Kansas Forest Service
2610 Claflin Road
Manhattan, KS 66502
Phone 785.532.3300
Fax 785.532.3305
Forest Stewardship
Spatial Analysis Project (SAP)
Methodology Report for Kansas
J.M. Shawn Hutchinson1, Robert Atchison2, Michael Dulin1, and Ray Aslin2
1
Department of Geography and 2Kansas Forest Service
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Geographic Information Systems
Spatial Analysis Laboratory
Department of Geography
118 Seaton Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-2904
Phone 785.532.5685
Fax 785.532.7310
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project
Methodology Report for Kansas
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4
1. Stewardship Analysis Project (SAP) Introduction..................................................................... 6
2. SAP Implementation.................................................................................................................. 8
2A. Statewide Suitability Assessment ....................................................................................... 8
2B. Stewardship Plan Database Development........................................................................... 9
3. SAP Component #1: Suitability Analysis................................................................................. 9
3A. Resource Potential Data Layers ........................................................................................ 10
3B. Resource Threat Category................................................................................................. 24
3C. Optional Data Layers for Kansas ...................................................................................... 28
3D. Analysis Mask................................................................................................................... 32
4. SAP Component #2: Stewardship Plan Digitizing ................................................................. 34
5. Analysis and Map Products ..................................................................................................... 35
Map #1: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits .................................................. 35
Map #2: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits and Existing Stewardship Plans 36
Map #3: Forest Stewardship Potential on Private Forest Lands and Existing Stewardship Plans
................................................................................................................................................... 37
Map #4: Resource Richness...................................................................................................... 37
Map #5: Resource Threats ........................................................................................................ 38
Map #6: Forest Stewardship Program Potential on Nonforested – Nondeveloped Lands and
Existing Stewardship Plans....................................................................................................... 38
6. Update Cycle and Future Uses of the Data.............................................................................. 40
7. References................................................................................................................................ 41
Appendix A: Kansas SAP Maps .................................................................................................. 42
Appendix B: Contents of Kansas SAP DVD............................................................................... 49
3/10/08
1 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
List of Figures
Figure 1. Private forest acres in Kansas as a percentage of total county area. .............................. 5
Figure 2. Availability of state SAP methodology reports and analyses on official SAP website
(as of March 7, 2008)...................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3. Riparian Corridors thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP. ........................................ 11
Figure 4. Priority Watersheds thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP. ...................................... 12
Figure 5. Threatened and Endangered Species thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP. ........... 13
Figure 6. Forest Patch Size thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP. .......................................... 15
Figure 7. Public Drinking Water Supply thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP. ..................... 17
Figure 8. Private Forest Lands thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP. ..................................... 18
Figure 9. Proximity to Public Lands thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP. ............................ 20
Figure 10. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) polygons status map for Kansas........................ 21
Figure 11. Wetlands thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP. ..................................................... 22
Figure 12. Slope thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP. ........................................................... 23
Figure 13. Forest Health thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP. .............................................. 25
Figure 14. Developing Areas thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP. ....................................... 26
Figure 15. Wildfire Assessment thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.................................... 28
Figure 16. Optional Agroforestry thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP. ................................ 29
Figure 17. Optional Tree and Shrub Suitability thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP............ 30
Figure 18. Forest Productivity thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP. ..................................... 32
Figure 19. Analysis Mask used in the Kansas SAP. .................................................................... 34
Figure 20. Non-Forest, Non-Developed Lands layer used in the Kansas SAP. .......................... 40
3/10/08
2 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
List of Tables
Table 1. Weights applied to each thematic layer for the statewide suitability assessment............ 9
Table 2. Forest types from the Kansas GAP Land Cover database used in the Forest Patch Size
thematic layer................................................................................................................................ 14
Table 3. Protected land categories (and source) used to develop the Proximity to Public Lands
thematic layer................................................................................................................................ 19
Table 4. Landcover types from the Kansas GAP Land Cover database used in the Wetlands
thematic layer................................................................................................................................ 22
Table 5. Categories of ‘Forest Stewardship Suitability’ used in Map #1 and the weighted
overlay analysis values included in each class. ............................................................................ 36
Table 6. Stewardship potential by category and acres for forest, nonforest, and total. ............... 36
Table 7. Comparison of stewardship plan acres to total acres capable of stewardship in Kansas.
....................................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 8. Stewardship potential on private forest lands in Kansas. .............................................. 37
Table 9. Categories of ‘Resource Richness’ used in Map #4 and the weighted overlay analysis
values included in each class. ....................................................................................................... 37
Table 10. Resource richness acres in Kansas by category and as a percentage of total
stewardship acres. ......................................................................................................................... 38
Table 11. Categories of ‘Resource Threats’ used in Map #5 and the weighted overlay analysis
values included in each class. ....................................................................................................... 38
Table 12. Resource threat acres in Kansas by category and as a percentage of total stewardship
acres. ............................................................................................................................................. 38
Table 13. Landuse/Landcover types from the Kansas GAP Land Cover database used in the
Non-Forest, Non-Developed Lands layer. .................................................................................... 39
Table 14. Stewardship potential on non-forested, non-developed lands in Kansas..................... 40
3/10/08
3 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Executive Summary
The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) evaluates the impact
made on the landscape over the last decade by the FSP and identifies the areas with the most
stewardship suitability to allow for strategic delivery of the FSP. The Kansas SAP consists of
two main parts: (1) An historical spatial database of stewardship plan tracts and (2) a fifteen
layer suitability analysis performed using geographic information systems (GIS). The GIS
portion includes twelve layers mandated by the USDA Forest Service and three additional data
layers deemed important by the Kansas Forest Service (KFS).
The KFS began the SAP process in September 2005 and finished the project in February 2008.
GIS services were performed by the Geographic Information Systems Spatial Analysis
Laboratory (GISSAL) in the Department of Geography at Kansas State University under contract
with the KFS. Historical stewardship plans (1992-2007) were provided to GISSAL by KFS as
paper documents. Most of these documents included maps, which served as the basis for
digitizing parcel and plan boundaries in a GIS and then stored in an ArcGIS personal
geodatabase. A total of 1,313 stewardship plans containing 2,796 parcels from across the State
of Kansas were added to the geodatabase. These plans represented 41,855 acres of land for
which stewardship plans had been developed. Approximately 50 past plans not added to the
historical database because no map was available in the original paper document to permit
accurate georeferencing.
Concurrently with the digitizing of stewardship plans, KFS and GISSAL worked together to
identify key data to be used in the multilayer suitability analysis. In addition to the twelve basic
layers required of all states, the Kansas SAP also incorporated information related to soils (i.e.,
tree and shrub suitability, agroforestry suitability) and forest productivity (based upon
topographic aspect and annual precipitation criteria). A weighted forest stewardship suitability
analysis was computed in a GIS using the twelve required and three ‘state optional’ data layers.
The weighting scheme applied was developed based on input from KFS field foresters and
program leaders.
Analysis Results:
Stewardship Capable Lands in Kansas:
•
•
•
There are approximately 50.6 million acres of land in Kansas capable of being
included in the Forest Stewardship Program.
Of those 50.6 million acres, approximately 3.9 million are forested.
There are a total of 41,855 stewardship plan acres in the state, representing less than
0.1% of the total stewardship capable lands in Kansas.
Stewardship Potential in Kansas:
•
3/10/08
Nearly 21 million acres (42%) of the total acres capable of stewardship in the state
was evaluated as having ‘high’ stewardship potential.
4 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
•
•
22.6 million acres (45%) of the total acres capable of stewardship was evaluated as
having ‘medium’ stewardship potential.
6.9 million acres (14%) of the total acres was evaluated as having ‘low’ stewardship
potential.
Discussion:
Stewardship potential is assessed for all private lands in the state, both forested and non-forested.
While the vast majority of lands in Kansas are held in private ownership, only 8% is forested.
Most forested lands are concentrated in the eastern third of Kansas (Figure 1). Though the total
number of acres capable of stewardship in Kansas exceeds 50.6 million acres, 46.7 million
(92%) are non-forested. Therefore, opportunities to implement agroforestry practices are a high
priority for Kansas. Considering that 90% of past and present stewardship plan acres in Kansas
are located in areas assessed to have medium to high stewardship potential, KFS has excelled at
focusing program delivery in the most appropriate areas within the state.
Figure 1. Private forest acres in Kansas as a percentage of total county area.
