Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Summary Report for Idaho
October 2007
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 83815
(208) 769-1525
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) 720-5964.
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
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
PART 1 – SUMMARY REPORT
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
3
PART 2 – FINAL MAP RESULTS
13
PART 3 – METHODOLOGY REPORT
Model Builder
Data Layer Development
29
APPENDICES
Appendix A: FSP Spatial Analysis Project Outline
Appendix B: Activity Codes
Appendix C: GIS Data Resources
33
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Page iii
Contact Information:
Suzanne Jude, SAP Data Coordinator
Idaho Department of Lands Forestry Assistance Bureau
3780 Industrial Avenue South
Coeur d‘Alene, ID 83815
Office: (208) 769-1525
sjude@idl.idaho.gov
Ed DeYoung, Sr. GIS Analyst
Idaho Department of Lands Management Information Systems
3780 Industrial Avenue South
Coeur d‘Alene, ID 83815
Office: (208) 769-1525
edeyoung@idl.idaho.gov
Page iv
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
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 2007. 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
Page 2
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Part 1 – Summary Report
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Page 3
Page 4
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
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
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
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
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, 6th level watersheds (from Idaho Watersheds
5th & 6th 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
12.
13.
Developing Areas – Areas of projected growth by census block (from U.S. Census
Bureau, 1990, 2000)
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
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
Overlay Weighting Scheme:
Ordinal or Rank Scale
9 11
3
5 11 12 10
10 10
7
2
9 11
1
3
7
6 11
1
6
8
2
5
11
Mean
Weight
8.4
6.7
6.2
Inverse
Weight
3.6
5.3
5.8
Relative
Weight
0.0545
0.0802
0.0877
12
1
6
9
11
3
4
2
5
2
4
8
8
6
8
2
10
4
6
3
1
7
6
3
11
9
6.3
4.6
5.7
7.4
0.0862
0.1120
3
11
7
4
2
6
2
3
10
4
3
9
2
4
3
4
9
7
5
11
4.6
6.3
7.4
5.7
0.1120
0.0862
9
12
12
12
12
1
10
10
2
2
8.2
3.8
0.0575
7
5
8
10
6
1
8
10
11
1
7
5
9
1
5
4
11
1
9
4
12
6
7
8
8
7
12
5
2
8
9
5
12
4
11
5
2
8
7
5
Total:
8.0
4.2
8.3
6.1
77.9
4.0
7.8
3.7
5.9
66.1
0.0605
0.1180
0.0560
0.0893
1.0000
Table 1: Rank Scale Weighting Scheme
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Page 9
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 (%)
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
Decimal Weight
0.1180
0.1120
0.1120
0.0893
0.0877
0.0862
0.0862
0.0802
0.0605
0.0575
0.0560
0.0545
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
Model Results
The statewide layer analysis produced cell values between ‗0‘ and 0.94 (Table 3). A total of
436,525,088 30-meter cells were evaluated statewide. There are a total of 66,809,931 30-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
Low
Medium
High
Cell Values
Cell Count
0.00 – 0.265
27,327,217
0.2651– 0.427
21,413,590
0.4271– 0.9426
17,887,377
Table 3: Stewardship potential cell values
Reclassified
1
2
3
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
High
Medium
Low
Total:
Stewardship Capable Lands
Non-Forest
Forest
% of total
Forest
Acres
Acres
% of total
Non-Forest
Total
Acres
3,426,091
51%
552,936
7%
3,979,026
2,677,470
39%
2,085,958
26%
4,763,428
663,010
10%
5,415,897
67%
6,078,908
6,766,571
8,054,791
14,821,362
Table 4: Stewardship Eligible Lands in Idaho
Stewardship Potential
% of Total
27%
32%
41%
Total:
Low
Medium
High
Forested
NonForested
Combined
Acres Capable of
Stewardship:
6,078,908
4,763,428
3,979,026
6,766,571
8,054,791
14,821,362
Stewardship Plan
Acres:
1,792
23,456
90,687
104,649
11,287
115,935
Stewardship Plan
Acres vs.
Stewardship
Capable Acres (%):
0.0%
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
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
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
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
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
http://www.idwr.state.id.us/gisdata/tech_note/idtm.htm.
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Page 29
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
20234 m2 were removed from the final data layer.
Final Grid name = final_test
3. Priority Watersheds
Priority watersheds in Idaho are selected by 6th 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
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, DouglasFir 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 2000. 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
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
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
Page 34
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Appendix A: FSP Spatial Analysis Project Briefing Paper
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Page 35
Page 36
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Appendix B: Activity Codes
Idaho GAP Land Cover Classification Scheme
http://www.wildlife.uidaho.edu/idgap/
1000 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
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
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
National Land Cover Datalayer (NLCD)
2001 Classification System
http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/definitions.html
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 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 20-49 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 50-79 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
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 25-100 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 75-100 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
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 75-100 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
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
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 30-80 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
40. Forested Upland - Areas characterized by tree cover (natural or semi-natural woody
vegetation, generally greater than 6 meters tall); tree canopy accounts for 25-100 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 25-100 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 25-100 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 75-100 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 75-100 percent of
the cover.
