Oregon
Spatial Analysis Project
Oregon Department of Forestry
June 2006
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3
• Background............................................................................................................................................. 3
• History of Forest Stewardship and Spatial Analysis Projects................................................................. 4
• Vision for Spatial Analysis in implementing the National Forest Stewardship Program ........................ 5
Spatial Analysis Project................................................................................................ 7
•
•
•
•
Oregon’s Non-Industrial Private Forest Ownership................................................................................ 7
Selection and Weighting of Data Layers ................................................................................................ 8
o Additional data layers....................................................................................................................... 8
o Weighting ......................................................................................................................................... 9
o Data Layer Descriptions................................................................................................................... 9
ƒ Opportunities ............................................................................................................................. 9
— Riparian Corridors ............................................................................................................... 9
— Conservation Opportunity Areas......................................................................................... 9
— Priority Zoning ................................................................................................................... 10
— Forest Patch Size.............................................................................................................. 10
— Public Water Supply Areas ............................................................................................... 10
— Private Individual Forestland Activity ................................................................................ 11
— Forest Soils Capability ...................................................................................................... 11
— Threatened & Endangered Species.................................................................................. 11
— Proximity to Public/Industrial Forestland........................................................................... 11
— Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 11
— Topography ....................................................................................................................... 11
ƒ Threats..................................................................................................................................... 12
— Wildfire Risk ...................................................................................................................... 12
— Insect and Diseases Risk.................................................................................................. 12
— Development – Community Interface................................................................................ 12
Management Planning Data ................................................................................................................. 13
Spatial Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 14
o SAP Process .................................................................................................................................. 14
ƒ Non Industrial Private Lands Mask.......................................................................................... 14
ƒ GIS Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 15
ƒ Landowner Management Plan Activities ................................................................................. 15
o Prioritization and Existing Management Plans .............................................................................. 16
ƒ Forest Stewardship on Non-Forest Lands............................................................................... 16
ƒ Forest Stewardship on Non-Industrial Private Forest Lands................................................... 16
Assessment of Spatial Analysis ................................................................................ 17
•
•
•
Spatial Analysis as a Management Tool .............................................................................................. 18
Suitability of USDA-FS Northeastern Area Protocols........................................................................... 19
o Weighting ....................................................................................................................................... 19
o Non-forest, Non-developed............................................................................................................ 20
o Federal Forests .............................................................................................................................. 20
Recommendations for Modifying Northeastern Area Protocols ........................................................... 21
o Regional Priorities .......................................................................................................................... 21
o Assessment of Non-Forest Lands.................................................................................................. 21
o Analysis of Data by Forest Sectors................................................................................................ 22
Summary...................................................................................................................... 22
Appendices.................................................................................................................. 23
1. National Land Cover Database ............................................................................................................ 24
2. Tables ................................................................................................................................................... 27
3. Maps
1: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits on Non-industrial Private Lands
2: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits and Existing Management Plan
3: Forest Stewardship Program Potential on Non-industrial Private Forest Lands and Existing
Management Plans
4: Resource Richness
5: Resource Threats
6: Forest Stewardship Potential on Non-forest, Non-developed Lands
7: Regional Map of Pudding/Molalla Watershed
8: Oregon Forest Land Ownership
Executive Summary
The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) along with three other Western US states
were provided USDA-Forest Service grants to test the value of spatial analysis projects
that used a set of protocols established by the Forest Service’s Northeastern Area and
partnering state forestry agencies. This report provides the findings of Oregon’s
analysis, assessment of using the established Northeastern protocols in the Pacific
Northwest, and recommendations for modifying the protocols to better fit Oregon’s
conditions and issues.
This GIS analysis project has four primary goals: 1) to better understand and prioritize
the relative importance of non-industrial private (NIP) lands, 2) to identify the location of
past management planning and evaluate the locations of these plans in relationship to
the newly defined priority areas, 3) to use the findings to help direct future FSP efforts,
and 4) evaluate the appropriateness of using a set of protocols established in the
Northeastern United States. ODF recognizes additional benefits beyond meeting these
goals. Spatial analysis can assist in managing its full Private Forest Program and can
help as an analytical tool when addressing forest policy issues.
A national objective is to have a country wide analysis completed state by state.
Participating states are being asked to use a given set of 11 data layer themes and to
follow an establish set of procedures and standards for displaying results. States have
the freedom to add additional GIS data layers needed to describe local conditions, and
to weight each data layer to best reflect is level of importance. Oregon used three
additional data layers: NIPF Activities, Conservation Opportunity Areas, and Soil
Productivity. The standard data layers themes include: Riparian Corridors, Forest
Patches, Public Water Supply Areas, Priority Watersheds, Threatened & Endangered
Species, Proximity to Public Forestlands, Wetlands, Topographic, Wildfire Risk, Insect
and Disease Risks, and Development Risk.
ODF worked with the Oregon Forestland Coordinating Group, its Forest Stewardship
committee, in establishing weighting factors for each data layer. These data layers and
weighting factors focus on NIPF issues.
The analysis provides a priority value for each 300 by 300 foot cell (2.07 acres) of NIP
lands across the state. These cells were then grouped into high, medium, or low
categories. NIP land was identified through a process of elimination. First, all
forestland was identified along with other private land capable of growing trees and not
developed. Next, public and industrial forests were removed. What remain were nonindustrial private forests and non-forested/non-developed (agricultural) lands.
A management plan layer of Forest Stewardship and Tree Farm plans was digitized
from existing databases, County Assessor digital tax lot information, and local field
forester input.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
1
07/10/2006
The GIS analysis is displayed in a set of seven maps and associated tables. Results of
the study show just over 21 percent of Oregon NIPF lands are covered by a multiresource management plan. Forty six percent of the plans and 22 percent of the NIPF
plan acres are on High Priority lands; 47 percent of the plans and 29 percent of the
NIPF acres are on Medium. Just eight percent of the plans are on Low Priority lands,
but these plans represent 49 percent of the acres under management plans.
The spatial analysis strategy developed in the Northeastern U.S. has a lot of value for
other states. In addition, their approach of developing flexibility unto the process to
allow for the varying conditions and issues across the county will provide a more
accurate picture nationally and make this tool more valuable locally.
Oregon discovered three areas where the Northeastern protocols don’t fit conditions
and issues in Oregon. A single state-wide weighting strategy is problematic for a state
with diverse forest and social conditions. The value of weighting also becomes an issue
as additional data layers are added to the analysis. Each added layer reduces the
significance of individual layer’s weighting.