3/10/08
5 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
1. Stewardship Analysis Project (SAP) Introduction
The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) is authorized by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act
of 1978, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 2103A, and was designed to encourage private forest
landowners to manage their lands using professionally prepared forest stewardship plans (USDA
Forest Service 2005a). These plans consider and integrate forest resources, including timber,
wildlife and fish, water, aesthetics, and all associated resources to meet landowner objectives.
Nationally, the FSP has been successful in meeting the intent of the program, as more than 30
million acres of private forests have been placed under professional forestry management
(USDA Forest Service 2006).
Since inception, the FSP has been delivered and made available to non-industrial private forest
landowners on a ‘first-come, first-served’ basis. While this approach assists motivated
landowners in improving their forest resources, it fails to permit assessment of the program’s full
impact across the state. For example, it does not take into consideration the connectivity of
stewardship tracts, nor does it target landowners whose forest lands have greater need or
opportunity for professional expertise and who may not be aware of resources and programs
available to them. There has been no standard, or consistent, way to assess the impact of
stewardship plans on the forest resource as a whole, or in addressing resource issues significant
at the regional or national scales. Given limited program resources and a demand that exceeds
program capacity, FSP coordinators are under increasing pressure to ensure that the program is
implemented both efficiently, effectively, and in a manner that improves both the quantity and
quality of forest resources.
After over a decade of implementation, it is important to evaluate the impact the Forest
Stewardship Program has had on the state and nation, and to position the program to be
implemented in a strategic fashion to more effectively address future resource management
needs while still meeting landowner objectives.
The FSP SAP is built on a consistent national methodology that permits states some flexibility in
creating a tool to effectively, efficiently, and strategically deliver FSP to private forest
landowners. Through the FSP, private forest landowners can develop forest stewardship plans
that consider a wide range of natural resources on their property, incorporate short and long term
objectives for their property, and outline a schedule of possible activities and practices designed
to meet landowner objectives. Because SAP is intended to meet FSP objectives, it focuses on all
private lands eligible for the program, including lands that are currently forested or those that
have the potential to be reforested or afforested in the future.
The Forest Stewardship Program National Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service
2005a) states that:
“each State is required to identify, describe and spatially define important forest
resource areas where program outreach and activity will be emphasized. The
establishment of these program focus areas is intended to enable the efficient,
strategic use of limited program resources where they will address current State
3/10/08
6 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
resource management priorities and produce the most benefit in terms of
important forest resource values.”
In fiscal year (FY) 2001, the Northeastern Area, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and
Missouri began a pilot Forest Stewardship Program Spatial Analysis Project. The purpose of the
pilot was to create a better way to assess the impact of the Stewardship program to date, and to
strategically implement the program to more effectively address critical resource management
needs in the future. The Kansas SAP was designed and executed using Missouri and Colorado
as model states. Missouri (Missouri Department of Conservation 2004) and Colorado (Colorado
State Forest Service 2005) completed their methodology reports in 2004 and 2005, respectively
(see Figure 2 for current status of state SAP activities).
Figure 2. Availability of state SAP methodology reports and analyses on official SAP website (as
of March 7, 2008). The SAP report and analysis is complete and available for Alaska (not shown
on the map above).
In order to identify important forest resource – or program focus areas – in the state, Kansas has
chosen to participate in the FSP SAP Program. The KFS began the SAP process in September
2005 and completed the SAP in February 2008. GIS services were performed by the Geographic
Information Systems Spatial Analysis Laboratory (GISSAL) in the Department of Geography at
Kansas State University under contract with KFS.
3/10/08
7 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
2. SAP Implementation
2A. Statewide Suitability Assessment
The FSP SAP is comprised of two major components: A statewide assessment of stewardship
suitability and development of a historical spatial database of existing stewardship plans. The
statewide assessment examines all lands eligible for the FSP and considers both resource
richness across the state and known threats to the forest and other natural resources. The
statewide assessment is based on a compilation of spatial datasets that address the resources,
issues, and opportunities within Kansas. Each state is required to include twelve common
thematic layers, identified by the USDA Forest Service to be of importance, in the categories of
resource richness and resource threats:
•
Resource Richness – nine total thematic layers
o Riparian Corridors
o Forest Patch Size
o Priority Watersheds
o Private Forest Lands
o Public Drinking Water Supplies
o Threatened and Endangered Species
o Wetlands
o Slope
o Proximity to Public Lands
•
Resource Threats – three total thematic layers
o Development Risk
o Wildfire Assessment
o Forest Health
States are afforded the flexibility to include additional thematic layers to their statewide SAP
assessments in order to respond to state-specific issues, concerns, and resource opportunities. No
limit is placed on the number of such optional data layers, but each should be reliable, verifiable,
and necessary to fully assess the areas of potential benefit to be derived from the FSP in the state.
In Kansas, the selection of additional thematic layers was considered by the Rural Forestry
Coordinator in conjunction with the Kansas Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee
(KFSCC). As a result of these discussions, it was determined that the Kansas SAP process
would include the following optional layers:
•
State Optional Data – three total thematic layers
o Agroforestry
o Tree and Shrub Suitability
o Forest Productivity
Using the twelve common and three optional thematic data layers identified above, a weighted
overlay analysis was performed using GIS. Weights for each data layer used in the analysis were
based upon ranks assigned to each layer by the KFSCC in March 2007. Committee members
3/10/08
8 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
were asked to rank order each thematic layer from 1 through 14. Individual rankings were
compiled to determine the mean rank for the entire group. The inverse of these mean values –
minus 15 – were calculated then summed for all fifteen data layers. Individual layer weights
were determined by dividing the inverse minus mean value for each layer by the summed
differences then multiplying by 100 and rounding to the nearest integer value (Table 1). Results
of the weighted overlay analysis were then classified using a quantile scheme into categories of
low, medium, and high stewardship potential.
Thematic Layer
Slope
Forest Patches
Private Forests
Riparian Corridors
Priority Watersheds
T&E Species
Public Water Supply
Proximity to Public Lands
Wetlands
Agroforestry
Tree & Shrub Suitability
Forest Productivity
Forest Health
Development Risk
Wildfire Risk
Statewide Suitability
4%
12%
10%
14%
11%
6%
8%
3%
4%
7%
12%
4%
2%
2%
1%
Resource Richness
4%
13%
11%
15%
12%
6%
9%
3%
5%
9%
9%
4%
Resource Threats
46%
23%
23%
8%
Table 1. Weights applied to each thematic layer for the statewide suitability assessment.
2B. Stewardship Plan Database Development
The second component of the SAP is development of an historic database of stewardship plans in
Kansas. Plan tract boundaries are digitized into a ArcGIS personal geodatabase along with
relevant attribute information. These digitized plans were then combined with the statewide
suitability assessment to help determine the effectiveness of the FSP based on location of plans
and the percentage of plans within the high, medium, and low stewardship potential categories.
Used together, the statewide assessment of suitability and location of existing, and future, forest
stewardship plans can be used to identify areas of need and opportunity. Strategic delivery of the
FSP can be accomplished by targeting areas of high potential for stewardship opportunities.
3. SAP Component #1: Suitability Analysis
An ArcGIS personal geodatabase was created to store the twelve common and three optional
thematic data layers identified for use in the statewide suitability assessment. Importing the
layers into a geodatabase allowed for easy access and management of all data used. In addition,
ArcGIS ModelBuilder files used to create certain thematic layers and to run the final weighted
overlay analysis were also stored in the same geodatabase. Graphics depicting the ModelBuilder
models used in the Kansas SAP are included in Appendix A. Original source data used to create
layers used in the SAP analysis, along with metadata where available and compliant with
3/10/08
9 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
standards established by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC 1998), are also
available in a separate directory on the project DVD (See Appendix C).
3A. Resource Potential Data Layers
Layer #1: Riparian Corridors
National Rationale. This layer places increased importance on river and stream
corridors where ‘buffers’ of riparian vegetation buffers can improve streambank stability
and/or have a positive impact on the quality of water entering stream systems. The
acceptable buffer width to apply to stream centerlines in a GIS is 100 m (300 ft), or a
width dictated by locally-derived Best Management Practices. Appropriate data available
nationally includes the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) developed or distributed by
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Kansas Approach. Same as described in National Rationale section.
Methods. The riparian corridors dataset was created by using the dtl_riv.sdc dataset
distributed by ESRI (Data & Maps 2006 DVD set). This dataset represents detailed
rivers and streams in the U.S. and was created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in
cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and ESRI. The
dataset was first clipped to the geographic extent of Kansas. Next, a subset of streams
that met the criteria of having a name (NAME NOT LIKE “ “) and perennial streamflow
(FCODE_DESC = Stream/River: Hydrographic Category = Perennial) was extracted.
