Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis
Project
Methodology Report for Washington
July 2008
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
Contact
Info:
Steve Gibbs
Stewardship Coordinator –
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
1111 Washington St SE
PO BOX 47012
Olympia, Wa 98504-7012
Office: 360-902-1706
steve.gibbs@dnr.wa.gov
Nicki Eisfeldt
GIS Technician
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
1111 Washington St SE
PO Box 47037
Olympia, Wa 98504-7037
Office: 360-902-1330
nicki.eisfeldt@dnr.wa.gov
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
2
Table of Contents:
Executive Summary
page 4
Stewardship Analysis Project (SAP) Introduction
1. Forest Stewardship Program
2. SAP Purpose and Background
page 6
SAP Implementation
1. Suitability Analysis
Datalayer Development
-Resource Potential
-Resource Threat
Datalayer Weighting Process
Results
Seeking Tribal Participation
2. Stewardship Plan Digitizing
Procedures
Metadata
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 12
page 13
page 14
3. Analysis & Map Product Descriptions
page 15
4. Appendix
page 18
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
3
Executive Summary
The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was provided with a grant from
the USDA Forest Service to complete a Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project for Washington. This project is aimed to aid in providing a consistent way to evaluate the Stewardship
Program across the nation and promote strategic program delivery. This report contains Washington's methodology for completing this project.
The Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) for the Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) was created to
assess the influence the FSP has had on the landscape over the past decade and distinguish suitable areas that should be considered when providing program guidance. There are two primary
components to SAP. One component is the statewide assessment of all lands eligible for the
FSP. This assessment is based on a twelve-layer suitability analysis including both resource
richness and threats throughout the state. The other component is a spatial database of all stewardship plans that Washington State has tracked over the last decade. Using these components
together in a GIS analysis will identify areas of stewardship potential and also evaluates the
success of the FSP in priority areas.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) began the SAP process in January
of 2005 and finished the project in July 2008. A good portion of that time was spent collecting
data for the Stewardship plan database. All six DNR regions were included and five of six were
visited, some more than once, to evaluate and collect data. Most of that time was spent going
through landowner files to find eligible plans to include in the analysis. Once plans were identified, landowner properties were either hand digitized or copied from county parcel data into a
geospatial database (ArcGIS personal geodatabase). In all, approximately 1,306 plans were included in the final database. This included all plans from 1997 to March 2008. After the landowner database was completed, we began completing the suitability analysis.
The twelve standard layers were determined from a Federal perspective by the USDA Forest
Service, and the State Forest Stewardship Committee assigned each layer its importance for the
suitability analysis. Although Washington State Tribes are represented by a member of the
Stewardship committee, an effort was made to contact each Tribe in Washington state so each
Tribe could have a voice in the analysis. Washington DNR requested advice from Tribes in
Washington about appropriate datalayers and subsequently asked each Tribe to rank the datalayers based on the priorities of their Tribe.
Analysis Results:
In order to conform with program guidance, and to be consistent with methodology used by
other states, the following lands were included in the SAP analysis:
Traditional Forest Land (5.6 million acres): Non-industrial private, including tribal, ownerships
occupied by native forest vegetation. Virtually all current and prospective Forest Stewardship
plans have lands in this category.
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
4
Shrubland (4.8 million acres): Non-forested land, currently occupied by shrub vegetation is
classified as “forest land” according to SAP guidance. These lands are not likely to ever become “forested” in the traditional sense, and unlikely to be enrolled in the Forest Stewardship
Program.
Non-forested land (9.2 million acres): Agricultural and range lands, such as those that cover
extensive parts of eastern Washington, are included in the SAP analysis presumably based on
the assumption that they could potentially be capable of growing trees, and therefore, theoretically eligible for inclusion in the Forest Stewardship Program (e.g. windbreaks and afforested
lands are eligible for inclusion in the Forest Stewardship Program). Realistically, the amount of
this land likely to be included in the Forest Stewardship Program is negligible.
Statewide, the relative Forest Stewardship priority rating of these lands is:
•
•
•
High – 13% (approx 2.6 million acres)
Medium – 43% (approx 8.6 million acres)
Low – 44% (approx 8.7 million acres)
There are approximately 160,000 acres in Stewardship plans, approximately 149,000 of those
acres fall within the non-industrial private forest, Tribal land mask. The current distribution of
Forest Stewardship Plans, according to Forest Stewardship priority rating is:
High – 28% (44,685 acres) of plans
Medium – 49% (79,001 acres) of plans
Low – 16% (25,219 acres) of plans
7% (10,916acres) did not fall within our mask because of either their proximity to urban
areas, recent industrial land exchanges or significant water sources included in their plan
areas.