The second area where Oregon’s conditions don’t fit well is in evaluating nonforested/non-developed private lands. The Northeastern protocol lists these farm lands
as potential forestland, but Oregon does not have the conversion of farm to forest as an
objective.
The third area where the provided protocols don’t work well is in assigning a value to
owning forestland near federal forests. The model has this as a positive, but while there
are many areas in Oregon where this is true, there are also many other areas where
proximity to federal forests in a negative.
ODF has three recommendations with regards to developing a national set of
standards/protocols for spatial analysis. They are: 1) allow for sub-state weighting of
data layers to more accurately identify priority forestlands, 2) have the evaluation of
agricultural lands as optional, and 3) design a multi-phased analysis process that first
identifies the state or sub-state economic, environmental, and social importance of NIPF
forestland and then combines the three sectors into a one weighting according to each
sector’s importance at the level being studied.
In summary, spatial analysis is a great tool to both better understanding issues facing
NIPF landowners, and to be more effective in addressing identified natural resource
issues. The Forest Service’s Northeast Area and partnering states have provided a
valuable service to the rest of the nation for their initial efforts. With states across the
country facing different conditions and issue, it will take additional time and work to
establish a national protocol for using spatial analysis to manage FSP and other
landowner assistance programs at both the state and national level.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
2
07/10/2006
Introduction
USDA-Forest Service and state forestry agencies have a long standing partnership that
began in the late 1940s promoting the protection and improvement of private forestland.
Current efforts are defined in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 and have
the Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) of 1990 as the primary program for assisting
family and other non-industrial forest landowners. The focus of this Spatial Analysis
project is to assist the Forest Service and state forestry agencies in the administering
and monitoring of FSP, but this analysis is part of a rapidly growing use of Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) to improve the understanding and management of natural
resources, and can be used to support the broader goals of supporting sustainable
forest management on private forest lands.
A national spatial analysis has merit, and the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF)
fully supports a national spatial analysis effort. FSP has been very successful as a
national program in promoting sustainable forest management. Comparing today’s
national and state strategies for assisting NIPF landowners with those of 1990 when
FSP was introduced demonstrates the value of the program. Multi-resource
management planning, the hallmark of FSP, is now an accepted standard. Today, few
think solely of timber production when considering forest planning. Efforts such as
spatial analysis can strengthen FSP and other assistance efforts, and benefit
landowners, states, and the nation.
Definitions: For this report, the terms “family forest landowners” and “non-industrial
private forest (NIPF) landowners” are interchangeable. For Oregon the term “nonforest/non-developed” land primarily describe agricultural land; and therefore, the two
are used interchangeably. “Non-industrial Private (NIP)” represents both NIPF and
agricultural lands. NIPF landowners are defined as individuals, partnerships and
privately held corporations that have less than 25 percent of their income coming from a
primary forest products milling facility, and do not employ a professional forestry staff.
Landowners with more than 5,000 acres were identified and then individually classified
as industrial or non-industrial with the assistance of local ODF foresters. (It takes
significantly more forested acres in Eastern Oregon’s lower site class areas than in
Western Oregon to support a family.) Forestland has been identified using the National
Land Cover Database (NLCD) (Appendix 1). The Oregon Forestland Coordinating
Group (OFCG) serves as the state’s Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee.
Background
The USDA-Forest Service Northeast Area, in partnership with four state forestry
agencies, developed a GIS process for mapping lands eligible for the FSP, prioritizing
them, and overlaying these lands with existing forest stewardship plans in support of
administering the FSP. After these four states completed their spatial analysis project in
2003-4, the Forest Service invited Western states to take on spatial analysis projects to
test the appropriateness of their analysis strategy for other regions of the county. In
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
3
07/10/2006
June of 2004 Oregon was one of four Western states that volunteered to participate in a
Spatial Analysis Project (SAP). Since then, all states have been invited and
encouraged to complete analysis projects as part of a national strategy to use GIS
analyses to improve and monitor the Forest Stewardship Program.
History of Forest Stewardship and Spatial Analysis Projects
The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) was established in the 1990 Farm Bill to
assist NIPF landowners in the management of their lands through professionally
prepared forest stewardship plans, technical assistance and improved coordination of
landowner assistance through the establishment of state coordinating committees.
FSP also marked the official move from timber resources to multiple resource
management. As a component of the Cooperative Assistance Act, FSP is
implemented through a Forest Service - state forestry partnership.
FSP has forest stewardship planning as a priority focus of its landowner assistance
effort. Stewardship plans developed with the assistance of resource professionals
record individual landowner’s forest management objectives; evaluate their timber,
wildlife, fish, water, soils, aesthetics, and other associated forest resources; and
establish an action plan for the management of these resources. The FSP has as a
national program successfully met the intent of the program with more than 25 million
acres of family forestland plans being developed. During this same time period the
American Tree Farm System and other NIPF assistance efforts have expanded their
landowner management plan standards to include economic, ecological and social
forest resources.
There is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of FSP with its 10 plus years of efforts in
assisting landowners in the development of stewardship management plans. Major
questions such as “how effective is FSP in its use of stewardship planning as the focus
of its landowner assistance”, and “how can the FSP be more effective in assisting
landowners toward their forest management objectives” need answers. While
landowner assistance programs and FSP in particular are developed to address
national and local needs, their approaches are largely through assisting individual
landowners. These efforts were not set up to address accumulative effects from
individual forest landowner improvement, nor where they were established, with built-in
monitoring strategies.
With the technological advances in GIS, it now appears that there are cost effective
ways to evaluate and monitor landowner assistance efforts, and over time adapt
administrative processes in response to these findings to improve the effectiveness of
these efforts.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
4
07/10/2006
Vision for Spatial Analysis in implementing the Forest Stewardship Program
Using GIS for spatial analyses, the USDA-Forest Service and state forestry agencies
can track and display FSP activities over the landscape and over time. Through GIS
analysis, resource data dealing with multiple issues can be mapped and analyzed. FSP
managers can benefit from knowing more about the location of stewardship plans
across the landscape, and potential opportunities where individual landowner planning
can address key larger scale resource needs. Spatial analysis can also assist regional
and national FSP managers to address program effectiveness and public funds
accountability.
The FSP Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) is an effort to provide a consistent methodology
across the country to evaluate and prioritize natural resource issues, while at the same
time offering states the ability to customize collection and analysis of pertinent data to
spatially display:
• Important forest lands (rich in natural resources, vulnerable to threat, or both);
• Existing stewardship tracts (properties under management plans); and
• Areas of opportunity to focus future FSP efforts (stewardship potential).
