Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project. Summary Report for Idaho

Transcription

1 Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Summary Report for Idaho October 2007

2 Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Summary Report for Idaho October 2007 Produced by the Idaho Department of Lands Forestry Assistance Bureau 3780 Industrial Avenue South Coeur d Alene, ID (208) This project and publication were made possible through a grant from the USDA Forest Service. The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. To file a complaint, call (202) Cover Photo: Moose in North Idaho taken by Dave Stephenson, 2007 Acknowledgements: The Idaho Department of Lands Forestry Assistance Bureau would like to thank the USDA Forest Service for providing funding and guidance to complete this Spatial Analysis Project and report. We would also like to thank the many individuals and organizations that contributed to the completion of this project, report, and related data development. Karl Dalla Rosa, Dee Sessions, and many other USDA Forest Service personnel in Region 1 and the Washington Office provided guidance that greatly assisted us with this project. Members of the Idaho Forest Stewardship Advisory Committee and Technical Sub-Committee provided valuable input and support during project development. We wish to acknowledge the efforts of Dr. Sudhanshu Panda and Syed Ahmed, of Idaho State University, Pocatello, for their excellent GIS work in developing data layers and the final modeling. IDL GIS staff, Tracy Morgan and Elizabeth Delmelle, provided ongoing support and assistance and without whom this project would not have been completed. Finally, we thank all the states that have completed the Spatial Analysis Project as they have provided valuable insights and lessons learned making our work that much easier. Page ii Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

3 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 PART 1 SUMMARY REPORT 3 Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) Introduction SAP Implementation Suitability Analysis Data Layer Weighting Process Model Results Exiting Landowner Forest Stewardship Plans Implementation and Future Use of SAP Results PART 2 FINAL MAP RESULTS 13 PART 3 METHODOLOGY REPORT 29 Model Builder Data Layer Development APPENDICES 33 Appendix A: FSP Spatial Analysis Project Outline Appendix B: Activity Codes Appendix C: GIS Data Resources Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page iii

4 Contact Information: Suzanne Jude, SAP Data Coordinator Idaho Department of Lands Forestry Assistance Bureau 3780 Industrial Avenue South Coeur d Alene, ID Office: (208) sjude@idl.idaho.gov Ed DeYoung, Sr. GIS Analyst Idaho Department of Lands Management Information Systems 3780 Industrial Avenue South Coeur d Alene, ID Office: (208) edeyoung@idl.idaho.gov Page iv Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

5 Executive Summary The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) evaluates the landscapewide impact of the FSP over the past decade and identifies areas of stewardship suitability, allowing for strategic delivery of the FSP in the future. The SAP has two major components. The first is a data layer-based suitability analysis that prioritizes stewardship potential based upon resource threats and opportunities. The second component is a spatial database of enrolled stewardship plan tracts comprised of the landowner forest stewardship plans (LFSP) developed in Idaho over the past 16 years. The data collection and digitizing process for Idaho LFSPs began in the fall of 2005 with the final analysis completed in October Digitizing LFSP maps was a critical component of the analyses and required the majority of time spent on the project. Of the 1,425 LFSPs on file, 1,145 were digitized and used in the final analyses. Two-hundred-fifty decertified plans were digitized, but not included in the analysis overlay. Thirty LFSPs were not digitized nor included in the analysis due to missing maps or incomplete parcel boundary location information. Analysis Results: Stewardship Capable lands in Idaho: There are approximately 14.8 million acres of land in Idaho eligible for inclusion in the Forest Stewardship Program Of those 14.8 million acres, approximately 6.8 million are forested Existing LFSP acres total 115,935 and include approximately 0.78% of the total forested stewardship capable lands in Idaho Stewardship Potential in Idaho: Of the approximately 14.8 million acres capable of stewardship, 27% are considered high stewardship potential based upon the layer suitability index, 32% are considered medium stewardship potential, and 41% are considered low stewardship potential. Discussion: Stewardship potential is considered on all non-industrial private forest and non-forest lands eligible for inclusion in Idaho s Forest Stewardship Program. Those lands excluded from the FSP and masked out of the analysis include urban areas, tribal trust lands, industrial forest lands, public lands, and open water. The majority (78%) of mapped LFSP acres in Idaho are located in high stewardship potential areas. While Idaho has done an excellent job over the past 16 years identifying high priority areas and delivering the FSP to those areas, the results of this analysis will assist us in continuing to serve landowners in these important areas while, at the same time, addressing state-wide, regional, and national resource issues. Idaho s FSP provides technical advice and financial assistance to landowners to enhance valued forest benefits. Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 1