This subset of stream centerlines were buffered in a GIS using a uniform distance of 100
m regardless of stream order. The buffer layer was converted into a grid and reclassified
so that cells inside the 100 m buffer received a value of ‘1’ and all other cells a value of
‘0’.
Source Dataset Location/Name. Source Files/dtl_riv_ks.shp
Final Raster Dataset Name. RiparianCorridors
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: dtl_riv.sdc ; ESRI Data & Maps 2006
Date: 2004
Online Linkage: N/A. Comparable high-resolution (1:24,000) National
Hydrographic Dataset (NHD) data may be obtained from
http://nhdgeo.usgs.gov/viewer.htm
3/10/08
10 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Figure 3. Riparian Corridors thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
Layer #2: Priority Watersheds
National Rationale. This layer places an emphasis on landscapes that impact long-term
watershed function. Priority watersheds can be those that (1) are impaired or deforested,
but could be measurably improved through planning and active management, or (2) those
that are currently productive, but somehow threatened. States are to use a minimum of 8digit hydrologic unit codes for defining watershed boundaries. This layer should be
derived from state or region specific sources.
Kansas Approach. Watersheds in Kansas identified by the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment as “high priority” Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
watersheds due to one or more impairments (e.g., chemicals, fecal coliform bacteria, low
dissolved oxygen, eutrophication, nutrients, biological oxygen demand (BOD)) formed
the basis for this layer.
Methods. Source information was provided by the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE) in the form of a shapefile. HUC 14 scale watersheds identified as
a high priority TMDL watershed were converted into a raster grid and then reclassified
with a value of ‘1’. All other areas assigned a new value of ‘0’.
3/10/08
11 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Source Dataset Location/Name. Source Files/HiPriHUC14_091407.shp
Final Raster Dataset Name. PriorityWatersheds
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE)
Date: September 14, 2007
Online Linkage: N/A (Personal communication)
Figure 4. Priority Watersheds thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
Layer #3: Threatened and Endangered Species
National Rationale. This thematic layer identifies areas that provide habitat for
threatened and endangered species. Information should be derived from state or region
specific sources.
Kansas Approach. Rare, threatened, and endangered species information was obtained
from Kansas Biological Survey (KBS) in the form of the Kansas Natural Heritage
Inventory. This database consists of three coverages representing location records for
rare plant species, animal species, natural community types. A fourth dataset comprised
of 66 listed and candidate threatened and endangered species, also part of the Kansas
Natural Heritage Inventory database, was also used. Specific point locations for
3/10/08
12 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
observations were not included. Rather these locations exist within a randomly-buffered
polygon in which the observation took place.
Methods. The four vector data layers representing rare animal species, rare plant species,
rare natural communities, and threatened/endangered species were combined in a ‘union’
procedure to create a single statewide thematic layer. The vector data was converted into
a grid with occurrence areas coded as a value of ‘1’ and all other areas a value of ‘0’.
Source Dataset Location/Name. Source Files/knhi_animals; Source Files/knhi_plants;
Source Files/knhi_communities; Source Files/knhi_te
Final Raster Dataset Name. ThreatenedEndangered
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) and Kansas
Biological Survey (KBS)
Date: 1998
Online Linkage: http://www.KansasGIS.org
Figure 5. Threatened and Endangered Species thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
3/10/08
13 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Layer #4: Forest Patch Size
National Rationale. This thematic layer emphasizes forest patches of ecologically
and/or economically viable size. Each state or territory may determine a viable minimum
forest patch size or preferred patch size range. Within each state’s spectrum of patch sizes,
patches of intermediate size may present greatest potential to benefit from increased
stewardship activity. Appropriate data available nationally includes the National Land
Cover Dataset developed and distributed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Kansas Approach. Large continuous tracts of forest land are rare in Kansas, especially
in the semi-arid western part of the state. Where large tracts do exist, the benefit of
management activities can be maximized. The minimum patch size was set at 40 acres
(16 hectares). Given the objectives of the SAP program, 40 acres (a ¼ section) seemed
an appropriate size to complement the statewide scale of analysis as it is a common land
ownership unit. The Kansas GAP Land Cover database was selected as the source of
land cover information due to its detailed nature of its land cover classes and better
overall accuracy as compared to the 1992 NLCD product (Wardlow and Egbert 2003).
This dataset depicts forty-three land cover classes for the state of Kansas and was
generated using a two-stage hybrid classification of multitemporal Landsat Thematic
Mapper (TM) imagery acquired during the period 1995-2000.
.
Methods. To create the dataset, larger contiguous patches of forest needed to be isolated
and patches below the size threshold need to be removed. First, the Kansas GAP raster
data were reclassified so that forest types received a value of ‘1’ and all other types a
value of ‘0’ (see Table 2). Next, two road layers consisting of interstates, U.S. highways,
state roads, and non-state roads were buffered by 60 meters then converted to a grid.
This grid was then subtracted from the forested areas to create a raster layer of forest
patches. Patches were classified by size using the Region Group and Zonal Geometry
tools in ArcToolbox. Those over 40 acres in area were extracted using the Extract by
Attributes tool and saved as a separate raster.
Covertype_code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
50
51
52
55
Covertype_name
Maple-Basswood Forest
Oak-Hickory Forest
Post Oak-Blackjack Oak Forest
Pecan Floodplain Forest
Ash-Elm-Hackberry Floodplain Forest
Cottonwood Floodplain Forest
Mixed Oak Floodplain Forest
Bur Oak Floodplain Forest
Mixed Oak Ravine Woodland
Post Oak-Blackjack Oak Woodland
Cottonwood Floodplain Woodland
Deciduous Forest – Mined Land
Maple Floodplain Forest
Evergreen Forest – Disturbed Land
Deciduous Woodland
Table 2. Forest types from the Kansas GAP Land Cover database used in the Forest Patch Size thematic layer.
3/10/08
14 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Source Dataset Location/Name. Source Files/kslandcovgap; Source
Files/StateTrans.shp; Source Files/NonStateTrans.shp
Final Raster Dataset Name. ForestPatches40
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: Kansas GAP, Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS) Program
Date: March 2001
Online Linkage: http://www.KansasGIS.org
Source: Kansas State Highway System, Kansas Department of Transportation
(KDOT)
Date: July 2006.
Online Linkage: http://www.KansasGIS.org
Source: Kansas Non-State Road System, Kansas Department of Transportation
(KDOT)
Date: July 2006.
Online Linkage: http://www.KansasGIS.org
Figure 6. Forest Patch Size thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
3/10/08
15 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Layer #5: Public Water Drinking Supply
National Rationale. This thematic layer places importance on watersheds that drain into
public drinking water supply intake points. Information should be derived from state or
region specific sources.
Kansas Approach. Same as described in National Rationale section.
Methods. A point GIS file of public water supply (PWS) intake points was obtained
from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). Intake points were
selected and retained for further processing if they were of the type (STATUS DESC)
‘active/in use’, ‘emergency use’, or ‘standby source’. Intake points coded as ‘abandoned’,
‘duplicate’, ‘lost tag’, ‘non-PWS use’, ‘plugged source’, or ‘removed’ were not included.
Exact location of PWS sites were not used for the SAP analysis. Instead, sites meeting
the above attribute criteria were intersected with a HUC 14 watershed layer (Source
Files/HUC14Boundaries.shp)to identify those watersheds in which a public water supply
intake occurs. Such watersheds were converted into a raster and coded with a value of
‘1’ if containing an intake site, otherwise ‘0’.
Source Dataset Location/Name. Source Files/HUC14Boundaries.shp
Final Raster Dataset Name. PublicDrinkingWater
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: PWS Data, Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE).
Date: 2006.
Online Linkage: None, data layer is a restricted dataset and not available online.
Source: HUC Boundary 14-digit level, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation
(NRCS).
Date: Unavailable.
Online Linkage: www.KansasGIS.org
Comments. In accordance with KDHE data security policy, the public water drinking
supply source data layer is a restricted dataset and cannot be distributed with the SAP
deliverables. The feature geometries of the 14-digit HUC watershed data used here
corresponds to that of the current 12-digit system used contained the National Watershed
Boundary Dataset (WBD) under construction by NRCS. At the time of this publication,
the WBD for Kansas was still pending certification.
3/10/08
16 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Figure 7. Public Drinking Water Supply thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
Layer #6: Private Forested Lands
National Rationale. This thematic layer emphasizes private lands with existing forest
cover that are eligible for FSP benefits. Appropriate data available nationally includes
the National Land Cover Dataset developed and distributed by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS).