Each state’s project addresses the following questions, as they relate to the FSP:
• Where are the state’s NIPF lands?
• Where are the management plans?
• Where are the state’s priority NIPFs (those lands of highest potential to benefit from
active forest management)?
• What percentage of existing NIPF management plans are on the state’s priority
family forest lands?
• Are there opportunities to modify program delivery to increase forest management
activities in high priority areas?
With additional GIS data layers, spatial analyses can also be used to:
• Assess program effectiveness in serving state-identified critical resource
management needs.
• Relate factors such as completed cost/share practices, landowner activities, and
monitoring data to help determine program strategies and effectiveness.
• Establish future practices that can improve effectiveness in addressing priority needs
based on landscape scale resource issues.
• Determine the economic, environmental and social importance of NIPFs.
• Provide additional information and clarity when addressing a broad range of forest
policy issues.
There are seven major components to Oregon’s Forest Stewardship Program Spatial
Analysis Project. Three deal with the development of GIS based data, and four deal
with the analysis of this data. They include:
• Development of a GIS generated statewide forest ownership map showing the public
and private ownership categories.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
5
07/10/2006
•
•
•
•
•
•
Development of a historic management plan database and associated georeferenced map of existing stewardship and Tree Farm plans.
Development of a statewide assessment of NIPF lands incorporating spatial and
tabular data to display the importance of and potential threat to these forests.
Analysis of the location of lands currently under management plans and how they
relate to the forest lands defined through this project as priority.
Assessment of how the state can use the results of GIS processes to guide future
landowner assistance activities in conjunction with other programs available to NIPF
landowners.
Assessment of how this SAP model developed in the Forest Service’s Northeast
Area fits when used to address similar FSP issues in a Pacific Northwest state.
Recommendations for modifying the spatial analysis protocols to better fit Western
states’ conditions and issues.
Wildfire
Developing Areas
Forest Health
Riparian Corridors
Conservation Areas
Zoning
Forest Patch
Public Drinking Water
Private Forestland Activity
Forest Soil Productivity
Threatened & Endangered Species
Proximity to Public Forestland
Wetlands
Topography
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
6
07/10/2006
Spatial Analysis Project
Oregon’s Non-Industrial Private Forest Ownership
Family and other non-industrial private forest landowners make up one of the state’s six
forestland ownership categories as described in the Forestry Program for Oregon
(FPFO). The FPFO is developed by the Board of Forestry with extensive public
participation. The Board of Forestry is responsible for establishing the state’s forest
policies and oversees the ODF.
Oregon Forest Ownership
Trib
al
Non-Industrial
Private
18%
USFS
46%
2%
Sta
Local Government
1%
Oth
te 4
%
er F
ede
ral 1
%
Industrial Private
19%
BLM
9%
NIPF landowners control approximately 18 percent of total 27.4 million acres of forests
in Oregon. The other ownership categories include: federal, 56 percent; state and local
government, 5 percent; tribal, 2 percent; industrial 19 percent; and urban forests that
grow on a variety of non-forest land uses. These acreage percentages reflect the
amount of forest cover by owner as identified through the National Land Cover
Database (NLCD) (Appendix 1) and ODF/County Assessor ownership data.
NIPF landowners’ percentage of the state’s annual harvest has averaged 13 percent of
an average 4.2 billion board feet harvest over the past 13 years. Western Oregon
landowners harvest the majority of NIPF timber, 83 percent for 2004; but the NIPF
landowners’ share of forestland, 15%, is higher in Eastern Oregon where timber
harvests provide a more significant portion of the local economy.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
7
07/10/2006
Harvest Percentages by Ownership
90%
NIPF
80%
For Indust
70%
Federal
Million BF
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
0%
Year
ODF used a process of elimination to map NIPF ownership. First, the state’s total
forestland was identified through the use of the NLCD vegetative classifications derived
from satellite imagery (Appendix 1). After all forestlands were identified, public and
tribal forestland previously identified from existing ODF GIS data were masked out.
Oregon’s industrial forest landowners were identified from County Assessor’s tax lot
data. Ownerships greater than 5,000 acres that were not clearly industrial were placed
on a list and individually classified as industrial or non-industrial with the assistance of
local ODF foresters using the NIPF definitions discussed in the introduction. Industrial
forest ownerships were added to the area masked out. All remaining rural private
forests were classified as NIPF (see Map #8).
Selection and Weighting of Data Layers
Additional Data Layers – ODF in partnership with its Oregon Forestland Coordinating
Group (OFCG) reviewed the 11 GIS data layers identified by the initial Northeastern
states’ effort. The OFCG discussed with ODF what additional GIS data could be
important and available for an Oregon analysis. Three additional layers were chosen:
Forest Activities, Soil Productivity, and Conservation Opportunity Areas.
Weighting – The OFCG met twice to establish and review the weighting scheme. Each
layer was assigned a percentage. Once all data layers were assigned a percentage,
the percentages were converted to points; that is, 10% became 10 points and the sum
of the maximum points for all 14 layers equaled 100. Five layers have a range of
values. These layers have their points assigned across the layers range of values.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
8
07/10/2006
Each layer has a minimum weighting of one; the maximum weighting is between two
and 10.
Data Layers
Layer
Weight (points)
Resource Threats
1,5 or 10
1 or 10
1,5 or 10
Wildfire Risk
Development Risk
Forest Health
Resource Richness
Riparian Corridors
Conservation Opportunity Areas
Zoning
Forest Patches
Public Water Suppliers
Private Industrial Forestland Activity
Forest Soil Productivity
Threatened and Endangered Species
Proximity to Public/Industrial Forest Lands
Wetlands
Topography
1 or 10
1 or 7
1 or 7
1,3,5 or 7
1 or 7
1,4 or 7
1,3,5 or 7
1 or 6
1 or 5
1 or 5
1 or 2
Data Layer Descriptions – There were multiple factors that influenced the weighting.
Some of these factors reflect benefits while others provide varying forest threats. The
14 data layers were divided into two categories: opportunities and threats.
Opportunities
Riparian Corridors – This layer identifies land within 200 feet of streams. After
reviewing the various stream layers and attributes, the USGS 1:100,000 scale
stream layer was used. The intent of this layer is to recognize the added value in
managing forests adjacent to streams. Land was given 10 pts when adjacent to
stream; 1 point if not.