Approximately 97% (1,266 plans) include areas of traditional forest landcover described above.
•
•
•
•
Stewardship Potential for Washington State
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
5
Stewardship Analysis Project (SAP) Introduction1
Forest Stewardship program:
Established through the 1990 Farm Bill, the Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) encourages private forest landowners to manage their lands using professionally prepared forest stewardship plans. 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; more than 25 million acres of private forests have been placed under professional forestry
management.
SAP Purpose and Background:
Since its inception, the FSP has been delivered and made available to nonindustrial private forest landowners on a first-come, first-served basis. This customer-friendly approach assists landowners in improving their forest resources; however, it does not facilitate assessment of the program’s full impact across the landscape. It does not take into consideration the connectivity of
stewardship tracts, nor does it target landowners whose forest land has a greater need or opportunity for professional expertise and who may not have been aware of resources and programs
available to them. There has been no standard or consistent way to assess the impact that stewardship plans have had on the forest resource as a whole, or in addressing regionally or nationally significant resource issues. Given limited program resources and a demand that exceeds
program capacity, FSP coordinators and managers increasingly need to address accountability
for results on the ground, assuring the Nation’s taxpayers that program implementation is efficient and effective, and positively affects forest resources.
After 18 years of implementation, it is timely to evaluate the impact the Forest
Stewardship Program has had on the landscape and position the program to be strategically implemented to more effectively address critical resource management needs in the future, while
meeting landowner objectives.
SAP Implementation
There are two major components to the Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project. First is the
statewide assessment of all lands eligible for the Forest Stewardship Program within Washington State. This assessment is comprised of an overlay analysis using twelve common datalayers, which result in the classification of areas of low, medium and high stewardship potential.
The datalayers, chosen by the USDA Forest service, were deemed important from a federal perspective to determine resource richness, threats, and opportunities.
States also had the option to include any additional datalayers that might be appropriate to respond to any state specific issues. Washington used the twelve standard datalayers and did not
include any additional datalayers.
1 Text taken from other national SAP documents.
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
6
Part 1. Suitability Analysis
The focus of SAP is to meet Forest Stewardship Program objectives; therefore, the analysis is
only applied to non-industrial private lands and Tribal lands that could be eligible for the Forest
Stewardship Program. Any lands that are not eligible to receive Forest Stewardship Program
benefits are excluded from the analysis. Lands that were excluded include: All public lands,
urban communities, all open water and all private industrial lands.
Along with the analysis mask, the suitability analysis is comprised of twelve datalayers. These
layers are divided into three categories: the analysis mask, resource potential and resource
threats.
Datalayer Development
Other Data:
The Analysis Mask
The analysis mask is created to ensure our analysis only occurs in the areas that apply to our
desired analysis area. When we perform the analysis we can use the analysis mask to ensure
processing takes place only in our selected cells. For the purpose of the SAP, the mask includes
all areas that are not urban/developed areas, areas under public ownership (Federal, State,
County and City agencies), open water and private industrial lands. The mask was created by
using National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) suitable areas (online source: http//www.epa.gov/
mrlc/nlcd.html). The NLCD values that constituted suitable were; 33, 41, 42, 43, 51, 61, 71,
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 91 and 92. These values include areas of shrubland (value 51) not typically
considered forest land in Washington State. Shrubland was included in the analysis for consistency with other states. There is approximately 4.8 million acres of shrubland in our analysis
mask. All suitable NLCD values were given an overall value of 1. The remaining NLCD values were given a value of No Data. This will eliminate them from our analysis area. We then
created a non-industrial private lands (including Tribal lands) layer by starting with our state
polygon and taking out all public lands, urban/developed lands and private industrial lands. To
create our final mask we used the extract by mask tool in the Spatial Analyst toolbox. We extracted the non-industrial private lands (including Tribal lands) from the NLCD grid of suitable
NLCD values. The resulting grid
represents suitable NLCD values
(value = 1) within our non-industrial
private lands. All other lands have a
value of No Data, thus eliminating
them from our analysis.
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
7
Resource Potential
1. Riparian Corridors
The riparian corridors dataset is intended to place importance on river and stream corridors
where buffers of forest or vegetative cover can have a positive or restorative effect on water
quality and riverine ecosystems. DNR’s Forest Practices Division recommended that a 100foot buffer for non-fish bearing streams and a 150-foot buffer for fish bearing streams would be
considered best management practices. Because of processing time, this layer is not statewide
and only occurs within the Analysis mask created for Washington State's SAP. All areas with a
buffer were given a value of 1 all areas outside of these areas were given a value of 0. Final
grid name = riparian2.