6 Page 2 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

7 Part 1 Summary Report Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 3

8 Page 4 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

9 Introduction Forest Stewardship Program The Cooperative Forestry Act of 1978, as amended in the 1990 Farm Bill, established the Forest Stewardship Program (FSP). This program encourages private forest landowners to use professionally prepared forest stewardship plans to manage their lands. These plans consider and incorporate forest resources, including timber, wildlife, fish, water, aesthetics, and all associated resources to meet landowner objectives. Nationally, the FSP has been successful in meeting the intent of the program; more than 30 million acres of private forests have been placed under professional forestry management. In Idaho, FSP is guided by the state Forest Stewardship program plan and the state priority plan. SAP Purpose and Background Since its inception, the FSP has been delivered and made available to nonindustrial private forest landowners on a first-come, first-served basis. While this customer-friendly approach assists landowners in improving their forest resources, it does not consider the connectivity of stewardship tracts, nor target landowners whose forestland has a greater need or opportunity for professional expertise and who may not know of the resources and programs available to them. Additionally, there has been no standard or consistent way to assess the impact that stewardship plans have had on the forest resource as a whole, or in addressing regionally or nationally significant resource issues. Given limited program resources and a demand that exceeds program capacity, FSP coordinators and managers must be accountable for results on the ground, assuring the Nation s taxpayers that program implementation is efficient and effective, and positively affects forest resources. The SAP analysis assesses the impact of the Forest Stewardship Program on the landscape and addresses important resource management needs in the future. A pilot Forest Stewardship Program Spatial Analysis Project was instituted in Federal Fiscal Year 2001 by the Northeastern Area and the states of Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Missouri. Since that time, many states have completed SAP analyses and utilized results to better assess impacts of the Stewardship program within their state and improve the delivery of services to address critical management needs. Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 5

10 SAP Implementation The FSP Spatial Analysis Project consists of two main components. The first component is the stewardship suitability analysis. Utilizing common data layers identified by the four pilot states, in addition to other state specific layers of importance, an overlay analysis is conducted which classifies private lands into areas of low, medium, and high stewardship potential. The second component of the SAP consists of an historic database of landowner forest stewardship plans. Each plan is digitized into an ArcView shape file containing plan boundaries and pertinent attribute information. Placing the plans layer over the stewardship potential layer allows states to assess how effective their stewardship program has been, based upon the percentage of plans within each stewardship potential category. It is the intent of the SAP to allow for strategic delivery of the Forest Stewardship Program by pursuing stewardship opportunities within higher priority areas. Page 6 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

11 Suitability Analysis The statewide suitability analysis is one-half of the SAP and is comprised of 12 common data layers, an analysis mask, and other state-specific layers considered important to a particular state. The layers are further divided into three categories: analysis mask, resource richness, and resource threats. The graphic below provides a visual interpretation of how Massachusetts modeled layers and produced a final output map. Analysis Mask 1. Eligible Lands Resource Richness 2. Forest Patch Size 3. Priority Watersheds 4. Private Forest Lands 5. Proximity to Public Lands 6. Public Water Supplies 7. Rare, Sensitive, T&E Species 8. Riparian Corridors 9. Slope 10. Wetlands Resource Threats 11. Forest Health 12. Developing Areas 13. Wildfire Risk The layers are created as or converted to a raster data type for faster geoprocessing. The cells in each data layer are reclassified as either 1 or 0 depending on whether or not they positively influence stewardship potential. Because some layers have greater relative importance than others to stewardship suitability, each is given a numerical weight that is multiplied by each cell s value in that layer. These weighted cell values from all data layers are then added together to identify areas of low, medium, and high stewardship suitability. The process of developing the individual data layers for Idaho is described on the following pages. Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 7

12 Idaho Analysis IDL Forestry staff and a subcommittee of the Idaho Forest Stewardship Advisory Council (IFSAC) provided guidance and oversight for this project. Through meetings with these groups, it was determined that no additional data layers were needed at this time for Idaho s analysis. A weighting process was also developed to ensure the relative importance of the data layers were consistent with Idaho s forest land priorities. The actual data layer development and modeling was completed under a contract with the Idaho State University GIS Training and Research Center. A review of other state s SAP results and consultation with internal and external GIS personnel guided project managers in identifying appropriate data sources, assessing data quality, and understanding the affects of weighting the data layers in the model. Additional detailed technical information for Idaho s data layer development and analysis can be found in Part 3 Methodology Report, page 29. Idaho Data Layers: Analysis Mask 1. Eligible Lands - defines areas that are eligible and ineligible for stewardship programs. Ineligible Lands include Developed Areas, Open Water, Public Lands, Private Industrial Forestland, and Tribal Trust Lands. Resource Richness 2. Forest Patch Size Forest patches greater than 5 acres (from Idaho GAP Analysis and Idaho Land Ownership maintained by U.S. Bureau of Land Management) 3. Priority Watersheds All 303(d) impaired, 6 th level watersheds (from Idaho Watersheds 5 th & 6 th Field Units by Idaho Department of Water Resources, and Impaired Lakes and Streams (303(d) from Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 1998) 4. Private Forested Lands All privately owned forested areas (from MRLC NLCD Mosaic and Idaho Land Ownership maintained by U.S. Bureau of Land Management) 5. Proximity to Public Lands Public lands buffered by 800 meters (~ ½ mile) (from Idaho Land Ownership maintained by U.S. Bureau of Land Management) 6. Public Drinking Water Supply All zones of contribution surrounding ground water and surface water intakes (from Idaho Department of Environmental Quality) 7. Rare, Sensitive, T&E Species All rare, sensitive, threatened and endangered species areas (from Idaho Conservation Data Center, January 2006) 8. Riparian Areas All riparian areas buffered 75 feet (from Idaho Department of Water Resources, 1996) 9. Slope All slopes ranging between 5-40% (Digital Elevation of Idaho from Idaho Geospatial Clearinghouse, 1999) 10. Forested Wetlands All forested wetlands (from MRLC NLCD Mosaic) Resource Threats 11. Forest Health Aerial insect and disease survey in Regions 1 & 4 (from USDA Forest Service, 2005) Page 8 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