Kansas Approach. The Kansas GAP Land Cover database was selected as the source of
land cover information due to its detailed nature of its land cover classes and better
overall accuracy as compared to the 1992 NLCD product (Wardlow and Egbert 2003).
This dataset depicts forty-three land cover classes for the state of Kansas and was
generated using a two-stage hybrid classification of multitemporal Landsat Thematic
Mapper (TM) imagery acquired during the period 1995-2000.
Methods. Kansas GAP raster data were reclassified so that forest types received a value
of ‘1’ and all other types a value of ‘0’ (see Table 2).
Source Dataset Location/Name. Source Files/kslandcovgap
Final Raster Dataset Name. PrivateForests
3/10/08
17 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: Kansas GAP, Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS) Program.
Date: March 2001.
Online Linkage: http://www.KansasGIS.org
Figure 8. Private Forest Lands thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
Layer #7: Proximity to Public Lands
National Rationale. This thematic layer emphasizes areas that are permanently
protected (and managed) and contribute to a viably large, interconnected forest landscape.
This layer is based on the assumption that public lands are in a permanently protected
status, and is intended to include private lands in a permanently protected status (e.g.,
conservation easements). Information should be derived from state or region specific
sources.
Kansas Approach. Public lands were defined for Kansas to include all federal lands
(including military reservations, tribal lands, national grasslands, national wildlife refuges,
and lands managed by the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers),
state parks, state wildlife areas, state wildlife refuges, state fishing lakes, and preserves
and natural areas (own/operated by the Nature Conservancy, universities, and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service).
3/10/08
18 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Methods. Data used to create this thematic layer were acquired from the U.S. National
Map and the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP). Polygon features
representing protected lands were buffered using a distance of 800 m (½ mile). Table 3
lists each category of protected land incorporated in this layer. The buffered vector layer
was converted to raster format and reclassified to a new value of ‘1’, with all nonbuffered areas assigned a value of ‘0’.
Source File
fedlands.shp
Attribute Field
AGBUR
publands_ks.shp
MGT_UNIT
Attribute Value
DOD
BOR
BIA
FS
NPS
FWS
Audobon Society Preserve
BOR Reservoir Conservation Pool
City Nature Center
Colleges and Universities
Corps Park/Rec Area
Corps Project
Corps Conservation Pool
County Park
Energy Company
Experimental Area
Military Reservation
National Grasslands
National Preserve
National Wildlife Refuge
State Fishing Lake
State Fishing Lake and Wildlife
State Park
State Prairie Preserve
State Wildlife Area
State Wildlife Refuge
TNC Easement
TNC Preserve
University Natural Area
USFWS Natural Area
Table 3. Protected land categories (and source) used to develop the Proximity to Public Lands thematic layer.
Source Dataset Location/Name. Source Files/fedlands.shp; Source
Files/publands_ks.shp
Final Raster Dataset Name. ProximityPublicLand
3/10/08
19 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: U.S. National Map (Federal Lands and Indian Reservations).
Date: 2006.
Online Linkage: http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm
Source: Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (State Lands and Wildlife
Areas)
Date: February 2007.
Online Linkage: N/A (acquired via personal communication).
Figure 9. Proximity to Public Lands thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
Layer #8: Wetlands
National Rationale. This thematic layer identifies wetlands where planning and
management can achieve a higher degree of protection for purposes including water
quality and wildlife habitat. Appropriate data available nationally is produces or
distributed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Kansas Approach. The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) is incomplete for
Kansas (Figure 9). Because of this, it was supplemented with wetlands information
obtained from the Kansas GAP Land Cover database.
3/10/08
20 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Figure 10. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) polygons status map for Kansas (image courtesy of
the Kansas Geospatial Community Commons, www.kansasgis.org).
Methods. Data from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) for Kansas were combined
with the Kansas GAP Land Cover database to form a more comprehensive statewide
dataset. Wetland polygons from the NWI were selected if they met the criteria “TYPE =
Freshwater Emergent Wetland” or “TYPE = Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland”. The
resulting shapefile was then converted to a raster and reclassified so that the valid
wetland cells received a value of ‘1’ and all others a value of ‘0’. Similarly, the Kansas
GAP raster data were reclassified so that wetland land cover types (see Table 4) received
a value of ‘1’ and all other types a value of ‘0’. These two separate raster datasets were
then combined via addition in a raster calculation so that the result reflected wetland
types from both sources.
Source Dataset Location/Name. Source Files/NWI_poly.shp; Source
Files/kslandcovgap
Final Raster Dataset Name. Wetlands
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI).
Date: July 2006.
Online Linkage: http://www.KansasGIS.org
Source: Kansas GAP, Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS) Program.
Date: March 2001.
Online Linkage: http://www.KansasGIS.org
3/10/08
21 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Covertype_code
15
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Covertype_name
Buttonbrush (Swamp) Shrubland
Grass Playa Lake
Salt Marsh/Prairie
Spikerush Playa Lake
Playa Lake
Low or Wet Prairie
Freshwater Marsh
Bulrush Marsh
33
Cattail Marsh
38
Forb Playa Lake
70
Weedy Marsh
NVCS_Form
Semipermanently flooded cold-deciduous shrubland
Intermittently flooded temperate or subpolar grassland
Temporarily flooded temperate or subpolar grassland
Temporarily flooded temperate or subpolar grassland
Temporarily flooded temperate or subpolar grassland
Temporarily flooded temperate or subpolar grassland
Seasonally flooded temperate or subpolar grassland
Semipermanently flooded temperate or subpolar
grassland
Semipermanently flooded temperate or subpolar
grassland
Permanently flooded temperate or subpolar
hydromorphic rooted vegetation
Seasonally-flooded temperate or subpolar grassland
Table 4. Landcover types from the Kansas GAP Land Cover database used in the Wetlands thematic layer.
Figure 11. Wetlands thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
Layer #9: Slope
National Rationale. This thematic layer is intended as a proxy for forest timber or fiber
productivity potential and can be substituted with a more meaningful soils data layer if
available. Slope was chosen as nationally available proxy for timber or fiber productivity
3/10/08
22 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
because of its relationship to ease and feasibility for forest harvesting operations.
Determination of what constitutes low, medium, and high slope will be done on a stateby-state basis. Nationally available data includes digital elevation models comprising the
National Elevation Dataset (NED) developed and distributed by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS).
Kansas Approach. Same as described in National Rationale section.
Methods. Areas with a slope equal to or greater than 15% were extracted from 30 m
spatial resolution NED data and reclassified to a value of ‘1’, while all other areas
received a value of ‘0’.
Final Raster Dataset Name. Slope
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey (National Elevation Dataset).
Date: 1999.
Online Linkage: http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/
Figure 12. Slope thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
3/10/08
23 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
3B. Resource Threat Category
Layer #10: Forest Health
National Rationale. With information regarding forest health and the history of
traditional pests, this thematic layer places importance on areas where silvicultural
treatments can address risks to forest health. The USDA Forest Service produces and
distributes a nationally available data source.
Kansas Approach. Due to the lack of an existing statewide assessment of forest health
and/or forest pest distributions, the emphasis in Kansas was placed on counties that are
eligible to receive Enviromental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Forestland Health
funding.
Methods. As of October 2007, a total of 38 of 105 counties (36%) were eligible to
receive EQIP funds. All 38 counties are located in the eastern third of the state. A
feature class of Kansas counties was modified to include EQIP eligibility as an attribute
field. This vector file was converted to a raster such that EQIP eligible counties were
represented by a value of ‘1’ and ineligible counties a value of ‘0’. The ArcGIS Raster
Calculator was then used to multiple this temporary raster by the binary PrivateForests
(Layer #6) grid. The product resulted in private forest lands in EQIP eligible counties
receiving a value of ‘1’ and all other others a value of ‘0’.
Source Dataset Location/Name. Source Files/ks_eqip.shp
Final Raster Dataset Name. ForestHealth
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: Kansas Forest Service (EQIP Eligible Counties)
Date: October 2007.
Online Linkage: N/A (acquired via personal communication).
3/10/08
24 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Figure 13. Forest Health thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
Layer #11: Developing Areas
National Rationale. This thematic layer emphasizes areas projected to experience
increased housing development in the next 30 years. Increased management of private
forests can improve the likelihood that these lands will remain forested and continue to
provide forest values such as timber, wildlife habitat, and water quality. A nationally
available dataset, Housing Density Projections, has been produced by David Theobald at
Colorado State University.