2. Priority Watersheds
The priority watersheds datalayer is intended to place emphasis on landscapes that influence
long-term watershed function. Priority watersheds for Washington State were determined using
the 2004 Washington Water Quality Assessment/303d list produced by Washington State Department of Ecology (Online source http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/data/data.htm#303d).
Sixth level hydrological units listed as impaired were selected as priority watersheds. These priority watersheds were given a value of 1; other areas were given a value of 0. Final grid name
= rcwatershed.
3. Threatened and Endangered Species
Threatened and endangered species information was obtained by Washington State Department
of Fish and Wildlife. The Federally Threatened animal species found in our states forested areas were selected and then buffered ½ mile. The data was converted to a grid with occurrences
given a value of 1 and all other areas a value of 0. Final grid name = tande_species.
4. Public Water Drinking Supply Sources
Polygons represent the buffered upstream from the intake areas where Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) inventories should occur (More about SWAP http://www.doh.wa.gov/
ehp/dw/our_main_pages/swap.htm). These polygons were given a value of 1 while all other
areas received a value of 0. Final grid name = drink2
5. Non-Industrial Private and Tribal Forestlands
Our analysis mask is our non-industrial private lands (Including Tribal lands) layer so to create
this layer we simply set the analysis mask and then reclassified the NLCD. The NLCD forested
values 41, 42, 43, 51 and 91 were given a value of 1; all other areas were given a value of no
data. Final grid name = nipf_land2.
6. Proximity to Public Lands
A one mile buffer of public lands (Federal, State, City and County) was created to locate areas
that are in proximity to public lands. It is assumed that these are areas that are near permanently protected and managed lands. Lands included in the buffer were given a value of 1 all
other lands were given a value of 0. Final grid name = proximity_fin.
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
8
7. Wetlands
The Wetlands data was obtained by US Fish and Wildlife Service (online source http://
www.fws.gov/data/statdata/wadata.html.) Values in this layer include: Freshwater – forested
and shrubland, freshwater emergent wetlands, freshwater ponds, estuarine and marine wetlands,
riverines and lakes. The data was converted to a grid. Wetlands were given a value of 1 all
other areas were given a value of 0. Final grid name = wetlands.
8. Topograhic Slope
A 0-40% slope was selected from a DNR slope layer. This layer was derived from the DEM30
(Digital Elevation Model – 30 Meter) elevation data. 0-40% slope was given a value of 1 while
all other areas were given a value of 0. Final grid name = slope2
9. Forest Patch Size
Washington State does not present many fragmented forests as much of the Eastern states do.
Much of Washington’s forestland is not ecologically and/or economically restricted by forest
patch size. Therefore, simply a forested land layer was used to represent the forest patch size
layer. Forested areas were given a value of 1 all other areas a value of 0. Final grid name =
nlcdforested2.
Resource Threat:
1. Forest Health
Forest Health data was obtained by the DNR and USDA Forest Service Region 6 insect and disease aerial detection survey. (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/
ForestHealthEcology/Pages/rp_foresthealth.aspx) High and medium occurrence of defoliators
and abiotic, animal and mortality agents affecting more than ¼ trees per acre were selected for
the SAP. Affected areas were given a value of 1 all other areas a value of 0. Final grid name =
forest_health.
2. Developing Areas
This layer was obtained using Dr. David Theobald’s housing density layer. For our analysis
2000 density was subtracted from the 2030 density projections to determine areas under pressure from development. The raster was reclassified so developing areas were given a value of 1
and all other areas a value of 0. Final grid name = dev_areas
3. Wildfire Assessment
The wildfire assessment layer was developed using Landfire data (http://www.landfire.gov/).
Fire Regime I and Fire Regime Condition Classes 1, 2, and 3 were intersected to show areas of
relatively high risk of fire. These are areas where planning and management are likely to reduce a relatively high risk of wildfire. High fire risk areas were given a value of 1 all other areas a value of 0. Final grid name = wa_fireclp
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
9
Datalayer Weighting Process:
Datalayer Weights:
Washington State’s climate and landscape differ from the eastern to western portions of the
state. Because of these differences, it was decided to run two analyses, one for Eastern Washington and one for Western Washington. The Stewardship Committee was asked to rank each
of our datalayers for each side of the State (see Appendix for Stewardship Committee ranking
form). They were asked to rank the layers from 1 to 12, 1 being of highest importance and 12
being of lowest importance. The Washington Tribes that participated in our project were also
asked to rank each of the datalayers based on their importance to the Tribe. Those ranks were
then included in their corresponding region of the state. The weights were then averaged and
converted to ‘mean weights’. The ‘inverse weight’ was then determined by subtracting each
mean weight from the highest possible total weight (12). These were then converted to ‘relative
weights as a proportion of the total inverse weights.
