow:  11\nVery low: 1\nKEMMERER:\nOil & Gas Conventional:  [http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/kemmerer/docs.Par.62020.File.dat/05_rfd.pdf]\nAccessed 29 April 2014\nHigh:  >100\nModerate:  21 - 100\nLow: 0 - 20\nCBNG [the following are from the attribute table for CBNG]:\nModerate:  20 \u2013 100\nLow:  10 \u2013 19\nVery Low:  0 \u2013 9\nNone:  0\nLANDER:\nOil & Gas Conventional:\nhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/lander/rfds/oil_gas.Par.73745.File.dat/Table08_developmentpotential.pdf\nAccessed 29 April 2014\nHigh:  110\nModerate:  60\nLow:  10\nVery Low:  0.25\nNone:  0\nCBNG:  http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/lander/rfds/oil_gas.Par.57928.File.dat/Table09_cbngpotential.pdf\nAccessed 29 April 2014\nHigh:  110  This category was not used in the spatial data.\nModerate:  60\nLow:  8\nVery Low:  0.25\nNone:  0\nNEWCASTLE:\nOil & Gas Conventional [The following are from the attribute table for conventional O&G, and from the legend of a digital map (NFO_ConventionalPotential_Dec2010.pdf) provided by Dean Stilwell, BLM, Casper, WY on 29 April 2014]:\nVery High:  >30\nHigh: 21 - 30 [not used in attribute table]\nModerate:  10 - 20\nLow:  1 - 9\nVery Low:  150\nHigh:  50 \u2013 149\nModerate:  20 \u2013 49\nLow:  5 \u2013 19\nVery Low:  1 -5\nNone:  0\nCBNG:\nModerate:  10 - 30\nLow:  2 - 10\nVery Low:  1\nNone:  0\n\n9.\tThoughts on developing an algorithm for assigning a numerical attribute to each township for total number of wells projected:\na.\tOne column was added to each attribute table: PotMidxxxx, plus the suffix \u201cGBNG\u201d, \u201cConv\u201d or \u201cComb\u201d, as appropriate, corresponding to the point estimate/ midpoint value of the range, when provided.  \nb.\tAll non-quantified categories, e.g., Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Very Low, and None (including Not Assessed) will be converted for both Conventional Oil and Gas, CBNG, and Oil and Gas Combined using all three columns.  For areas where no quantification was done (e.g., Dillon), the columns will remain empty.\nc.\tPotMid:  The only common value among areas is the midpoint/ point estimate, and where ranges of estimates are provided, the midpoint will be used.  For the first attempt at additional analysis, only the midpoint will be used.  At a later stage similar columns will be considered for inclusion as the Maximum and Minimum estimates.  However, these data are sparse across all geography.\nd.\tThe maximum category is often presented as an inequality, e.g., >100, and the next lower category as X to 100.  Therefore, the maximum category was assigned the next highest number.  In this example, the value assigned would be 101.\ne.\tFor areas with separate estimates for Conventional and CBNG, the estimate for a township will be summed.\nf.\tAll townships will be merged.\ng.\tVarious algorithms for categorization in ArcGIS will be examined for categorizing the data, including natural breakpoints, six uniform/equal categories, and others.\nh.\tCategories will be symbolized at the township scale.  We recognize that all townships are not of equal size for at least three reasons: (1) inaccuracies in base spatial CadNSDI (PLSS) data, (2) political boundary conditions, and (3) survey correction lines.  For our first iteration of the analysis, we will simply ignore these problems and not attempt to normalize slivers, polygons of zero size, and townships of unequal size by area or other characteristic.\n\n10.\tColour Scheme used to symbolize the non-numeric categories, using colours that seemed to work well for my level of colour-blindness:\nNon-numeric Category\tCoulour Name (ArcGIS)\tColumn-Row in Colour Table\nVery High\tMars Red\t2 \u2013 3\nHigh\tFire Red\t3 - 3\nModerate\tSeville Orange\t4 - 4\nLow\tQuetzel Green\t7 \u2013 4\nVery Low\tSolar Yellow\t5 - 3\nNegligible\tTopaz Sand\t4 - 1\nNone\tMoorea Blue\t10 - 4\nNot Assessed\tSugilite Sky\t10 \u2013 1\n\n\n11.\tThis is the step-by-step procedure used for adding the midpoint values to the attribute tables in ArcMap 10.2.1.  This was only needed to be used (primarily in Montana) when the attribute table had multiple rows (polygons).  When there were few rows (polygons), the new midpoint values could be added directly, replacing steps e \u2013 g.  \na.\tLayers were renamed to begin with the prefix \u201cLCC\u201d.  These are copies of the original data files for which the new PotMidxxxx columns had been added to the attribute files.\nb.\tOpen attribute table\nc.\tAdd field (PotMidxxxx)\nd.\tStart editor\ne.\tSelect attributes based on the RFD category, e.g., \u201cHigh\u201d\nf.\tApply \u201cField Calculator\u201d on the new field, populating the new field for the selected categories with the numeric value as described above and listed in the corresponding excel file, RFD_categories_vX.xlsx\ng.