Kansas Approach. Areas subject to development risk in Kansas were determined by
identifying watersheds where greater than 20 percent of the private forest resource is
projected to experience increased housing density by 2030.
Methods. Map data was acquired from the USFS Forests on the Edge (USDA Forest
Service 2005b) study which “seeks to improve understanding of the processes and
thresholds associated with increases in housing density in private forests and likely
effects on the contributions of those forests to timber, wildlife, and water resources.” A
hardcopy map of Kansas watersheds color-coded by the percent of private forest
projected to experience a shift from rural or exurban to urban by 2030 was downloaded
from the project website. A digital watershed GIS layer was then manually edited to
select the same watersheds portrayed on the map. The vector layer was converted into a
3/10/08
25 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
statewide grid and reclassified so developing areas returned a value of ‘1’ and all other
areas a value of ‘0’.
Source Dataset Location/Name. Source Files/ks_fote.shp
Final Raster Dataset Name. ForestHealth
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: Forests on the Edge (FOTE), U.S. Forest Service.
Date: May 2005.
Online Linkage: FOTE Maps, http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/fote/maps/#.
Figure 14. Developing Areas thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
Layer #12: Wildfire Assessment
National Rationale.
This thematic layer identifies areas where planning and
management are likely to reduce a relatively high risk of wildfire. Information should be
derived from state or region specific sources.
3/10/08
26 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Kansas Approach. The wildfire assessment layer was created by reclassifying the 2000
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) data for Kansas produced by the SILVIS lab at the
University of Wisconsin. Two types of WUI are identified: Intermix and interface.
Definitions for these types are based upon those originating in the Federal Register report
on WUI communities at risk from fire (Federal Register 66:751) and Tie and
Weatherford’s 2000 report to the Western Governor’s Association on WUI fire risk.
Intermix areas are those where housing and vegetation intermingle, while interface WUI
are areas with housing in the vicinity (1.5 mi) of contiguous wildland vegetation. In both
types housing, density must exceed 1 house per 16 ha (40 ac).
Methods. The WUI GIS coverage for Kansas was downloaded from the SILVA WUI
data FTP server. Fields and values selected for assessment were WUICODE00 = 24
(medium density interface), 25 (high density interface), 34 (medium density intermix),
and 35 (high density intermix). Polygons from the original WUI dataset were selected
using these attribute values and converted into a raster. Grid values of 24, 25, 34, and 35
were then reclassified to a value of ‘1’ with ‘NoData’ values being changed to ‘0’.
Source Dataset Location/Name. Source Files/ks_wui.shp
Final Raster Dataset Name. WildfireAssessment
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: Wildland-Urban Interface, SILVIS Lab, University of Wisconsin.
Date: 2005.
Online Linkage: Kansas Wildland-Urban Interface,
ftp://ftp.silvis.forest.wisc.edu/SILVIS/data/WUI00Coverages/kswui.tar.gz
Comments. Radeloff, V. C., R. B. Hammer, S. I Stewart, J. S. Fried, S. S. Holcomb, and
J. F. McKeefry. 2005. The Wildland Urban Interface in the United States. Ecological
Applications 15:799-805.
3/10/08
27 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Figure 15. Wildfire Assessment thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
3C. Optional Data Layers for Kansas
Layer #13: Agroforestry Suitability
Category. Resource Richness and Resource Threat
Kansas Approach. Agroforestry is a major element of forestry activities in Kansas.
Because of its importance, especially in the central and western regions of the state, the
Kansas State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee recommended that a thematic
layer be included that helps measure the suitability of locations for agroforestry activities
such as windbreaks.
Methods. The Kansas agroforestry layer was created using two source layers. The first
was Kansas GAP Landcover Database, which was used to extract cultivated lands (land
cover code: 44). Cultivated lands were reclassified to receive a value of ‘1’, while the rest
of the state was assigned a ‘0’ value. Next, a statewide soils feature class based on State
Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) digital data and the ‘wind erodibility index’ attribute
was compiled from individual county-level datasets. Polygons with a wind erodibility
index value equal to or greater than ‘87’ was selected. All soils meeting this criteria were
classified with a value of ‘1’. The ArcGIS Raster Calculator was then used to add the
cultivated lands and soils layers together. All cells summing to a value of ‘2’ (i.e.,
3/10/08
28 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
contained both cultivated lands and met the erodability criteria) were reclassified and
assigned a value of ‘1’, all other areas received a ‘0’value.
Source Dataset Location/Name. Source Files/kslandcovgap; Source
Files/wei_87plus.shp
Final Raster Dataset Name. AgroForestry
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS).
Date: December 2004.
Online Linkage: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov
.
Figure 16. Optional Agroforestry thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
Layer #14: Tree and Shrub Suitability
Category. Resource Richness
Kansas Approach. Agroforestry is a major element of forestry activities in Kansas.
Because of its importance, especially in the central and western regions of the state, the
Kansas State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee recommended that a thematic
3/10/08
29 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
layer be included that provides a measure of suitable soil characteristics that will sustain
the growth of native Kansas trees and shrubs.
Methods. This layer was derived from State Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) digital
data and the ‘Conservation Tree/Shrub Suitability Group (CTSG)’ attribute information.
A statewide vector soils layer was compiled from individual county-level datasets.
Polygons with the attribute of CTSG ‘1’ or ‘2’ were selected from the SSURGO dataset
then converted to grid format. The grid was reclassified so that areas of suitability group
1 or 2 received a value of ‘1’ and all other areas a value of ‘0’.
Source Dataset Location/Name. Source Files/ctsg_1_2.shp
Final Raster Dataset Name. TreeShrubSuitability
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS).
Date: December 2004.
Online Linkage: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov
Figure 17. Optional Tree and Shrub Suitability thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
3/10/08
30 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Layer #15: Forest Productivity
Category. Resource Richness
Kansas Approach. As one of the twelve common thematic layers identified for national
use, slope was intended to serve as a proxy for timber/fiber productivity. Given the
relatively flat Kansas landscape, the Kansas State Forest Stewardship Coordinating
Committee felt supplementing the required slope layer with one that combined a measure
of precipitation and topographic aspect would best achieve this purpose.
Methods. The USGS NED data was used to calculate aspect. Land areas with ‘north’,
‘northeast’, and ‘east’ facing slopes were extracted and assigned a reclassified value of
‘1’. A vector layer of average annual precipitation for Kansas was obtained and regions
of the state receiving 30 inches of precipitation or more per year queried. Selected
polygons were converted into a raster grid and reclassified so that areas receiving at least
30 inches of annual precipation were codes as ‘1’ and all other areas ‘0’. The aspect grid
was then multiplied by the precipitation grid in the ArcGIS Raster Calculator to identify
those areas meeting both criteria.
Source Dataset Location/Name. DEM (in SAP Geodatabase); Source
Files/ks_prism_precip.shp
Final Raster Dataset Name. ForestProductivity
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey (National Elevation Dataset).
Date: 1999.
Online Linkage: http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/
Source: PRISM Group, Oregon State University (Average Annual Precipitation,
1971-2000).
Date: 2006.
Online Linkage: http://prism.oregonstate.edu/
3/10/08
31 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Figure 18. Forest Productivity thematic layer used in the Kansas SAP.
3D. Analysis Mask
An analysis mask includes all grid cells within a study area extent that is included in a GIS
operation. Cells in locations outside of the analysis mask are coded with a value of ‘NoData’. In
Kansas, the analysis mask was comprised of areas that are not urban/developed areas, not in
federal or state ownership, not within the boundary of an incorporated city, and not open water.
The Analysis Mask layer is used as several of the environment settings in the GIS-based analysis,
and saves some model processing time by ‘eliminating’ ineligible areas during the weighted
overlay procedure.
Methods. Data used to create this thematic layer was acquired from the U.S. National
Map, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Polygon
features including federal lands, Native American reservations, state parks and wildlife
areas, and incorporated cities were each converted to grids and reclassified so that areas
not eligible for FSP funding received a value of ‘0’ and all other areas a value of ‘1’.
Additional data for developed areas and water features was obtained from the Kansas
GAP Landcover Database. Kansas GAP raster data were reclassified so that areas
classified as ‘Water’ (Covertype_Code = 81) and ‘Urban Areas’ (Covertype_Code = 82)
were reclassified as a value of ‘0’ and all other areas a value of ‘1’. The two reclassified
grids were then added together using the ArcGIS Raster Calculator to complete the
Analysis Mask layer. This summed grid was then reclassified again so that cells
3/10/08
32 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
representing areas eligible for the FSP received a value of ‘1’ and all other cells a value
of ‘NoData’.