East
Wildfire Assessment: 14% (0.14)
Forest Health: 14% (0.14)
Riparian Areas: 14% (0.14)
Private Forestlands: 11% (0.11)
T & E Species: 8% (0.08)
Wetlands: 8% 0(.08)
Forest Patch Size: 7% (0.07)
Priority Watersheds: 6% (0.06)
Developing Areas: 6% (0.06)
Proximity to Public Lands: 5% (0.05)
Public Drinking Water Sources: 5% (0.05)
Topography: 3% (0.03)
West
Riparian Areas: 15% (0.15)
Priority Watersheds: 10% (0.10)
T & E Species: 10% (0.10)
Wetlands: 10% (0.10)
Private Forestlands: 9% (0.09)
Public Drinking Water Sources: 9% (0.09)
Forest Health: 9% (0.09)
Developing Areas: 8% (0.08)
Forest Patch Size: 7% (0.07)
Proximity to Public Lands: 5% (0.05)
Wildfire Assessment: 3% (0.03)
Topography: 3% (0.03)
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
10
Overlay Weighting Scheme Rank Scale
Mean
Inverse
Relative
Weight
Values from 1 to 12 (1 is the highest weight, 12 the lowest)
3
2
5
4
1
1
Weight
Weight
(Proportion)
Data Layer
EAST
Riparian Areas
3
4
2.9
9.1
0.14
Wildfire Assessment
1
3
1
5
4
3
3
4
3.0
9.0
0.14
Forest Health
2
1
2
4
2
2
5
3
2.6
9.4
0.14
T&E
8
6
4
3
11
6
10
5
6.6
5.4
0.08
Public Drinking Water
6
11
6
7
3
11
11
12
8.4
3.6
0.05
Proximity to Public
Lands
Wetlands
7
8
12
10
7
10
12
6
11
5
8
8
9
8
4
2
9.0
6.9
3.0
5.1
0.05
0.08
9
7
7
6
8
12
6
11
8.3
3.8
0.06
Topography
12
12
9
12
12
9
7
7
10.0
2.0
0.03
Priority Watersheds
10
10
5
9
6
7
8
8
7.9
4.1
0.06
4
2
11
1
1
1
9
10
4.9
7.1
0.11
5
9
10
11
10
5
2
9
Total
1
7.6
78.0
2.0
4.4
66.0
10.0
0.07
1.00
0.15
Developing Areas
Private Forestlands
Forest Patch Size
WEST
Riparian Areas
2
1
1
2
3
3
4
2
1
2
2
12
11
11
6
8
9
6
8
12
12
10
1
4
2
4
2
8
7
9
11
7
5
12
10
9.8
5.8
2.3
6.2
0.03
0.09
4
5
5
3
10
7
8
1
6
5
3
4
5.1
6.9
0.10
7
12
4
7
4
6
9
5
10
3
1
5
6.1
5.9
0.09
11
9
12
10
7
12
5
6
8
10
6
7
8.6
3.4
0.05
Wetlands
6
3
7
8
12
5
2
4
9
1
4
2
5.3
6.8
0.10
Developing Areas
3
7
6
5
6
11
7
7
3
6
11
8
6.7
5.3
0.08
Topography
7
10
8
12
11
10
11
12
5
11
12
9
9.8
2.2
0.03
Priority Watersheds
8
2
9
9
5
4
1
3
7
4
7
3
5.2
6.8
0.10
Private Forestlands
2
6
10
1
1
1
12
11
2
9
9
6
5.8
6.2
0.09
Forest Patch Size
5
8
9
11
9
2
3
10
4
8
8
11
7.3
4.7
0.07
Total
77.4
66.6
1.00
Wildfire Assessment
Forest Health
T&E
Public Drinking Water
Proximity to Public
Lands
Table 1: Ranking from the Stewardship Committee and participating Tribes to
establish weights for suitability analysis layers.