13 12. Developing Areas Areas of projected growth by census block (from U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000) 13. Wildfire Risk Areas of relative burn probability (from USDA Forest Service, Flathead National Forest) Data Layer Weighting Process Idaho s choice of weighting scheme in the SAP is based upon quantitative analyses previously completed by the state of Massachusetts (2006). Idaho selected Massachusetts Rank Scale Weighting Scheme to assign weights to individual common data layers. The ranking of Idaho s data layers per their relative importance to stewardship potential was completed by ten Idaho forestry staff selected for their professional knowledge of factors influencing forest health and management, and the unique conditions found in different parts of the state (Table 1). The Rank Scale scheme requires data layer importance and magnitude of weight to advance and decrease in similar directions, with data layers of greater importance having larger weights than those of relatively less importance. The Rank Scale is intended to ensure that the same scale is shared by all ten Forestry staff so that their assessments are comparable. The Rank Scale scheme is comprised of an Ordinal or Rank type of score with each data layer assigned a value ranging from 1 to 12; 1 being the highest and 12 the lowest. Weights for each data layer were averaged and Mean weights assigned. Because the scale was constructed with 1 being the highest value and the data layers of greater importance needing to have larger weights than those of less importance, the Mean was subtracted from the highest possible weight (i.e., 12) to arrive at the Inverse Weight. The Inverse weights were then converted to a proportion of the Total Inverse Weights and Relative Weights assigned. Category Overlay Weighting Scheme: Ordinal or Rank Scale Mean Weight Inverse Weight Relative Weight Slope Forest Patch Size Priority Watersheds Rare, Sensitive T&E Species Forest Health Public Drinking Water Supply Forested Wetlands Private Forested Lands Proximity to Public Lands Wildfire Risk Developing Areas Riparian Areas Total: Table 1: Rank Scale Weighting Scheme Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 9

14 The results of the Rank Scale scheme show that wildfire is the resource issue of highest importance in Idaho (Table 2). Forest health, water issues, and plant and animal habitats follow closely when determining stewardship suitability importance. Resource Layer Weight (%) Decimal Weight Wildfires Risk 12% Forest Health 11% Public Drinking Water Supply 11% Riparian Areas 9% Priority Watersheds 9% Rare, Sensitive, T&E Species 9% Forested Wetlands 9% Forest Patch Size 8% Proximity to Public Lands 6% Private Forested Lands 6% Developing Areas 6% Slope 5% Table 2: Idaho Data Layer Weights The results of the data layer weighting process have been reviewed and approved by the Idaho Forest Stewardship Advisory Committee. Page 10 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

15 Model Results The statewide layer analysis produced cell values between 0 and 0.94 (Table 3). A total of 436,525, meter cells were evaluated statewide. There are a total of 66,809, meter cells of eligible lands. Of those cells 1,435,834 produced a 0 value, indicating that 319,322 acres of land in the state do not match any of the prioritized criteria. A Jenks Natural Breaks classification was used to determine High, Medium, and Low values. Stewardship Potential Cell Values Cell Count Reclassified Low ,327,217 1 Medium ,413,590 2 High ,887,377 3 Table 3: Stewardship potential cell values The statewide analysis was filtered using the Analysis Mask to eliminate ineligible lands and the remaining cells were reclassified into an integer grid with values of 1, 2, and 3 representing Low, Medium, and High stewardship potential. Statistics were calculated for all stewardship capable lands (Table 4) and existing LFSPs located within these categories (Table 5). Most notable in the LFSP statistics is the majority (78%) of mapped LFSP acres in Idaho are located in high stewardship potential areas. Stewardship Potential Acres Stewardship Capable Lands Forest Non-Forest Total % of total Forest Acres % of total Non-Forest Acres % of Total High 3,426,091 51% 552,936 7% 3,979,026 27% Medium 2,677,470 39% 2,085,958 26% 4,763,428 32% Low 663,010 10% 5,415,897 67% 6,078,908 41% Total: 6,766,571 8,054,791 14,821,362 Table 4: Stewardship Eligible Lands in Idaho Stewardship Potential Total: Acres Capable of Stewardship: Stewardship Plan Acres: Stewardship Plan Acres vs. Stewardship Capable Acres (%): Low Medium High Forested Non- Forested Combined 6,078,908 4,763,428 3,979,026 6,766,571 8,054,791 14,821,362 1,792 23,456 90, ,649 11, , % 0.5% 2.3% 1.5% 0.1% 0.8 Table 5: Stewardship Potential acres in Idaho Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 11