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Page 47
81. Pasture/Hay - Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for
livestock grazing or the production of seed or hay crops.
82. Row Crops - Areas used for the production of crops, such as corn, soybeans,
vegetables, tobacco, and cotton.
83. Small Grains - Areas used for the production of graminoid crops such as wheat,
barley, oats, and rice.
84. Fallow - Areas used for the production of crops that do not exhibit visable vegetation
as a result of being tilled in a management practice that incorporates prescribed
alternation between cropping and tillage.
85. Urban/Recreational Grasses - Vegetation (primarily grasses) planted in developed
settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. Examples include parks,
lawns, golf courses, airport grasses, and industrial site grasses.
90. Wetlands - Areas where the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with
water.
91. Woody Wetlands - Areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for 25-100
percent of the cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered
with water.
92. Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands - Areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation
accounts for 75-100 percent of the cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated
with or covered with water.
Page 48
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
USDA FS Aerial Detection Survey Coding Key for I&D Damage – Idaho
http://www.fs.fed.us/r1-r4/spf/fhp/aerial/pub/coding_key.pdf
BARK BEETLES
1. Doulgas-fir beetle
2. Engelmann spruce beetle
3. Pine engraver (PP)
4. Mountain pine beetle (WP)
5. Mountain pine beetle (PP)
6. Mountain pine beetle (LPP)
7. Mountain pine beetle (WBP)
8. Western pine beetle
9. Fir engraver
10. Douglas-fir engraver beetle
11. Western balsam bark beetle (SAF)
12. Unidentified bark beetle
13. Pine engraver (LPP)
14. Mountain pine beetle (LIM)
15. Pine engraver (Pinyon)
16. Jeffrey Pine Beetle
86. Red Turpentine Beetle
87. Roundheaded pine beetle (PP)
DEFOLIATORS
17. Balsam woolly adelgid
18. Needle miner
19. Terminal weevil
20. Spruce budworm
21. Larch casebearer
22. Douglas-fir tussock moth
23. Pine butterfly
24. Black-headed budworm
25. Larch bud moth
26. Pine looper
27. Pine tortrix
28. Tent caterpillars
29. Leaf beetles
30. Larch sawfly
31. Western hemlock looper
32. Larch looper
33. Western false hemlock looper
34. Pine needle-sheath miner
35. Pine sawflies
36. Pine tussock moth
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Page 49
37. Cankerworms
38. Variable oak leaf caterpillar
39. Unidentified defoliator
74. Lodgepole pine needle miner
DISEASES
82. Root/Butt Diseases
83. Stem Decays
84. Foliage Diseases
85. Stem Rust
DISEASES
40. Phellinus weirii
41. Heterobasidion annosum (Fomes annosus)
42. Armillaria ostoyae (Armillaria mellea)
43. Phaeolus schweinitzii
44. Phomopsis
45. Cytospora (Aspen)
46. Western gall rust
47. Comandra rust
48. Stalactiform rust
49. Atropellis
50. White pine blister rust
51. Dwarf mistletoe
52. Elytroderma
53. Aspen leaf blight
54. Fluoride
55. Chemical
56. Lophodermium pinastri
57. Rhabdocline pseudotsugae
58. Lophodermella arcuata
59. Lecanostica aciocola
60. Lophodermella concolor
61. Dothistroma pini
62. Needle blight
63. Root rot (RR)
64. Unidentified disease
65. Discoloration
66. Frost injury
67. Winter injury
68. Diplodia
69. Needle cast
Page 50
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
OTHER
70. Fire
71. Animal damage
72. Windthrow
73. High water damage
74. See Defoliators
75. Decline
76. Drought
77. Avalanche/ mud slide
78. Stem breakage (ice)
79. Dieback (host)
80. Hail
81. Volcano
98. Out
99. Unknown
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Page 51
Appendix C: GIS Data Resources
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
1410 N. Hilton
Boise, ID 83706
(208) 373-0502
http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/data_reports.cfm
Data: Surface Water Assessment
Idaho Fish & Game
Conservation Data Center
600 South Walnut
Box 25
Boise, ID 83707
(208) 334-3402
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cdc/
Data: Rare, Sensitive, Threatened & Endangered Species
Inside Idaho
http://inside.uidaho.edu/
Communities At Risk From Wildland Fire of Idaho, Watersheds In Idaho (5th and 6th Field
Units), River and Streams (1:2,000,000-scale) of Idaho, Digital Elevation of Idaho, Lakes &
Streams of Idaho (303(d) Impaired–1998), Census Block Groups (1990 & 2000) for Idaho, Land
Status ‗Ownership‘ for Idaho.
USDA Forest Service
State & Private Forestry
Forest Health Protection – Northern Region
P. O. Box 7669
Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 329-3308
Forest Health Protection – Intermountain Region
324 – 25th Street
Ogden, UT 84401
(801) 625-5759
http://www.fs.fed.us/r1-r4/spf/fhp/aerial/gisdata.html
Data: Aerial Detection of Forest Insects & Disease (Regions 1 & 4)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd.html
Data: National Land Cover Data
Page 52
Idaho Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project