Conservation Opportunity Areas – This layer, developed by Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife in 2006, is from their Comprehensive Conservation Strategy.
Funded by US Fish and Wildlife as part of a national effort, it used a similar analysis
process of multiple data layers. Conservation Opportunity Areas are landscape level
habitat types important to key wildlife species. These areas were given 7 pts; other
areas 1 pt.
Priority Zoning – Oregon has a regulatory land use system administered by the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Counties designate
land into a number of Land Use Planning Zones. For this project DLCD zoning data
listed as Agriculture, Agriculture/Forest, Range, Forestry, Natural Resource, Refuge,
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
9
07/10/2006
Recreation, or Indian Reservation was defined as non-developable, free from
development pressures; and therefore, more important. This data set represents the
initial group’s Priority Watershed theme. Non-developable land was given 7 points;
developable land was given 1 point.
Forest Patch Size – This layer builds on the assumption that large, contiguous
forests are better. It uses data from US Geological Survey, National Land Cover
Data and ODF. Contiguous forests were stratified into 0-40 acres, 40-160 acres,
160-640 acres, and greater than 640. The size categories were assigned 1,3,5,7
points respectively.
Public Water Supply – This layer, developed by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality in 2005, identifies forested watersheds that are part of public
water supply systems. Identified watersheds received 7 points. Lands that do not
feed public water systems were given 1 point.
Private Individual Forestland Activity – This layer uses ODF Forest Practices Act
Notification data for 2004 and 2005 on family forestlands to identify landowner
activity. This recognizes the value in working with those landowners currently doing
something on their forest lands. The state is divided into stewardship forester
geographic areas. The more family forest land activity in a forester’s area, the
heavier the weighting. Activity was tracked from January 2004 through October
2005. This layer also recognizes that this spatial analysis can be used in the future
when considering the positioning of field foresters. Since these foresters work in
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
10
07/10/2006
both incentive and regulatory areas, any work load analysis must consider the
effectiveness of the integrated services. The number of notifications on family
forestlands by Stewardship Forester was stratified into three groups. Forester
areas with less than 198 notifications were assigned 1 point, those between 199 and
349 were assigned 4 points, and those areas with more than 349 were assigned 7
points.
Forest Soil Capability – Soil productivity provides greater opportunities for a variety
of forest products, wildlife habitats and social values. Soil data is from the USDANatural Resources Conservation Service’s State Soil Geographic (STATSGO)
database which is generalized from detailed county soil survey data. The mapping
scale for STATSGO is 1:250,000. The soils were stratified into 4 groups based on
site index. Site indexes less than 42 were given 1 point; site indexes between 42
and 82 were given 3 points; site indexes between 83 and 117 were given 5 points;
and those greater than site index 118 were given 7 points.
Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species – Forests supporting T&E species can
provide additional wildlife benefits from active forest management. ODF developed
500 ac hexagon grids that overlaid T&E points and polygons. This was done to
avoid identifying the exact location of T&E species. For listed fish species a 100 foot
buffer was developed. Species data is from ODF and Oregon State University’s
Institute for Natural Resources’ Natural Heritage data. Hexagons covering a T&E
point or polygon and/or a T&E stream buffer were given 6 points; all other hexagons
were given 1 point.
Proximity to Public/Industrial Forestlands – This layer recognizes an added value of
NIPF land adjacent to working forests. This assumes that it is easier to find the
workforce, equipment and markets for family forestlands activities near forest lands
that are being actively managed. NIPF lands within a mile of public or industrial
forests were given 7 points, while family forestland more than a mile from public
and/or industrial land was given 1 point. While not considered in the analysis
project, public lands not being managed become a negative factor where wildfire
and insects provide significant threats.
Wetlands – While forested wetlands are an important resource, not all of Oregon’s
identified wetlands have been digitized. Available data are from the Gap Analysis
Program (GAP) and the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Lands identified as
wetlands were assigned 5 points, all others were assigned 1 point.
Topography – Steeper slopes are more difficult to manage and carry additional risks.
They also require additional attention from ODF stewardship foresters when a
landowner notifies that they will be operating on steep ground. Slopes were divided
into two groups under or over 60%. US Geological Survey data was used to identify
the topography. Slopes identified over 60% were given 2 points; those less than 60
% were given 1 point.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
11
07/10/2006
Threats
This project evaluated the three major threats to forest lands identified in the initial
SAP effort. They are: wildfire, insect and disease outbreaks, and development of
forestlands to non-forest uses. Wildfire and insect/diseases are more significant
threat east of the Cascade Mountains and in Southern Oregon, whereas
development is a more significant threat in Western Oregon. Western Oregon’s
Douglas-fir forests do have some notable insect and disease concerns but not to the
level of the pine forests in Eastern and Southern Oregon. Wildfires are a threat to all
forest but occur less frequently in Western Oregon. Historically when they do occur,
wildfires are more destructive in the west-side Douglas-fir forests than in the Pine
forests.
Pressure to develop forestlands has been largely held in check for over the past 20
years by the state’s regulatory land use planning program. Ballot Measure 37
passed in November 2004, allows for additional development of some forest lands.
While this measure will have an effect on land use, the significance of the impact is
not yet clear. This, and the current trend among publicly traded forest industry of
selling forest land that has a higher use value, may increase the development
pressures on Oregon’s forests. For now, land use change impacts on forest lands
are clouded, and future development risks are not yet predictable. The extent of
these changes will become clearer as the courts define the applicability of Ballot
Measure 37.
Wildfire Risk - (Communities at Risk) – This layer addresses wildfire impacts. It was
developed through a GIS analysis of several data layers by ODF in 2005 to identify
communities at risk from wildfire. The risk of wildfire was stratified into three levels
low, medium, and high, with 1, 5 and 10 points respectively assigned.
Insect and Disease Risk – This 2006 USDA Forest Service layer represents a risk
defined as: "the expectation that 25 percent or more of the standing live volume of
trees greater than 1 inch in diameter will die over the next 15 years due to insect and
disease activity.” The layer, at one km scale, is part of a National Insect and
Disease Risk Mapping effort. It is an integration of 186 individual risk models
constructed within a common consistent framework, and was developed to aid in the
allocation of resources for forest health management. For additional detail, visit:
http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/peer_review_nationalinsectanddisease_
riskmap.shtml. The risk was separated into low, medium and high categories and
assigned points of 1, 5, and 10 respectively.