16 Existing Landowner Forest Stewardship Plans For Idaho, collecting and digitizing enrolled Landowner Forest Stewardship Plans, although time-consuming, was fairly straightforward in that records are centrally located at the Idaho Department of Lands Staff Office in Coeur d Alene. Some challenges did exist for digitizing plan parcels as some plans created at the beginning of the stewardship program had missing maps or incomplete legal descriptions. Service Foresters assisted in recreating maps where possible. Of the 1,425 LFSPs enrolled in Idaho s Forest Stewardship Program, 1,145 were digitized and represented in the final analyses. Two-hundred-fifty decertified plans were digitized, but not included in the analysis overlay. Thirty plans were not digitized nor included in the analysis due to missing maps or incomplete parcel boundary location information. Implementation and Future Use of SAP Results Idaho s initial analysis, generated on a statewide-scale, allows forest resource planning and management activities to be focused in areas of highest priority. The IDL plans to coordinate stewardship activities with other state, federal and tribal partners by matching the high priority areas identified in the SAP analysis with our partner s identified high priority areas. By cooperating with these partners and coordinating activities in these areas, the investment of State and Federal funds can be used to full advantage in addressing regionally and nationally important issues on a meaningful scale across all ownerships. As we build upon the SAP process in developing Idaho s statewide forestry assessment, we will continue to identify data gaps and opportunities to incorporate new, more current or accurate and/or additional data sets in an effort to improve strategic delivery of Idaho s FSP and all State and Private Forestry programs. Opportunities have also been identified to improve FSP field personnel technical skills through training sessions and development of standardized procedures. This will allow for more accurate mapping of management plans and project activities for the SAP database. Page 12 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

17 Part 2 Final Map Results Idaho s Spatial Analysis Project requires completion of an initial suitability analysis, a spatial overlay of Landowner Forest Stewardship Plans (LFSPs), and seven maps containing their own analysis and statistics. Analysis Results Map 1: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits This map displays the statewide suitability analysis. The table accompanying the map compares each level of stewardship potential with total stewardship capable lands in Idaho on forested and non-forested private lands. Those areas of high importance represent 27% of all stewardship capable lands in Idaho. Map 2: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits and Existing Stewardship Plans This map is similar to Map 1, but is overlaid with existing Landowner Forest Stewardship Plans. Map 2 results show that while most of Idaho s LFSPs to date fall into the high priority stewardship capable lands, forested and non-forested private lands, we ve only had plan development in 2.3% of these lands, leaving 97.7% (~3,900,000 acres) as future potential. Map 3: Forest Stewardship Potential on Private Forest Lands and Existing Stewardship Plans for Idaho This map depicts stewardship potential on private forestland only. It includes an overlay of existing Landowner Forest Stewardship Plans. Map 3 results show that while the majority of Idaho s LFSPs are located on high priority forested stewardship capable lands, they represent only 2.5% of these forestlands, leaving 97.5% (~3,300,000 acres) as future potential Map 4: Forest Stewardship Potential Resource Richness The resource richness map displays an aggregate of 9 resource potential data layer themes. They include Private Forested Lands, Forest Patch Size, Forested Wetlands, Priority Watersheds, Proximity to Public Lands, Public Drinking Water Supply, Rare/Sensitive/Threatened & Endangered Species, Riparian Areas, and Slope. Relative weights assigned to each layer in the suitability analysis were added together and total 71%. The analysis was filtered using the Analysis Mask and the remaining cells of eligible lands were reclassified into areas of Low, Medium, and High stewardship potential. Map 5: Forest Stewardship Potential Resource Threats The resource threats map displays a combined total of 3 resource potential data layer themes. They include Wildfire Risk, Developing Areas, and Forest Health. Relative weights assigned to each layer in the suitability analysis were added together and total Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 13