Source Dataset Location/Name. Source Files/fedlands.shp; Source
Files/publands_ks.shp; Source Files/Tiger2000_Incorporated_Areas.shp; Source
Files/water_bodies.shp; Source Files/kslandcovgap
Final Raster Dataset Name. AnalysisMask
Abbreviated Metadata.
Source: U.S. National Map (Federal Lands and Indian Reservations)
Date: 2006
Online Linkage: http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm
Source: Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (State Lands and Wildlife
Areas)
Date: February 2007
Online Linkage: N/A (acquired via personal communication)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Incorporated City Boundaries)
Date: February 2002
Online Linkage: http://www.KansasGIS.org
Source:
Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS) Program (Kansas
Landuse/Landcover)
Date: March 2001
Online Linkage: http://www.KansasGIS.org
3/10/08
33 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Figure 19. Analysis Mask used in the Kansas SAP.
4. SAP Component #2: Stewardship Plan Digitizing
The second component of the SAP was development of an historic spatial database of
stewardship plans in Kansas. Original hardcopy stewardship plans were obtained from the
Kansas Forest Service main office and from each of the state’s six forest districts. Photocopied
maps and legal descriptions contained in the stewardship plans, along with digital
orthophotographs and digital raster graphics (DRGs) as background images in a GIS, provided
the necessary information for using a ‘heads-up’ digitizing method to create shapefiles
representing land ownership boundaries and stewardship plan parcels. A total of 1,313
stewardship plans, comprised of 1,313 land ownership polygons and 2,796 individual plan areas
were digitized. These plans represented 41,855 acres of land for which stewardship plans had
been developed. Approximately 50 stewardship plans were not digitized due to the original plan
having unreadable maps, lack of legal descriptions, or no plan information accompanying the
plan map.
Initially, two shapefiles were created through the heads-up digitizing process. Later, these
shapefiles were imported into a personal geodatabase conforming to the Web-DET Phase II
schema. The first shapefile, Parcel Boundary, represented the land ownership boundary for each
stewardship plan while the second shapefile, Parcels, contained one or more polygons within the
land ownership unit that contained FSP activities. Each shapefile was identified by the official
‘Control Number’ assigned by KFS to uniquely identify each stewardship plan in Kansas.
3/10/08
34 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
After digitizing, feature geometries from the Parcel Boundary shapefile were copied into the
‘ManagedArea’ feature class in the Web-DET geodatabase. The Web-DET geodatabase tables
for PLANINFORMATION, PROPERTYADDRESS, PROPERTYOWNER, and ACTIVITY
tables in the geodatabase were populated by importing data from a separate Microsoft Access
database maintained by KFS or entered manually using the Attribute Editor in ArcMap.
Similiarly, feature geometries from the Parcels shapefile were copied into the
‘ManagedAreaStand’ feature class in the Web-DET geodatabase. Data for the related tables
STANDEXISTING CONDITION and STANDDESIREDFUTURECONDITION were entered
manually using ArcMap’s Attribute Editor.
5. Analysis and Map Products
Completion of the SAP requires the initial statewide suitability analysis plus the creation of six
maps:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits
Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits and Existing Stewardship Plans
Forest Stewardship Potential on Private Forest Lands and Existing Stewardship Plans
Resource Richness
Resource Threats
Forest Stewardship Program Potential on Non-Forested – Non-Developed Lands and
Existing Stewardship Plans
Each map, explained below and presented in Appendix A, required additional GIS analyses and
statistical reports. The Kansas SAP analysis was performed using a grid spatial resolution of 30
m. Each cell represents an area of 900 m2, which is equivalent to 0.09 hectares or 0.22 acres.
Though the high level of detail used in the analysis resulted in model geoprocessing times of up
to several hours, it matched the minimum level of spatial resolution used in the development of
the twelve common and three optional SAP thematic data layers.
Map #1: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits
Map #KS1 contains the statewide forest stewardship suitability analysis for Kansas. The final
stewardship suitability scores, based on the weighted overlay analysis (see Table 1 for weights
used), ranged from 0.00 to 0.91. Scores were partitioned into the stewardship suitability
categories of high, medium, and low by using a quantile classification scheme (Table 5) which
subdivides data distributions into equal segments.
Accompanying the Map #1 is a table that compares the three categorical classes of stewardship
potential (high, medium, and low) with total stewardship capable lands on both an area and
percentage basis (Table 6). Table 6 was created using the ArcGIS tool ‘Tabulate Area’, with the
analysis mask (AnalysisMask) defining the zones and the stewardship potential raster layer
(sap_reclass) defining each value. The output from this process is a dBase (.dbf) table which
3/10/08
35 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
was edited in Microsoft Excel to perform needed calculations, including the conversion of area
units from square meters to acres.
Suitability Assessment Category
Low
Medium
High
Class Break Values (Range 0 to 1)
0.11
0.19
0.91
Table 5. Categories of ‘Forest Stewardship Suitability’ used in Map #1 and the
weighted overlay analysis values included in each class.
Stewardship
Potential
High
Medium
Low
Acres
3,583,209
317,474
0
% of Total
Forest
92
8
0
Stewardship Capable Lands
Acres
% of Total
Nonforest
17,412,318
37
22,297,271
48
6,890,699
15
Acres
Total
20,995,527
22,614,745
6,890,699
42
45
14
Table 6. Stewardship potential by category and acres for forest, nonforest, and total.
Map #2: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits and Existing Stewardship Plans
Map #2 is the statewide forest stewardship suitability analysis overlayed by existing forest
stewardship plans. In addition, another table (Table 7) appears, this one comparing stewardship
plan acres to total acres capable of stewardship, including a breakdown of stewardship plan acres
by the three stewardship potential classes.
Table 7 was created using the ‘Tabulate Area’ tool with stewardship plans (ManagedAreaStands)
defining the zone and sap_reclass defining the values.
Acres Capable of Stewardship
Stewardship Plan Acres
Stewardship Plan vs. Acres Capable of Stewardship (%)
Low
6,890,699
1,153
0.00
Stewardship Potential
Medium
High
22,614,745 20,995,527
3,709
33,767
0.00
0.18
Total
50,500,971
38,629
0.08
Table 7. Comparison of stewardship plan acres to total acres capable of stewardship in Kansas.
It is important to note that, at the time this analysis was completed, the total acreage accounted
for in the stewardship plan database was 41,855 acres. After conversion of the plan polygons to
raster format – necessary to determine the number of plan acres in each of the three stewardship
potential classes – 10 acres were ‘lost’. Of the remaining 41,845 acres, 3,216 acres were written
for plans that fell into the analysis mask created for this project.
3/10/08
36 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Map #3: Forest Stewardship Potential on Private Forest Lands and Existing Stewardship
Plans
Map #3 illustrates stewardship potential for private forest lands only. The private forests
thematic layer (PRIVATEFORESTS) was used. In this map, the Analysis Mask legend item was
changed to ‘Non-Private Forest/Mask’ to best represent the white areas on the map.
A new table (Table 8) of forest stewardship potential on private lands was created with the
‘Tabulate Area’ tool. The private forest layer (PRIVATEFORESTS) defined the zones, while
sap_reclass defined the values.
Acres Capable of Stewardship
Stewardship Plan Acres
Stewardship Plan Acres as a % of Private Forest Acres
Stewardship Potential of Private Forest Lands
Low
Medium
High
Total
0
317,474
3,583,209 3,900,683
0
282
25,472
25,753
0
0.09
0.71
0.66
Table 8. Stewardship potential on private forest lands in Kansas.
Map #4: Resource Richness
Map #4 is an aggregate of the nine common resource potential thematic layers and the three
optional layers (Agroforestry, Tree and Shrub Suitability, Forest Productivity) assessed in
Kansas. A separate weighted overlay analysis using these layers was performed, assigning the
same relative weight to each layer as that which was assigned for the final SAP suitability
analysis. The final resource richness scores, based on the weighted overlay analysis (see Table 1
for weights used), ranged from 0.00 to 0.73. Scores were partitioned into the resource richness
categories of high, medium, and low by using a quantile classification scheme (Table 9) which
subdivides data distributions into equal segments.
Resource Richness Category
Low
Medium
High
Class Break Values (Range 0 to 1)
0.12
0.21
0.73
Table 9. Categories of ‘Resource Richness’ used in Map #4 and the
weighted overlay analysis values included in each class.