Development - Community Extent Influence – This layer attempts to show a social
factor to consider in managing forests. It was developed by ODF in 2005 and is a
product of analyzing several data layers. Areas identified represent forestlands
outside Urban Growth Boundaries that have aesthetic and other community values.
Identified areas were given 10 points; those not identified were given 1 point.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
12
07/10/2006
Management Planning Data
The development of forest management plans can assist landowners in advancing their
forest goals and objectives, reducing risk to their forest, and capitalizing on local
opportunities. Efforts to promote individual landowner management plans are built on
the belief that the collective results of individual family forest landowner actively working
to meet their goals and objectives will provide public benefits. Technologies such as
those used in this spatial analysis project are moving state and federal natural resource
agencies forward to where they will be able to test this belief and display the benefits.
ODF has placed a priority on landowner management planning since 1975. An ODF
Service Forestry Assessment in 1989 and the 1990 Farm Bill’s establishment of the
Forest Stewardship Program reinforced this priority and expanded planning to address
multiple resources. In the mid-1990s the American Tree Farm System began a process
to strengthen its management plan standards. Their current standards address all forest
resources and with FSP are driven by individual landowner goals and objectives to
promote sustainable forest management.
Oregon State University’s Forestry Extension program also promotes integrated forest
resource management through its Resource Management Planning courses. In these
courses landowners are assisted by resource professionals in developing their own
management plans. ODF, OSU Extension, Tree Farm and the Association of
Consulting Foresters have been working together for over 10 years to develop
management plan standards that recognize and complement the various landowner
planning efforts.
In recognition of Oregon’s collaborative approach, this analysis goal is to display all
multi-resource landowner plans that are designed to promote sustainable forest
management. Oregon’s Forest Stewardship Plan template was developed in
partnership with other management plan efforts, namely Oregon Tree Farm System’s
planning template and OSU Forestry Extension’s Resource Management “coached
planning” management plan outline. These plans all address landowner goals and
objectives, multiple natural resource inventories, and priority activities; and therefore,
substitute for each other. There is no benefit to the landowner or the public in having
multiple plans on the same property. Because of this, Oregon’s spatial analysis
identifies known Forest Stewardship, Tree Farm and Resource Management plans as
landowner planning efforts.
Information on existing Forest Stewardship and Tree Farm management plans has
been kept in MS Access tabular databases. Developing GIS shape files of these
landowner plans was a three-step process.
Step 1: ODF acquired county spatial tax lot data for individual counties. Most counties
have attributed these shape files with a long list of information. For this project ODF
used landowner name and address information. The Oregon’s Department of Revenue
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
13
07/10/2006
has been assisting the state’s 36 County Assessors in capturing tax lot map information
in a GIS format. Most counties completed this effort in early 2005.
Step 2: a landowner has one management plan but can own multiple tax lots. To
establish the needed one-to-one relationship between landowner and plan data, ODF’s
GIS staff created a management plan layer of centroids that represent individual plans.
These centroids were positioned using a variety of methods with section, township, and
range information being the preferred methods. Not all plans had good legal
descriptions in the Stewardship and Tree Farm databases. Plans with very general or
no legal location information were placed on the edge of the county map for field
forester review.
Step 3: when a centroids layer was completed for a given county, it was displayed with
the county’s tax lot shape files. Management plan centroids were then moved inside
the appropriate tax lot through comparing name, address and acreage attributes from
the centroids and tax lot polygon data layers. This was a manual process since there is
a low probability that a given landowner’s name and address are spelled exactly the
same in the management plan and county databases. For those counties that had not
developed or would not share their tax lot attributes, local field foresters were asked to
identify landowners’ tax lots. There are 20 of the 1,294 forest stewardship plans that
could not be located and have yet to be located on geo-referenced tax lot maps.
Landowner plans are tracked and displayed as either Forest Stewardship or Tree Farm.
Landowner plans that have been certified as both a Stewardship and Tree Farm plan
are displayed as Stewardship Plans for this project.
Spatial Analysis
This spatial analysis project takes geo-referenced data to identify relative importance of
non-industrial private lands and to overlay existing forest stewardship plans on these
lands to determine acres of lands under management plans by level of priority.
SAP Process
Non-Industrial Private Lands Mask
This mask defines the non-industrial private lands for analysis by excluding lands
that are developed, desert, industrial private forest lands, and public forest lands.
The NIP lands are identified as forest or non-forest /non-developed (agricultural)
capable of growing trees. For Western Oregon all agricultural lands are considered
capable of growing trees. This is not the case east of the Cascade Mountains where
precipitation is less. For this project, lands below 14 inches of annual rainfall were
classified as desert, not capable of growing trees.
GIS Analysis
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
14
07/10/2006
Fourteen data layers were selected to evaluate and prioritize the NIP lands. The
analysis used all layers (map 1), 11 resource richness layers (map 4), and the three
resource threats layers (map 5). Each layer was first converted to 300 x 300 foot
raster cells. Then the layers were assigned values to reflect the importance of the
data. The weighting strategy assigned cell values between 1 and the maximum
value for that layer (2 – 10). Through the use of function Cell Statistics, the layers we
combined provided a state map with potential cell values between 14 and 100 for
Map 1, between 11 and 70 for Map 4, and between 3 and 30 for Map 5. Natural
Breaks (Jenks) statistics were then used to divide the cells into three priority
categories; low, medium, and high.
ArcMap Model to sum rasters
The majority of high priority NIPF lands are in Western Oregon. Data layers Public
Drinking water, Forest Activities, Soil Productivity, Threatened and Endangered
Species, and Development Risk appear to be the major factors for having the higher
percentage of high sites on the Westside.
The spatially identified Forest Stewardship and Tree Farm Plan polygons were then
placed over the SAP analysis layer to determine plan acres by priority areas. Just
over 21 percent of Oregon’s NIPF lands are under a management plan.
Landowner Management Plan Activities
A national goal is to have individual landowner plans’ scheduled activities recorded
in digital attribute files. Oregon’s spatial analysis does not include this data. ODF
has considered this proprietary information and will not use it until a process is
developed to assure that the information is protected. Oregon does recognize that a
list of landowner planned activities has value. It could be of help to the state and its
partners in seeking additional incentives to assist landowners and in notifying
individuals when new incentives became available for their planned forest
improvement activities.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
15
07/10/2006
Prioritization and Existing Management Plans
Forest Stewardship on Non-Forest Lands
This project prioritized all non-industrial private lands. The forest evaluation of farm
lands is part of this national project, but it doesn’t correspond with Oregon’s land use
strategies. The state’s existing forest policies focus on maintaining and improving
existing forest lands. The state has a strong agricultural base; communities and the
state depend on farming for a wide assortment of products. The state’s land use
program has goals to protect both forest and farm lands; while forestry is a
compatible land use in farm zones, converting farm lands to forests is not an
identified benefit.