\tClear the selection\nh.\tSave edits\ni.\tStop editing\nj.\tClose the attribute table\nk.\tRepeat steps e \u2013 i for each category\nl.\tSave the .mxd\nm.\tRepeat steps b \u2013 k for each layer\n\n12.\tThis is the procedure for completing the Wyoming map of Combined Conventional Oil & Gas and CBNG projected well densities.  Similar step-by-step procedures were used as in #11, above, but not delineated here for simplicity.\na.\tAll individual Field Office spatial data were merged for Conventional Oil & Gas [LCCWYmerged_ConvPotentials]\nb.\tAll individual Field Office spatial data were merged for CBNG [LCCWYmerged_CBNGPotentials]\nc.\tLCCWYmerged_ConvPotentials and LCCWYmerged_CBNGPotentials were combined using the Union procedure [LCCWYmerged_CombPotentials]\nd.\tA field was added to that attribute table [PotMidComb] and the field calculator was used to populate the field by adding the two fields PotMidConv and PotMidCBNG.\ne.\tPotMidComb was symbolized to make a map depicting the \u201cBLM's Projected Number of Conventional O&G and CBNG Wells Per Township in Wyoming\u201d.  See # 13, below.\n\n13.\tColour Scheme used to symbolize the numeric categories, using colours that seemed to work well for my level of colour-blindness:\nNumeric Category\tCoulour Name (ArcGIS)\tColumn-Row in Colour Table\n0 \tMoorea Blue\t9 - 4\n0.000001 - 35\tSolar Yellow\t5 - 3\n35. 000001 \u2013 70.5\tYucca Yellow\t5 - 1\n70.500001 - 144\tElectron Gold\t4 - 3\n144. 000001 - 330\tFlame Red\t3 - 4\n330. 000001 - 2515\tTuscan Red\t2 - 5\n\n14.\t  The following process was used to provide an assessment of road density in Montana:\na.\tDownloaded data for MT roads from openstreetmap.org on 23 June 1014\nb.\tThese data were projected to NAD1983 Albers\nc.\tThey were then clipped for MT to remove minor lines that crossed the state border\nd.\tRoad length was calculated in the attribute table using calculate geometry\ne.\tThe previously obtained CadNSDI data were projected to NAD1983 Albers\nf.\tA spatial join was done with LCC_MT_roads_NAD1983albers_clip and LCC_MT_CadNSDI_clip_NAD1983Albers\ng.\tIn the attribute table for LCC_MT_CadNSDI_roads_spatialjoin, PLSSID was summarized by roadlength\nh.\tA field, RdDensity, was added to the table and calculated as: roadlength / SqMi to account for slightly different sizes of townships and for \u201csliver\u201d townships.\ni.\tRdDensity was then symbolized with ten equal categories.\nj.\tThe attribute table was exported as a text file to ../spatial_data/roads_OGexist\n\n15.\tThe following process was used to provide an assessment of oil well density in Montana:\na.\tA spatial join was done with MT_OilGas_Wells_existing_BLM_data and LCC_MT_CadNSDI_clip_NAD1983Albers\nb.\tIn the attribute table for LCC_MT_CadNSDI_ExistWells_spatialjoin, PLSSID was summarized by Join_Count\nc.\tA field, WellDensity, was added to the table and calculated as: Join_Count / SqMi to account for slightly different sizes of townships and for \u201csliver\u201d townships.\nd.\tWell_Density was then symbolized with ten categories using Natural Break (Jenks).\ne.\tThe attribute table was exported as a text file to ../spatial_data/roads_OGexist\n\n16.\tIn October 2014, I received new RFD data from Cathy Stilwell, BLM \u2013 Casper, all FOs in WY, and for ND, SD, and Malta and Lewistown in MT.   A field, MidPoint, is provided that I was told by Dean Stilwell, BLM \u2013 Casper, that is not necessarily the arithmetic midpoint, but rather is his expert opinion as to what is the most likely scenario within the range given in the RFD.\na.\tNational_CONV_WithMidPointsOctober2014 and National_CBNG_WithMidPointsOctober2014 were combined using the Union procedure [National_COMB_WithMidPointsOctober2014]\nb.\tA field, MidPtCOMB was added to the attribute table of National_COMB_WithMidPointsOctober2014.  The field calculator was then used to add the two midpoints from the CONV and CBNG layers to populate MidPtCOMB, and then this field was used to symbolize the map based on 10 categories with the lowest category forced to be \u201c0\u201d. \nc.\tThis mxd is:  OG_all-BLM-2014-10-1_v1.mxd\n\n",
  "Subject": "Number CBNG andConventional O&G wells combined per township as projected in BLM's Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) analysis.",
  "Category": "",
  "AntialiasingMode": "None",
  "TextAntialiasingMode": "Force",
  "Keywords": "Oil and Gas wells; MT; ND; SD; WY"
 },
 "capabilities": "Map,Query,Data",
 "supportedQueryFormats": "JSON, geoJSON",
 "exportTilesAllowed": false,
 "referenceScale": 0,
 "supportsDatumTransformation": true,
 "maxRecordCount": 1000,
 "maxImageHeight": 4096,
 "maxImageWidth": 4096,
 "supportedExtensions": "KmlServer, WMSServer"
}