18 29%. The Analysis Mask was applied and values in the remaining cells were reclassified to areas of Low, Medium, and High stewardship potential. Map 6: Forest Stewardship Potential on Non-Forested Non-Developed Lands and Existing Stewardship Plans for Idaho This map displays forest stewardship potential on stewardship capable lands that are not forested, nor developed. It also includes an overlay of existing Landowner Forest Stewardship Plans. Map 6 shows that while the majority of LFSPs are located on high priority non-forested, non-developed stewardship capable lands, they represent only 1.1% of these lands, leaving 98.9% (~550,000 acres) as future potential. Map 7: Stewardship Potential on Forested vs. Non-Forested Lands and Existing Stewardship Plans (Coeur d Alene & Vicinity) This example of one of Idaho s regional maps shows stewardship capable lands and existing stewardship plans in the area surrounding the Rathdrum Prairie. It represents one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the state (Kootenai County) and is located within the state s largest forest resource area. Page 14 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33 Part 3 Methodology Report Model Builder Idaho used ESRI ArcGIS 9.1 Model Builder on a Windows XP Professional PC platform to model and run each of the analysis steps. Partway through the modeling effort, ESRI ArcGIS 9.2 Model Builder was installed and later reruns of the model were conducted using this version. Data Layer Development All data is presented in Idaho Transverse Mercator (IDTM) 1 coordinates, NAD 1983, 30-meter cells. For each layer, those cells that met the stated criteria were reclassified with a cell value of 1, while all other cells received a value of 0. Analysis Mask: 1. Eligible Lands This layer was created to exclude from the analysis all areas ineligible for stewardship programs. Unlike other states that used the analysis mask to determine processing on selected locations, Idaho applied the mask after the statewide analysis was run. Areas excluded from the analysis include urban areas, open water, tribal trust lands, industrial forest lands, and publicly owned lands. At the time of data layer development, statewide coverage was only partially available in the 2001 Multi-Resolution Land Cover (MRLC) data; the most current version of the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). Because of Idaho s desire to work with the best available data, a mosaic was created using existing areas of the 2001 MRLC data, which were then filled-in with 1992 NLCD data to complete the statewide coverage. Another unique feature of Idaho s analysis mask is the differentiation between industrial and non-industrial private lands. By definition, industrial forest lands in Idaho are those lands managed by a timber company or other entity where timber from company-owned lands serve as a supply chain for company-owned milling operations; this organizational structure is referred to as vertically-integrated. However, in recent years many previously industrial forest lands have been converted to Timberland Investment Management Organizations (TIMOs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). In most cases, these previously classified industrial forest lands no longer serve their owners in a vertically-integrated fashion. Therefore, Idaho considers TIMO and REIT forest lands as non-industrial private forest lands for the purposes of the SAP. Final Grid name = idl_mask 1 Information on the IDTM coordinate system can be found at Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 29

34 Resource Richness: 2. Forest Patch Size This data layer is intended to select continuous forest patches meeting and/or exceeding FSP parcel size eligibility in Idaho, or those areas greater than or equal to 5 acres. To create the data layer, forested values (forest uplands and forested riparian) were selected from the Idaho GAP Analysis; areas below the threshold of 5 acres or m 2 were removed from the final data layer. Final Grid name = final_test 3. Priority Watersheds Priority watersheds in Idaho are selected by 6 th level, 12 digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) where they intersect with Idaho Department of Environmental Quality list of impaired 303(d) streams and lakes. The data emphasizes watersheds currently impaired or threatened that would benefit from planning and active management activities to improve long-term watershed function. Final Grid name = final_wtrshd 4. Private Forested Lands This data layer emphasizes eligible private lands with existing forest cover. The NLCD mosaic data layer developed by Idaho was utilized in conjunction with Idaho Land Ownership maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to identify all privately owned forested areas. Final Grid name = final_privfl 5. Proximity to Public Lands Using an 800-meter (~1/2 mile) buffer around public lands, a data layer was developed to identify private lands in proximity to public lands. This data layer emphasizes those areas adjacent to lands that are assumed to be permanently protected and managed. Final Grid name = final_ppl 6. Public Drinking Water Supply This data layer emphasizes areas of watersheds that drain onto public drinking water intake points by utilizing time of travel zones developed by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Final Grid name = extract_recl1 7. Rare, Sensitive, Threatened & Endangered Species Source data for this layer was collected from the Idaho Conservation Data Center and includes federally listed Threatened and Endangered species, federal candidates for Threatened and Endangered status, Idaho Fish and Game Species of Special Concern, U.S. Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species, USDA-Forest Service Sensitive Species, and Idaho Native Plant Society ranked species. The data layer identifies areas that provide habitat for more than 300 plant species and 100 animal species including Caribou, Grizzly Bear, Wolf, and Salmon. Final Grid name = tne_rc Page 30 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