NIPF Lands by SAP Priorities
21 % of NIPF Lands in Management Plan
38%
23%
Low
Medium
High
39%
Forest Stewardship on Non-industrial Private Forest Lands
For NIPF lands the analysis identified nearly equal acreages of high and medium
priority forests. Combined they make up 77% of 4.9 million NIPF acres. There are
management plans on 21 percent of all NIPF lands. Forty six percent of plans and
22 percent of the plan acres are on high priority acres; 47 percent of the plans and
29 percent of the plan acres are on medium priority acres; and eight percent of the
plans and 49 percent of the plan acres are on low priority acres. On lands identified
as low priority NIPF lands, nearly one-half are covered by management plans. The
major shifts between acres and numbers of plans by priority is because of the
ownership sizes west and east of the Cascade Mountains. Westside ownerships are
smaller and their lands have been identified as higher priority.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
16
07/10/2006
NIPF Acres in Plans by Priority
High
22%
Low
49%
Medium
29%
Number of NIPF Plans by Priority
Lo w
8%
Hig h
46%
M ed i um
46%
When considering just the number of Forest Stewardship plans by priority area,
49 percent of the plans are in the high priority area, 44 percent are in the medium
priority area and 7 percent in the low priority area. Ninety two percent of Tree Farm
plans are also in the high and medium priority areas.
Assessment of Spatial Analysis
This assessment focuses on the use of spatial analysis in managing landowner
assistance efforts, and on the appropriateness of the Northeastern US established
protocols.
Oregon’s forests play a significant role in the state and the policies that focus their
management are defined in the Forestry Program for Oregon (FPFO). ODF works for
the Board of Forestry and its actions are guided by the FPFO. This policy document,
last updated in 2003, shares with the FSP the promotion of sustainable forest
management. FSP is a component of the broader state effort to support NIPF
landowners. ODF views this FSP spatial analysis as a tool to better understand and
evaluate its total NIFP and other FPFO efforts.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
17
07/10/2006
Spatial Analysis as a Management Tool
GIS with the appropriate data layers is a powerful tool to analyze, identify, and study
NIPF lands and to develop strategies to help private forest landowners manage their
lands. Spatial analysis can assist national and state natural resource agencies to
better understand issues, as well as tell the story how these lands support issues facing
individual states and the nation. It can also contribute to more effective and efficient
administration of programs in support of sustainable forestry goals on private lands.
This project has been very helpful for ODF in better understanding GIS analysis, what
data is needed, and what decisions need to be addressed in using spatial analysis as
an effective tool.
The built-in flexibility of this spatial analysis effort is very helpful in merging local and
national issues. Providing states the ability to add additional data layers and develop
their unique weighting strategy makes it a strong tool for understanding and describing
non-industrial private forest land issues, and in displaying how national strategies can
be implemented at the local level.
ODF has detailed vegetation data that addresses stocking and tree species for Western
Oregon and the northeastern portion of the state. There is a problem in adding more
data layers to an analysis. Additional layers allow for more in-depth analysis of a
particular issue and for studying additional issues; but as layers are added, the
significance of any particular layer is diminished. For example, if three layers were
analyzed together and the first layer had twice the value as the others, the values in
percent would be 50, 25, and 25, a difference of 25 percent between the first and other
layers. If 15 layers were analyzed together and the first layer had twice the value as the
others, the values in percent would be 12.6 and the other would be 6.3 percent; and
difference of 6.3 percent between the first and other layers. ODF added three data
layers to this analysis project to improve its understanding of issues facing NIPF
landowners, and has identified additional information that would be valuable for future
spatial analysis efforts. Additional work is needed to better understand how to use
various data layers in spatial analysis.
One possible solution is to first focus separately on the social, economic, and
environmental components of forest sustainability and then weight and analyze these
three data sets. An economic analysis could include data themes that deal with timber
growing potential, proximity to markets, timber stocking levels, potential to increase
harvest levels, percent of timber supply provided by NIPF lands.
An analysis of the social importance of NIPF lands is an important area but less
understood than the economic and environmental components of forest sustainability.
Largely because of this, less data is readily available for analysis. Data could include
themes such as percentage of local economy supported by forests and NIPF lands’
potential share, unemployment, need for open space, quality of life. Increasing or
maintaining harvests from family forestlands in areas that remain timber dependent is
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
18
07/10/2006
critical to retain mill and timber management infrastructure so that community health
can be restored and forestland management can continue to be viable.
Suitability of USDA-Forest Service Northeastern Area Protocols
Many of the inputs and decisions made by the initial Northeastern states fit Oregon but
there are three major areas where the initial SAP strategy needs modifications to meet
the intended goals. These areas deal with weighted data layers for analysis, the focus
on non-forested, non-developed lands, and federal forests.
Weighting – Oregon followed the national protocols and analyzed the data using a
proposed state-wide weighting strategy, but the state has extremely varied eco-regions
and population centers that limit the value of a state-wide weighting strategy. This statewide analysis has value, for example, in evaluating the positioning of available ODF
resources, but it does not work well in assisting local managers and foresters in setting
their priorities, or in evaluating the contribution individual landowner management plans
have in dealing with high priority issues.
The issue of statewide versus regional weighting schemes was not apparent to ODF or
the OFCG until the results of the spatial analysis were being evaluated. Priority areas
of resource richness and threats are different if weighting focuses on regional issues.
For example, the pine forests of Eastern Oregon have fire, fuel buildup, insects, and the
loss of forest product markets as major concerns. For the Douglas-fir forests of
Western Oregon, development pressure and underproducing forests are major
concerns. Oregon cannot find a single weighting scheme that adequately reflects each
forest type’s priorities. A statewide weighting strategy has value for some issues, but it
appears that region weighting will be more appropriate for other issues.
To go to regional analyses, regions will need to be defined based on shared resource
richness and threats, as well as other economic, ecological, and social factors. ODF
and the OFCG will need to reconsider weighting strategies based on these regions and
the issues needing study. Example of regional factors include the risk of wildfire, forest
health concerns, soil productivity, forest product mills, development pressure,
andcommunity expectations. These themes are very different in the various regions of
the state.