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
11
Results
Neither the west side nor the east side had all layers hit in every cell. The analysis values for
the east side ranged from 0 (100,071 cells out of a possible 72,383,972 cells) to .95 (5 cells) and
values for the west side ranged from 0 (1405 cells out of a possible 14,302,687 cells) to .89 (2
cells). Both the .95 and the .89 values indicate that there were no cells that “hit” all layers. The
0 value indicates that there were some cells that hit none of the layers. Once the analysis was
run the Jenks Natural Breaks classification algorithm was used to determine high, medium and
low classes. These classes were then reclassified to grid values 1 – low, 2 – medium, and 3 –
high.
West
Natural Breaks
Reclassified to:
Representing:
0 – 0.24
1
Low Stewardship Potential
0.24 – 0.39
2
Medium Stewardship Potential
0.39 – 0.89
3
High Stewardship Potential
Natural Breaks
Reclassified to:
0 – 0.17
1
Representing:
Low Stewardship Potential
0.17 – 0.36
2
Medium Stewardship Potential
0.36 – 0.95
3
High Stewardship Potential
East
Table 2: Stewardship potential cell values reclassified using natural breaks for both Western and
Eastern Washington.
STEWARDSHIP CAPABLE LANDS IN WESTERN WASHINGTON
Stewardship
Potential
Forest
% of Total
Acres
Forest
Non-forest
% of Total
Acres
Non-Forest
Total
Acres
% of Total
Forest
High
713,351
28%
51,229
7%
764,580
23%
Medium
1,577,825
62%
218,226
13%
1,796,051
55%
Low
233,604
9%
489,225
64%
722,829
22%
Total
2,524,780
758,680
3,283,460
Table 3: From Map #2A showing Stewardship Capable lands in Western Washington.
STEWARDSHIP CAPABLE LANDS IN EASTERN WASHINGTON
Forest
Non-forest
Total
Stewardship
Potential
Acres
% of Total
Forest
Acres
% of Total
Non-Forest
Acres
% of Total
Forest
High
1,734,182
21%
134,991
2%
1,869,174
11%
Medium
5,704,103
70%
1,075,969
13%
6,780,073
41%
Low
689,482
8%
7,278,345
86%
7,967,827
48%
Total
8,127,769
8,489,305
16,617,074
Table 4: From Map #2B showing Stewardship Capable lands in Eastern Washington.
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
12
The results for the most part made sense with regard to where the high, medium and low areas
resulted. There were some questionable high areas in the Columbia Basin. These results most
likely came about because NLCD value 51 (shrubland) was included in both the ‘forest patch
size’ layer and the ‘non-industrial private forestland’ layer. Shrubland was included in the
analysis for consistency with other states’ analyses. These two layers accompanied by the
‘riparian’ layer were all ranked fairly high causing these cells to fall into the higher category.
Seeking Tribal Participation
There are 31 Tribes or Tribal affiliates that occupy approximately 1.7 million acres of forest
land throughout the state of Washington. These lands contain valuable resources and management opportunities, and represent an important component of landscape areas in the state. In
developing shared management priorities with key partners, these lands need to be considered
as a key element of any comprehensive effort to analyze forest conditions, trends, and opportunities in the state, as a means to identifying priority forest landscapes.
Recognizing the need to include Tribal interests in the Spatial Analysis Project, the Washington
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) implemented a focused effort to invite the input and
voice of all affiliated Tribes that occupy or manage lands within the state. The principal purposes of this endeavor were to talk with Tribal leaders and representatives on the importance of
this project, to share how the analysis and final SAP product could benefit Tribal interests, and
explain why their counsel and participation was needed.
To accomplish this collaboration, the Washington DNR contacted all affiliated Tribes in Washington State to encourage their participation in the analysis to ensure that their individual Tribal
priorities were represented in the final SAP product. The process of communicating with Tribes
was guided by DNR’s Tribal Relations Manager, Rodney Cawston, and USFS Tribal Relations
Staff Assistant, Gary Harris. Specifically, Tribes were invited to provide their advice and input
on the ranking or relative priority to assign to each of the twelve GIS data layers. The DNR
also advised Tribes on the potential use of SAP as a strategic planning tool in managing their
lands, and offered to run a separate SAP analysis for their respective lands.
The DNR first introduced the Spatial
Analysis Project at the Affiliated
Tribes of the Northwest Indians Conference in Yakima, Washington, in
January, 2008. In addition to providing a brief presentation of the overall
project, an informational SAP brochure that was specifically developed
for the Tribes was distributed at the
Conference. Tribal members were
encouraged to contact the WDNR for
more information, or to schedule an
opportunity to meet individually to
share their voice.