35 8. Riparian Areas This layer identifies important river and stream corridors where vegetation cover provides beneficial effects on water quality and riverine ecosystems. Stream data from the Idaho Department of Water Resources was buffered 75 feet on each side to identify selected areas. Final Grid name = final_rip_75 9. Slope Topographic slope is utilized in this data layer as a proxy for forest timber productivity potential because of its relationship to facilitating practicable forest harvest operations. The range of operability selected for the data layer is between 5 and 40%. Final Grid name = rcslope2 10. Forested Wetlands The data for woody wetlands was obtained from the MRLC/NLCD Mosaic. Areas selected identify wetlands where planning and management activities contribute to protection of water quality and wildlife habitat. Final Grid name = NLCD_wetlands Resource Threats: 11. Forest Health Using USDA FS Forest Health Aerial Survey information for regions 1 and 4 during 2005, areas of insect and disease damage were selected. The layer is intended to place emphasis on those areas where silvicultural treatments can address risks to forest health. The principal damaging agents detected from the air in Idaho during 2005 are Mountain Pine Beetle, Western Spruce Budworm, Subalpine Fir Mortality, Douglas- Fir Beetle, Fir Engraver Beetle, and Aspen Decline. Final Grid name = final_pest 12. Developing Areas This data layer emphasizes areas that have shown increased housing development over a ten year period beginning in 1990 through Using the U.S. Census Block Group data for 1990 and 2000, calculation of population density based on households per square mile was completed for both census years. The change in household density was calculated by subtracting 1990 data from 2000 data. Changes equal to or greater than 1 were selected for the final data layer. Final Grid name = rc_hhb 13. Wildfire Risk This data layer identifies areas where planning and management are likely to reduce a relatively high risk of wildfire. Source data from the Idaho Fire Risk model selects areas of intermediate and high fire probability. Final Grid Name = wildfire_rc Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 31

36 Forest Stewardship Plans: 14. Idaho s approach to creating this overlay was to first digitize stewardship plan boundaries into an ArcView shape file by utilizing heads-up digitizing from stewardship plan topographic maps or county parcel maps and a corresponding topographic Digital Raster Graphic. Required data fields were then migrated from the Microsoft Access table and joined to the shape file attribute table. Page 32 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

37 Appendices Appendix A: FSP Spatial Analysis Project Brief Paper 37 Appendix B: Activity Codes 39 Appendix C: GIS Data Resources 52 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 33

38 Page 34 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

39 Appendix A: FSP Spatial Analysis Project Briefing Paper Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 35

40 Page 36 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

41

42

43 Appendix B: Activity Codes Idaho GAP Land Cover Classification Scheme Urban or Developed Land 1000 Urban 1001 High Intensity Urban 1002 Low Intensity Urban 1101 Disturbed, High 1102 Disturbed, Low 2000 Agricultural Land 3000 Non-Forested Lands 31xx - Grasslands 3101 Foothills Grassland 3102 Disturbed Grassland 3103 Herbaceous Clearcut 3104 Montane Parklands and Subalpine Meadow 3105 Wet Meadow 3106 Herbaceous Burn 3107 Shrub/Steppe Annual Grass-Forb 3108 Dry Meadow 3109 Perennial Grassland 3110 Perennial Grass Slope 32xx Mesic Shrublands 3201 Mesic Upland Shrubs 3202 Warm Mesic Shrubs 33xx Xeric Shrublands 3301 Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany 3304 Bitterbrush 3305 Mountain Big Sagebrush 3306 Wyoming Big Sagebrush 3307 Basin & Wyoming Big Sagebrush 3308 Black Sagebrush Steppe 3309 Silver Sage 3310 Salt-desert Shrub 3312 Rabbitbrush 3315 Low Sagebrush 3316 Mountain Low Sagebrush 4000 Forest Uplands 41xx Broadleaf Forest 4101 Aspen 4102 Cottonwood 4103 Maple 42xx Needleleaf Forest 4201 Englemann Spruce 4203 Lodgepole Pine 4206 Ponderosa Pine 4207 Grand Fir 4208 Subalpine Fir 4210 Western Red Cedar 4211 Western Hemlock 4212 Douglas-fir Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 39

44 4215 Western Larch 4216 Douglas-fir/Limber Pine 4217 Subalpine Pine 4218 Subalpine fir/whitebark Pine 4219 Mixed Whitebark Pine Forest 4220 Mixed Subalpine Forest 4221 Mixed Mesic Forest 4222 Mixed Xeric Forest 4223 Douglas-fir/Lodgepole Pine 4225 Douglas-fir/Grand Fir 4226 Western Red Cedar/Grand Fir Forest 4227 Western Red Cedar/Western Hemlock 4228 Western Larch/Lodgepole Pine 4229 Western Larch/Douglas-fir 4230 Utah Juniper 4231 Western Juniper 4232 Pinyon Pine/Juniper 43xx Mixed Needleleaf/Broadleaf Forest 4301 Mixed Needleleaf/Broadleaf Forest 44xx Burnt, Standing Timber 4401 Burnt, Standing Timber 5000 Water 6000 Riparian and Wetland Areas 61xx Forested Riparian 6101 Needleleaf Dominated Riparian 6102 Broadleaf Dominated Riparian 6103 Needleleaf/Broadleaf Dominated Riparian 6104 Mixed Riparian (Forest and Non-forest) 62xx Non-forested Riparian 6201 Graminoid or Forb Dominated Riparian 6202 Shrub Dominated Riparian 6203 Mixed Non-forest Riparian 63xx Wetlands 6301 Deep Marsh 6302 Shallow Marsh 6303 Aquatic Bed 6304 Mud Flat 7000 Barren Land 7201 Sand Dune 7202 Vegetated Sand Dune 7300 Exposed Rock 7301 Lava 7302 Vegetated Lava 7800 Mixed Barren Land 7900 Shoreline and Stream Gravel Bars 8000 Alpine Meadow 8100 Alpine Meadow Page 40 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