Weighting of various layers is also dependent on the available data and issues being
addressed. GIS data on other factors such as options for technical assistance,
community dependency on forest products, and access to mills, could be valuable in
using spatial analysis to better understand the importance of NIPFs and to improve
assistance to NIPF landowners.
Dividing the state for analysis can help Oregon and other states with significantly
different regional economic, ecological and/or social conditions. This may create issues
when using the results to build a national product.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
19
07/10/2006
Non-forest/Non-developed Lands – A second significant difference between Oregon
and the Northeastern part of the nation is how forestry views non-forest, non-developed
lands. While the SAP strategy views these lands as potential forests, Oregon views
them as productive agricultural lands. Agriculture is important to the state’s economy
and its social fabric and there is no state goal to convert these lands to forests. The
state’s existing forest policies as defined in the FPFO focus on maintaining and
improving existing forest lands.
NIP Lands by SAP Priorities
Low
30%
High
31%
Medium
39%
NIPF Lands by SAP Priorities
Low
23%
High
38%
Medium
39%
An evaluation of farm lands as potential forestland is also out of step with the state’s
land use strategies. The state’s strong agricultural base is protected along with
forestland under major goals of the state’s land use planning program. Forestry is a
compatible land use in agricultural zones, and landowners have the right to convert farm
to forests and forests to farmland but that is a landowner’s prerogative. With little to no
net gain from converting these lands, ODF sees no value in considering these lands as
part of a spatial analysis effort, and considers them a distraction.
Federal Forests –In the section Oregon’s Family Forestland Ownership, the FPFO
categorizes Oregon’s forest into six ownership classes. It explains how each class
provides a unique set of products and values that when combined provide a sustaining
array of products and values.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
20
07/10/2006
Federal lands are a key component of Oregon’s sustainable forest model, and federal
policies are very compatible with the state’s strategy, but for a variety of reasons, there
is a lack of management activity on federal forests. This results in two major negative
impacts.
The lack of active management threatens adjacent private forests because these
overstocked federal forests with historically high forest fuel buildups increase the threat
of wildfire and insect infestations. Currently, ODF’s SAP layer “Proximity to
Public/Industrial Forestland” places a higher value on NIPF lands that are adjacent to
federal forests. Most Eastern and Southern Oregon NIPF landowners have significant
risks of wildfire and insect outbreaks and consider being next to federal forests a
negative. Federal lands have much higher stocking levels and forest fuels than
adjacent managed private forests.
The second negative impact deals with the loss of local forest management
infrastructure. Federal forests make up over 70 percent of Eastern Oregon forests so
removing them from active management has had a major impact on the economies of
Eastern Oregon’s rural communities. This lack of activity has decimated the forestry
infrastructure. Federal forests are now harvesting 10 to 15 percent of what they
provided 10 years ago.
So while the analysis ranked proximity to public forest a positive, in Eastern and
Southern Oregon, federal forests are more often a negative factor. Regional analysis
can address this issue.
Recommendations for Modifying Northeastern Area Protocols
Oregon’s SAP has discovered several issues that need addressing before an analysis
can serve both the states and the nation.
Regional Priorities – The findings from a statewide weighting has value for Oregon but it
does not accurately define the state’s priority NIPF lands. There is such a wide range of
issues because of the broad variation in climate and forest types within the state. Also,
the value of being near federal forests is a regional issue. It varies from being a positive
to being a negative depending where in the state one owns forestland. ODF did not test
sub-state weighting, but it appears that this would provide a better description of priority
forests.
Assessment of Non-Forest Lands – Non-forest, non-developed lands in Oregon are
primarily agricultural lands, and the state does not have a goal to convert these lands to
forests. Since this is a strategy for some states, there should be a process for making
the analysis of farm land optional.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
21
07/10/2006
Analysis of Data by Forest Sector – Oregon added three layers to the 11 defined in the
Northeastern US protocols. It became clear as ODF and the OFCG established weights
for each layer that adding layers to the analysis reduced the sensitivity of weighting.
Oregon sees value in adding more data layers for analysis, but this only exacerbates
this issue. One option is to do multiple assessments. The FPFO uses three sectors economic, environmental, and social - that when combined can provide a roadmap to a
sustainable array of forest products and values. Perhaps first separating and analyzing
the data into social, economic and environmental sectors, and then analyzing the three
can adequately address this issue. For example this project’s data themes, wildlife
habitat and T&E, water quality, wetlands, riparian corridors, and patch size, focus
heavily on the environmental importance of NIPF lands and as such provide somewhat
of a limited understanding about the social and economic importance of NIPF lands.
Summary
Spatial analyses show great promise in assisting both states in their support of NIPF
and other forest landowners, and the Forest Service in managing the Forest
Stewardship Program and other landowner assistance efforts. GIS can also be very
helpful in articulating to Congress and others where and how NIPF landowners can
support national needs.
The Forest Service’s Northeast Area and partnering states provided a valuable service
to all states in establishing the initial concept and protocols for analyzing NIPF issues
and FSP progress. Their strategy of creating a tool flexible enough to deal with the
states’ individual conditions and issues, while still being able to combine individual
state’s analyses into a national analysis, is laudable and doable.
Oregon and three other Western States volunteered in 2004 to complete a similar
analysis to see how the Northeastern approach fit western issues. Since then, the
Forest Service is encouraging all states to undertake spatial analysis projects. To
establish a national analysis to meet the original SAP goals there needs to be additional
input from states from all regions of the country.
ODF’s use of the Northeastern US protocols provides valuable information and also
defines where there can be changes to better support the initial goals.
What the state found needing adjustments in this spatial analysis project can be
grouped into three areas. First, Oregon’s climate and forests are very diverse and so a
single statewide weighting strategy makes it very difficult or impossible to accurately
show priorities of NIPF lands. The way the relationship between NIPF and federal
forest varies in Oregon is another regional issue. Where there are significant wildfire
and insect outbreak risks, federal forests are seen by landowners as more of a threat
than a benefit to adjacent private forests.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
22
07/10/2006
The analysis of agricultural lands does not support any Oregon strategy, and distracts
from the state’s focus on NIFP lands. Oregon’s agricultural lands are valuable to the
state and nation for the agriculture products and the economic base they provide.
The final area needing review is the addition of data layers. Each additional data layer
added to a single analysis dilutes the value of weighting individual layers. A solution
could be to have multiple levels of analysis. Oregon’s forest policy document, the
Forestry Program for Oregon, separates the importance of forests into three sectors:
economic, environmental and social. The analysis process could first sort the data by
sector and then combine the results for a final analysis. Evaluating data by sector also
helps clarify why the forests are important.