Accompanying Map #4 is a table that compares the number of acres falling into each of the three
categorical classes measuring the magnitude of resource richness (high, medium, and low) with
total stewardship capable lands on a percentage basis (Table 10).
3/10/08
37 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Richness Acres
Stewardship Plan Acres
Richness Acres vs. Total Stewardship Acres (%)
Low
14,975,106
3,879
0.03
Resource Richness
Medium
High
18,560,796 12,962,307
8,092
26,112
0.04
0.20
Total
46,498,209
38,083
0.08
Table 10. Resource richness acres in Kansas by category and as a percentage of total stewardship acres.
Map #5: Resource Threats
Map #5 is an aggregate of the three common thematic layers from the Resource Threats category
and the one optional layer (Agroforestry) assessed in Kansas. A separate weighted overlay
analysis using these layers was performed, assigning the same relative weight to each layer as
that which was assigned for the final SAP suitability analysis. The final resource threat scores,
based on the weighted overlay analysis (see Table 1 for weights used), ranged from 0.00 to 1.00.
Scores were partitioned into the resource threat categories of high, medium, and low by using a
quantile classification scheme (Table 11) which subdivides data distributions into equal
segments.
Resource Threats Category
Low
Medium
High
Class Break Values (Range 0 to 1)
0.31
0.46
1.00
Table 11. Categories of ‘Resource Threats’ used in Map #5 and the
weighted overlay analysis values included in each class.
Accompanying Map #5 is a table that compares the number of acres falling into each of the three
categorical classes measuring the magnitude of resource threat (high, medium, and low) with
total stewardship capable lands on a percentage basis (Table 12).
Threat Acres
Stewardship Plan Acres
Threat Acres vs. Total Stewardship Acres (%)
Low
3,124,374
15,519
0.50
Resource Threats
Medium
High
1,664 13,731,679
0
12,500
0.00
0.09
Total
16,857,717
28,019
0.17
Table 12. Resource threat acres in Kansas by category and as a percentage of total stewardship acres.
Map #6: Forest Stewardship Program Potential on Nonforested – Nondeveloped Lands and
Existing Stewardship Plans
Map #6 illustrates forest stewardship potential on all stewardship capable lands that were not
included in Map #3 (Forest Stewardship Potential on Private Forest Lands and Existing
Stewardship Plans). The nonforest – nondeveloped grid (NONFORNONDEV) is combined by
selecting the appropriate Kansas GAP landcover/landuse values (Table 13) and removing land
areas that are not suitable for forest stewardship (AnalysisMask).
3/10/08
38 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Covertype_code
12
14
15
17
18
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
38
40
41
42
44
60
70
71
Covertype_name
Sandsage Shrubland
Willow Shrubland
Buttonbrush (Swamp) Shrubland
Tallgrass Prairie
Sand Prairie
Western Wheatgrass Prairie
Sandstone Glade/Prairie
Mixed Prairie
Alkali Sacaton Prairie
Shortgrass Prairie
Grass Playa Lake
Salt Marsh/Prairie
Spikerush Playa Lake
Playa Lake
Low or Wet Prairie
Freshwater Marsh
Bulrush Marsh
Cattail Marsh
Forb Playa Lake
Non-Native Grassland
CRP (Conservation Reserve Program)
Salt Cedar or Tamarisk Shrubland
Cultivated Land
Mixed Prairie Disturbed
Weedy Marsh
Weedy Upland
Table 13. Landuse/Landcover types from the Kansas GAP Land Cover database used in the Non-Forest, NonDeveloped Lands layer.
3/10/08
39 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Figure 20. Non-Forest, Non-Developed Lands layer used in the Kansas SAP.
A new table (Table 14) of forest stewardship potential on nonforest and nondeveloped lands was
created with the ‘Tabulate Area’ tool with the NONFORNONDEV grid defining zones and
sap_reclass defining values.
Acres Capable of Stewardship
Stewardship Plan Acres
Stewardship Plan Acres as a % of Non-Forested/NonDeveloped Acres
Stewardship Potential of Non-Forested Lands
Low
Medium
High
Total
6,890,699 22,297,271 17,412,318 46,600,288
1,153
3,427
8,296
12,876
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.03
Table 14. Stewardship potential on non-forested, non-developed lands in Kansas.
6. Update Cycle and Future Uses of the Data
To ensure continued effectiveness in FSP strategic delivery, both components of the SAP should
be updated. Use of Web-DET to enter FSP plan information will provide for both a continuous
and automatic updating of Kansas’ stewardship plan database. The forest stewardship potential
dataset and weighted overlay analysis should be re-evaluated as more current and improved
spatial data sources become available and/or as KFS priorities or resource issues evolve.
3/10/08
40 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
7. References
Colorado State Forest Service. December 2005. Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Methodology Report for Colorado. http://www.fs.fed.us/na/sap/products/CO/COmethdology.pdf (Last accessed January 28, 2008).
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 1998. Content standard for digital geospatial
metadata (revised June 1998), FGDC-STD-001-1998. Federal Geographic Data Committee.
Washington, D.C.
Missouri Department of Conservation. September 2004. Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis
Project – Missouri Methodology. http://www.fs.fed.us/na/sap/products/MO/MO-methdology.pdf
(Last accessed January 28, 2008).
Radeloff, V. C., R. B. Hammer, S. I Stewart, J. S. Fried, S. S. Holcomb, and J. F. McKeefry.
2005. The Wildland Urban Interface in the United States. Ecological Applications 15:799-805.
USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Forest Stewardship Program National Standards and Guidelines,
2nd Edition. http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/library/fsp_standards&guidelines.pdf (last accessed
January 28, 2008).
USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Forests on the Edge: Housing Development on America’s
Private Forests. http http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/fote/fote-6-9-05.pdf (last accessed January
28, 2008).
USDA Forest Service. 2006. The Forest Stewardship Program – Spatial Analysis Project (.
http://www.fs.fed.us/na/sap/downloads/sap-brief-02-06.pdf (last accessed January 28, 2008).
Wardlow, B.D. and Egbert, S.L. 2003. A Comparative Analysis of the GAP and NLCD Land
Cover Data Sets for Kansas. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 69(12): 13871397.