45 9000 Snow, Ice, Cloud or Cloud Shadow 9100 Perennial Ice or Snow 9800 Cloud 9900 Cloud Shadow Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 41

46 National Land Cover Datalayer (NLCD) 2001 Classification System Water - All areas of open water or permanent ice/snow cover. 11. Open Water - All areas of open water, generally with less than 25% cover of vegetation or soil. 12. Perennial Ice/Snow - All areas characterized by a perennial cover of ice and/or snow, generally greater than 25% of total cover. 20. Developed - Areas characterized by a high percentage (30 percent or greater) of constructed materials (e.g. asphalt, concrete, buildings, etc). 21. Developed, Open Space - Includes areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20 percent of total cover. These areas most commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. 22. Developed, Low Intensity - Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for percent of total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. 23. Developed, Medium Intensity - Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for percent of the total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. 24. Developed, High Intensity - Includes highly developed areas where people reside or work in high numbers. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses and commercial/industrial. Impervious surfaces account for 80 to100 percent of the total cover. 30. Barren - Areas characterized by bare rock, gravel, sand, silt, clay, or other earthen material, with little or no "green" vegetation present regardless of its inherent ability to support life. Vegetation, if present, is more widely spaced and scrubby than that in the "green" vegetated categories; lichen cover may be extensive. 31. Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) - Barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits and other accumulations of earthen material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15% of total cover. Page 42 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

47 32. Unconsolidated Shore* - Unconsolidated material such as silt, sand, or gravel that is subject to inundation and redistribution due to the action of water. Characterized by substrates lacking vegetation except for pioneering plants that become established during brief periods when growing conditions are favorable. Erosion and deposition by waves and currents produce a number of landforms representing this class. 40. Forested Upland - Areas characterized by tree cover (natural or semi-natural woody vegetation, generally greater than 6 meters tall); tree canopy accounts for percent of the cover. 41. Deciduous Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species shed foliage simultaneously in response to seasonal change. 42. Evergreen Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species maintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage. 43. Mixed Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species are greater than 75 percent of total tree cover. 50. Shrubland - Areas characterized by natural or semi-natural woody vegetation with aerial stems, generally less than 6 meters tall, with individuals or clumps not touching to interlocking. Both evergreen and deciduous species of true shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that are small or stunted because of environmental conditions are included. 51. Dwarf Scrub - Alaska only areas dominated by shrubs less than 20 centimeters tall with shrub canopy typically greater than 20% of total vegetation. This type is often coassociated with grasses, sedges, herbs, and non-vascular vegetation. 52. Shrub/Scrub - Areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy typically greater than 20% of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young trees in an early successional stage or trees stunted from environmental conditions. 70. Herbaceous Upland - Upland areas characterized by natural or semi-natural herbaceous vegetation; herbaceous vegetation accounts for percent of the cover. 71. Grassland/Herbaceous - Areas dominated by grammanoid or herbaceous vegetation, generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing. 72. Sedge/Herbaceous - Alaska only areas dominated by sedges and forbs, generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. This type can occur with significant other grasses or other grass like plants, and includes sedge tundra, and sedge tussock tundra. Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 43

48 73. Lichens - Alaska only areas dominated by fruticose or foliose lichens generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. 74. Moss - Alaska only areas dominated by mosses, generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. 80. Planted/Cultivated - Areas characterized by herbaceous vegetation that has been planted or is intensively managed for the production of food, feed, or fiber; or is maintained in developed settings for specific purposes. Herbaceous vegetation accounts for percent of the cover. 81. Pasture/Hay - Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle. Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. 82. Cultivated Crops - Areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial woody crops such as orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively tilled. 90. Woody Wetlands - Areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water. 91. Palustrine Forested Wetland* - Includes all tidal and non-tidal wetlands dominated by woody vegetation greater than or equal to 5 meters in height and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 percent. Total vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent. 92. Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland* - Includes all tidal and non-tidal wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 5 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 percent. Total vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent. The species present could be true shrubs, young trees and shrubs or trees that are small or stunted due to environmental conditions. 93. Estuarine Forested Wetland* - Includes all tidal wetlands dominated by woody vegetation greater than or equal to 5 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent. Total vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent. 94. Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland* - Includes all tidal wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 5 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent. Total vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent. Page 44 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