ODF looks forward to reviewing the findings of other states and to a time when spatial
analysis can more accurately and clearly describe the role and value NIPF landowners
play in today’s society.
Appendices
National Land Cover Database:
Tables
Maps
Map 1: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits on Non-industrial
Private Lands
Map 2: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits and Existing
Management Plans
Map 3: Forest Stewardship Program Potential on Non-industrial Private Forest
Lands and Existing Management Plans
Map 4: Resource Richness
Map 5: Resource Threats
Map 6: Forest Stewardship Potential on Non Forest, Non Developed Lands
Map 7: Regional Map of Pudding/Molalla Watershed
Map 8: Oregon Forest Land Ownership
Contact Information:
Emmor Nile
ODF GIS Coordinator
Building E
2600 State St.
Salem, OR 97310
(503) 945-7418
enile@odf.state.or.us
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
Mike Barsotti
ODF Private Forestry
Building D
2600 State St.
Salem, OR 97310
(503) 945-7385
mbarsotti@odf.state.or.us
23
07/10/2006
National Land Cover Database
National Land Cover Data (NLCD)
One of the projects sponsored by the MRLC consortium was production of land-cover data derived from
images acquired by Landsat's Thematic Mapper (TM) sensor, as well as a number of ancillary data
sources. The NLCD includes the source images, as well as classified land-cover data for specific
acquisition dates. It is the first national land-cover data set produced since the early 1970s, effectively
replacing the LUDA and GIRAS data sets. Data for the conterminous United States circa 1992 (NLCD
1992), which were derived from Landsat-5 TM images are complete and currently available for download.
Description of the data, as well as the classification process utilized have been published in a number of
journal articles.
Currently, the entire United States is being mapped using imagery acquired circa 2000 (NLCD 2001) from
Landsat-7's enhanced TM (ETM). This project entails re-mapping the lower 48 states, as well as covering
Hawaii and Alaska for the first time. Classification schemes for the two rounds of classification are similar,
but not identical.
Accuracy of the 1992 NLCD is available and reported by EPA federal region.
NLCD 1992 Data
NLCD 2001 Data
NLCD 1992 Accuracy
NLCD 2001 Land Cover Class Definitions
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.
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 singlefamily 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.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
24
07/10/2006
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.
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.
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.
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 co-associated 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.
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.
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.
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.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
25
07/10/2006
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 oceanderived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent. Total vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent.
95. Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands - Areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts for
greater than 80 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.
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
26
07/10/2006
Tables
Non-Industrial Private Lands
Stewardship Capable Land
Stewardshi
p Potential
High
Medium
Low
Total Acres
Forest
% of Total
Acres
NIPF Lands
1,882,238
1,935,932
1,163,351
4,981,521
38%
39%
23%
Non-Forest
% of Total
Acres
Non-Forest
782,510
1,513,802
1,412,934
3,709,246
Total NIP Acres
% of Total
Acres
NIP Lands
21%
41%
38%
2,664,748
3,449,734
2,576,285
8,690,767
31%
40%
30%
Stewardship Potential
Plans
Low
Acres Capable of Stewardship
(NIP Lands)
Medium
High
Total Acres
2,576,285
3,449,734
2,664,748
8,690,767
Stewardship Plans Acres
401,029
205,682
106,037
712,748
Tree Farm Plan Acres
127,357
100,190
124,188
351,735
Management Plans as % of Acres
Capable of Stewardship
6%
4%
3%
12%
Non-Industrial Private Forest Lands
Stewardship Potential
Low
Medium
High
Total Acres
1,163,351
1,935,932
1,882,238
4,981,521
401,029
205,682
106,037
712,748
8.1%
4.1%
2.1%
14.3%
127,357
100,190
124,188
351,735
% of Total Acres
2.6%
2.0%
2.5%
7.1%
Management Plan Acres as a %
of NIPF
10.6%
6.1%
4.6%
21.4%
Acres Capable of Stewardship
Stewardship Plan Acres
% of Total Acres
Tree Farm Plan Acres
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
27
07/10/2006
Non-Industrial Private Forest Lands
(Stewardship Potential)
Low
Medium
High
1,163,351
23%
1,935,932
39%
1,882,238
38%
Stewardship Plan Acres
% of FSP Acres by Priority Area
FSP Acres as % of Total NIPF Acres
Stewardship Plan (number of plans)
% of FSP Plans by Priority Area
401,029
56.3%
8.1%
95
7.3%
205,682
28.9%
4.1%
567
43.8%
106,037
14.9%
2.1%
632
48.8%
712,748
Tree Farm Plan Acres
% of Tree Farm Acres by Priority Area
Tree Farm Plan Acres as % of Total NIPF Acres
Tree Farm Plan (number of plans)
% of TF Plans by Priority Area
127,357
36.2%
3%
84
8%
100,190
28.5%
2%
530
50%
124,188
35.3%
2%
445
42%
351,735
Management Plan (acres)
Management Plan Acres as a % of NIPF Land
Management Plan Acres as a % of Priority Area
Management Plan (number)
Management Plans as a % Total Plans
528,386
10.6%
45.4%
179
8%
305,872
6.1%
15.8%
1,097
47%
230,225
4.6%
12.2%
1,077
46%
1,064,483
21.4%
21.4%
2,353
NIPF Land (acres)
% by Priority
Total
4,981,521
14.3%
1,294
7.1%
1,059
100%
Non-Forest/Non-Developed Lands
Stewardship Potential
Low
Acres Capable of Stewardship
Stewardship Plan Acres
Tree Farm Plan Acres
Management Plan Acres as a %
of non- forest / non-developed
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
1,412,934
Medium
High
1,513,802
782,510
Total Acres
3,709,246
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
28
07/10/2006
Forest Ownership
Acres
USFS
% of Oregon's
Forest Lands
12,507,273
45.6%
2,436,671
8.9%
Other Federal
338,130
1.2%
State
968,969
3.5%
Local Government
287,194
1.0%
16,538,237
60.3%
5,261,267
19.2%
621,643
2.3%
4,988,579
18.2%
10,871,489
39.7%
27,409,726
100%
BLM
Total Public
Industrial Private
Tribal
Non-Industrial Private
Total Private
Total
Oregon SAP Project Report 7-7.doc/Jaz F (PF)
29
07/10/2006