3/10/08
41 of 49
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Appendix A: Kansas SAP Maps
Map 1: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits – Kansas
Map 2: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits and Existing Stewardship
Plans - Kansas
Map 3: Forest Stewardship Potential on Private Forest Lands
Map 4: Resource Richness - Kansas
Map 5: Resource Threats – Kansas
Map 6: Forest Stewardship Potential on Non-Forested Lands - Kansas
3/10/08
42 of 49
Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits
Kansas
Stewardship Potential
Low
Medium
High
Without Potential or Mask
District Boundary
County Boundary
0
10
20
40
Miles
³
Date: March 2008
Data Layer: sap_reclass
File Name: Map1.mxd
Projection: UTM NAD 83 Z14 North
Map by: GISSAL, Kansas State Univ
www.kansasforests.org
KANSAS STATE FORESTER
Ray Aslin
RURAL FORESTRY
PROGRAM COORDINATOR
Robert Atchison
WEIGHTING SCHEME BY LAYER:
14%
12%
12%
11%
10%
08%
07%
06%
04%
04%
04%
02%
02%
03%
01%
Riparian Corridors
Tree & Shrub Suitability
Forest Patches (40 Acres)
Priority Watersheds
Private Forests
Public Drinking Water Supply
Agroforestry
Threatened/Endangered Species
Forest Productivity
Wetlands
Slope
Development Risk
Forest Health
Proximity to Public Lands
Wildfire Assessment
PROGRAM CONTACT:
1
Stewardship Potential
High
Medium
Low
Acres
3,583,209
317,474
0
Stewardship Capable Lands
% of Total
% of Total
Forest
Nonforest
Acres
92
17,412,318
37
8
22,297,271
48
0
6,890,699
15
Acres
20,995,527
22,614,745
6,890,699
Total %
42
45
14
Robert Atchison
Rural Forestry Coordinator
Kansas Forest Service
2610 Claflin Road
Manhattan, KS 66502-2798
atchison@k-state.edu
Tel: 785-532-3310
Fax: 785-532-3305
Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits and
Existing Stewardship Plans
Stewardship Potential
Low
Medium
High
Without Potential or Mask
Stewardship Plans
District Boundary
County Boundary
0
10
20
40
Miles
³
Date: March 2008
Data Layer: sap_reclass, parcels
File Name: Map2.mxd
Projection: UTM NAD 83 Z14 North
Map by: GISSAL, Kansas State Univ
www.kansasforests.org
KANSAS STATE FORESTER
Ray Aslin
RURAL FORESTRY
PROGRAM COORDINATOR
Robert Atchison
WEIGHTING SCHEME BY LAYER:
14%
12%
12%
11%
10%
08%
07%
06%
04%
04%
04%
02%
02%
03%
01%
Riparian Corridors
Tree & Shrub Suitability
Forest Patches (40 Acres)
Priority Watersheds
Private Forests
Public Drinking Water Supply
Agroforestry
Threatened/Endangered Species
Forest Productivity
Wetlands
Slope
Development Risk
Forest Health
Proximity to Public Lands
Wildfire Assessment
PROGRAM CONTACT:
2
Acres Capable of Stewardship
Stewardship Plan Acres
Stewardship Plan vs. Acres Capable of Stewardship (%)
Low
6,890,699
1,153
0.00
Stewardship Potential
Medium
High
22,614,745
20,995,527
3,709
33,767
0.00
0.18
Total
50,500,971
38,629
0.08
Robert Atchison
Rural Forestry Coordinator
Kansas Forest Service
2610 Claflin Road
Manhattan, KS 66502-2798
atchison@k-state.edu
Tel: 785-532-3310
Fax: 785-532-3305
Forest Stewardship Potential on Private Forest Lands
Kansas
Stewardship Potential
Low
Medium
High
Without Potential or Mask
Stewardship Plans
District Boundary
County Boundary
0
10
20
40
Miles
³
Date: March 2008
Data Layer: PvtForSAP, parcels
File Name: Map3.mxd
Projection: UTM NAD 83 Z14 North
Map by: GISSAL, Kansas State Univ
www.kansasforests.org
KANSAS STATE FORESTER
Ray Aslin
RURAL FORESTRY
PROGRAM COORDINATOR
Robert Atchison
WEIGHTING SCHEME BY LAYER:
14%
12%
12%
11%
10%
08%
07%
06%
04%
04%
04%
02%
02%
03%
01%
Riparian Corridors
Tree & Shrub Suitability
Forest Patches (40 Acres)
Priority Watersheds
Private Forests
Public Drinking Water Supply
Agroforestry
Threatened/Endangered Species
Forest Productivity
Wetlands
Slope
Development Risk
Forest Health
Proximity to Public Lands
Wildfire Assessment
PROGRAM CONTACT:
3
Acres Capable of Stewardship
Stewardship Plan Acres
Stewardship Plan Acres as a % of Private Forest Acres
Stewardship Potential of Private Forest Lands
Low
Medium
High
Total
0
317,474
3,583,209
3,900,683
0
282
25,472
25,753
0
0.09
0.71
0.66
Robert Atchison
Rural Forestry Coordinator
Kansas Forest Service
2610 Claflin Road
Manhattan, KS 66502-2798
atchison@k-state.edu
Tel: 785-532-3310
Fax: 785-532-3305
Resource Richness - Kansas
Resource Richness
Low
Medium
High
Analysis Mask
No Assessed Richness
District Boundary
County Boundary
0
10
20
40
Miles
³
Date: March 2008
Data Layer: richness_rc
File Name: Map4.mxd
Projection: UTM NAD 83 Z14 North
Map by: GISSAL, Kansas State Univ
www.kansasforests.org
KANSAS STATE FORESTER
Ray Aslin
RURAL FORESTRY
PROGRAM COORDINATOR
Robert Atchison
THEMATIC DATA INCLUDED:
Riparian Corridors
Forest Patches (40 Acres)
Priority Watersheds
Private Forest Lands
Public Drinking Water Supply
Threatened/Endangered Species
Wetlands
Slope
Proximity to Public Lands
Agroforestry
Tree and Shrub Suitability
Forest Productivity
PROGRAM CONTACT:
4
Richness Acres
Stewardship Plan Acres
Richness Acres vs. Total Stewardship Acres (%)
Low
14,975,106
3,879
0.03
Resource Richness
Medium
High
18,560,796
12,962,307
8,092
26,112
0.04
0.20
Total
46,498,209
38,083
0.08
Robert Atchison
Rural Forestry Coordinator
Kansas Forest Service
2610 Claflin Road
Manhattan, KS 66502-2798
atchison@k-state.edu
Tel: 785-532-3310
Fax: 785-532-3305
Resource Threats - Kansas
Resource Threats
Low
Medium
High
Analysis Mask
No Assessed Threat
District Boundary
County Boundary
0
10
20
40
Miles
³
Date: March 2008
Data Layer: threats_rc
File Name: Map5.mxd
Projection: UTM NAD 83 Z14 North
Map by: GISSAL, Kansas State Univ
www.kansasforests.org
KANSAS STATE FORESTER
Ray Aslin
RURAL FORESTRY
PROGRAM COORDINATOR
Robert Atchison
THEMATIC DATA INCLUDED:
Wildifire Assessment
Housing Density
Forest Health
Agroforestry
PROGRAM CONTACT:
5
Threat Acres
Stewardship Plan Acres
Threat Acres vs. Total Stewardship Acres (%)
Low
3,124,374
15,519
0.50
Resource Threats
Medium
High
1,664
13,731,679
0
12,500
0.00
0.09
Total
16,857,717
28,019
0.17
Robert Atchison
Rural Forestry Coordinator
Kansas Forest Service
2610 Claflin Road
Manhattan, KS 66502-2798
atchison@k-state.edu
Tel: 785-532-3310
Fax: 785-532-3305
Forest Stewardship Potential on Non-Forested Lands
Kansas
Stewardship Potential
Low
Medium
High
Without Potential or Mask
Private Forest
Stewardship Plans
District Boundary
County Boundary
0
10
20
40
Miles
³
Date: March 2008
Data Layer: nforndev, parcels
File Name: Map6.mxd
Projection: UTM NAD 83 Z14 North
Map by: GISSAL, Kansas State Univ
www.kansasforests.org
KANSAS STATE FORESTER
Ray Aslin
RURAL FORESTRY
PROGRAM COORDINATOR
Robert Atchison
GAP COVER TYPES INCLUDED:
Sandsage Shrubland, Willow Shrubland
Buttonbrush (Swamp) Shrubland
Tallgrass Prairie; Sand Prairie
Western Wheatgrass Prairie
Sandstone Glade/Prairie; Mixed Prairie
Alkali Sacaton Prairie; Shortgrass Prairie
Grass Playa Lake; Salt Marsh/Prairie
Spikerush Playa Lake; Playa Lake
Low or Wet Prairie; Freshwater Marsh
Bulrush Marsh; Cattail Marsh
Forb Playa Lake; Non-Native Grassland
CRP; Salt Cedar or Tamarisk Shrubland
Cultivated Land; Mixed Prairie Disturbed
Weedy Marsh; Weedy Upland
PROGRAM CONTACT:
6
Acres Capable of Stewardship
Stewardship Plan Acres
Stewardship Plan Acres as a % of NonForested/Non-Developed Acres
Stewardship Potential of Non-Forested Lands
Low
Medium
High
Total
6,890,699
22,297,271
17,412,318
46,600,288
1,153
3,427
8,296
12,876
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.03
Robert Atchison
Rural Forestry Coordinator
Kansas Forest Service
2610 Claflin Road
Manhattan, KS 66502-2798
atchison@k-state.edu
Tel: 785-532-3310
Fax: 785-532-3305
Forest Stewardship Analysis Project Methodology Report for Kansas
Appendix B: Contents of Kansas SAP DVD
To Use:
Insert the DVD into the DVD drive to access data, maps and map documents, and other project
documents. If installed on a personal computer, copy the DVD contents to the root directory of
the local drive. The ArcMap documents contained in this DVD rely upon relative file paths to
work correctly.
DVD File Structure:
ForestStewardshipProgram
- Documents and Presentations
- Map Products
- Source Files
- workspace
- KS_SAP_GDB
Documents and Presentations
Contains the final Kansas SAP Methodology Report (PDF format) as well as other relevant
presentations (Powerpoint slides) made during the completion of the Kansas SAP project.
Map Products
Contains all six required SAP maps in both ArcMap and Adobe PDF formats. The ArcMap
documents read data contained in other folders of the DVD.
Source Files
Contains original, or source, data layers used in the SAP Analysis.
Workspace
Contains intermediate data layers created in the process of generating basic input data layers.
Only select intermediate data were retained to minimize the requirement for storage space.
KS_SAP_GDB
A personal geodatabase containing the final input data layers and results. The KS_SAP.idb
folder contains the raster data in the KS_SAP geodatabase, and must be present in order to view
those datasets.
3/10/08
49 of 49