49 95. Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands - Areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water. 96. Palustrine Emergent Wetland (Persistent)* - Includes all tidal and non-tidal wetlands dominated by persistent emergent vascular plants, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 percent. Plants generally remain standing until the next growing season. 97. Estuarine Emergent Wetland* - Includes all tidal wetlands dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes (excluding mosses and lichens) and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent and that are present for most of the growing season in most years. Perennial plants usually dominate these wetlands. 98. Palustrine Aquatic Bed* - The Palustrine Aquatic Bed class includes tidal and nontidal wetlands and deepwater habitats in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 percent and which are dominated by plants that grow and form a continuous cover principally on or at the surface of the water. These include algal mats, detached floating mats, and rooted vascular plant assemblages. 99. Estuarine Aquatic Bed* - Includes tidal wetlands and deepwater habitats in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent and which are dominated by plants that grow and form a continuous cover principally on or at the surface of the water. These include algal mats, kelp beds, and rooted vascular plant assemblages. * Coastal NLCD class only Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 45

50 National Land Cover Datalayer (NLCD) 1992 Classification System 10. Water - All areas of open water or permanent ice/snow cover. 11. Open Water - all areas of open water, generally with less than 25% cover of vegetation/land cover. 12. Perennial Ice/Snow - all areas characterized by year-long surface cover of ice and/or snow. 20. Developed - Areas characterized by a high percentage (30 percent or greater) of constructed materials (e.g. asphalt, concrete, buildings, etc). 21. Low Intensity Residential - Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Constructed materials account for percent of the cover. Vegetation may account for 20 to 70 percent of the cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. Population densities will be lower than in high intensity residential areas. 22. High Intensity Residential - Includes highly developed areas where people reside in high numbers. Examples include apartment complexes and row houses. Vegetation accounts for less than 20 percent of the cover. Constructed materials account for 80 to100 percent of the cover. 23. Commercial/Industrial/Transportation - Includes infrastructure (e.g. roads, railroads, etc.) and all highly developed areas not classified as High Intensity Residential. 30. Barren - Areas characterized by bare rock, gravel, sand, silt, clay, or other earthen material, with little or no "green" vegetation present regardless of its inherent ability to support life. Vegetation, if present, is more widely spaced and scrubby than that in the "green" vegetated categories; lichen cover may be extensive. 31. Bare Rock/Sand/Clay - Perennially barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic material, glacial debris, beaches, and other accumulations of earthen material. 32. Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits - Areas of extractive mining activities with significant surface expression. 33. Transitional - Areas of sparse vegetative cover (less than 25 percent of cover) that are dynamically changing from one land cover to another, often because of land use activities. Examples include forest clearcuts, a transition phase between forest and agricultural land, the temporary clearing of vegetation, and changes due to natural causes (e.g. fire, flood, etc.) Page 46 Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project

51 40. Forested Upland - Areas characterized by tree cover (natural or semi-natural woody vegetation, generally greater than 6 meters tall); tree canopy accounts for percent of the cover. 41. Deciduous Forest - Areas dominated by trees where 75 percent or more of the tree species shed foliage simultaneously in response to seasonal change. 42. Evergreen Forest - Areas dominated by trees where 75 percent or more of the tree species` maintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage. 43. Mixed Forest - Areas dominated by trees where neither deciduous nor evergreen species represent more than 75 percent of the cover present. 50. Shrubland - Areas characterized by natural or semi-natural woody vegetation with aerial stems, generally less than 6 meters tall, with individuals or clumps not touching to interlocking. Both evergreen and deciduous species of true shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that are small or stunted because of environmental conditions are included. 51. Shrubland - Areas dominated by shrubs; shrub canopy accounts for percent of the cover. Shrub cover is generally greater than 25 percent when tree cover is less than 25 percent. Shrub cover may be less than 25 percent in cases when the cover of other life forms (e.g. herbaceous or tree) is less than 25 percent and shrubs cover exceeds the cover of the other life forms. 60. Non-Natural Woody - Areas dominated by non-natural woody vegetation; non-natural woody vegetative canopy accounts for percent of the cover. The non-natural woody classification is subject to the availability of sufficient ancillary data to differentiate non-natural woody vegetation from natural woody vegetation. 61. Orchards/Vineyards/Other - Orchards, vineyards, and other areas planted or maintained for the production of fruits, nuts, berries, or ornamentals. 70. Herbaceous Upland - Upland areas characterized by natural or semi-natural herbaceous vegetation; herbaceous vegetation accounts for percent of the cover. 71. Grasslands/Herbaceous - Areas dominated by upland grasses and forbs. In rare cases, herbaceous cover is less than 25 percent, but exceeds the combined cover of the woody species present. These areas are not subject to intensive management, but they are often utilized for grazing. 80. Planted/Cultivated - Areas characterized by herbaceous vegetation that has been planted or is intensively managed for the production of food, feed, or fiber; or is maintained in developed settings for specific purposes. Herbaceous vegetation accounts for percent of the cover. Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Page 47