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
13
Following the conference, letters containing further documentation of the analysis and SAP data
layers were sent to all 31 affiliated Tribes in Washington State to invite their participation in the
project. Follow-up phone calls were then made by Mr. Cawston and Mr. Harris to individual
Tribes, who did not initially respond to the letter, again encouraging their involvement and input. In all, six Tribes provided their input to the SAP by giving their ranking for the twelve
standard data layers. The six Tribes who responded and participated included the Confederated
Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe,
Lummi Indian Tribe, Nooksack Indian Tribe, and the Snoqualmie Tribe. The ranking provided
by the Tribes, along with the rankings by the Stewardship Committee, determined the overall
ranks for each data layer in the overlay analysis.
Part 2. Stewardship Plan Digitizing
The other main component of the Spatial Analysis Project is the collection and digitizing of
Washington State Stewardship plans. These plans will be used in the suitability analysis.
Washington State is divided into six DNR regions. Each region, with the exception of our
Olympic Region, houses their own Stewardship plans. Each region had different way of organizing their in Stewardship plan information so collecting plan information from each region
did take some time. Great cooperation from region stewardship foresters allowed files to be
periodically shipped from the regions to our central office for processing. This saved both time
and travel costs. We did run into some issues with the plans not containing uniform information. Planned activities were not easily found throughout the plans. We decided not to collect
planned activity information for past plans, but that a process for collecting planned activity information would be added to all new stewardship plans. Washington State also made the decision to include only “current plans.” Stewardship plans are valid for ten years; therefore, any
plan that was written and approved after 1997 was considered “current” and was collected.
Procedures:
A personal geodatabase was designed for the Web-DET application. This geodatabase stores
the feature class of the stewardship plans along with the related tables that hold the information
for each of these digitized plan boundaries. PLAN INFORMATION, PROPERTY
ASDDRESS, and OWNERSHIP tables in the geodatabase were populated with related plan information. A custom toolbar was developed by Colorado to speed the processes of digitizing
and inputting repeated plan information.
Metadata
Metadata was completed for all datalayers as well as for all final analysis layers. The FGDC
metadata editor in ArcCatalog was used to meet Federal Geographic Committee (FGDC) standards.
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
14
Analysis and Map Products:
The Spatial Analysis Project is made up of the suitability analysis along with map products,
which also include analysis and statistical information. The eastern portion of the landscape in
Washington State is so drastically different from the Western portion that it made sense to run
two separate suitability analyses for each side of the state. Each of the first six maps display the
Eastern and Western analyses on separate maps. “A” maps display results from Western Washington results and “B” maps display Eastern Washington results.
Map #1A & 1B: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits
Map #1A & 1B display each suitability analysis. The map displays high, medium and low areas
of stewardship potential within our analysis mask areas for each side of the state. To complete
the statistical table included in the map the ‘extract by mask’ tool from the ‘Spatial Analyst’
toolbox in ArcMap was used to separate the forested land analysis results from the non-forested
land analysis results in our mask. By using this tool, the results are displayed spatially as well
as in the attribute table. The number of cells for each value was then calculated to acres. The
results are displayed in the Stewardship Capable Lands table on the map.
Map #2A & 2B: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits and Existing Stewardship Plans
In these maps, existing stewardship plans are displayed over the stewardship potential results.
The table in the map compares stewardship plan acres to total acres capable of stewardship.
The results were compiled using the ‘extract by mask’ tool from the Spatial Analyst toolbox in
ArcMap. The values from the resulting grid were then calculated to acres for the displayed table.
Map #3A & 3B: Forest Stewardship Potential on Non-Industrial Private Forest Lands,
Tribal lands and Existing Stewardship Plans
Maps 3A and 3B display forest stewardship potential on non-industrial private forest lands and
Tribal land. This layer was created by using NLCD forested values (41, 42, 43, 51, 61 and 91)
within our analysis mask and adding it to the stewardship potential layer. The resulting layer
determines stewardship potential on non-industrial private forestlands and Tribal land. The
table in map #3A and #3B of stewardship potential on private lands was created using the
‘extract by mask tool’.
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
15
To determine the acres of stewardship potential on non-industrial private forestland and Tribal
land within stewardship plan acres the stewardship potential on non-industrial private forestland
and Tribal land was extracted to the Stewardship plan acres. Cell values were then calculated to
acres for the resulting tables.
Map #4A & 4B: Resource Richness
The resource richness map displays areas of resource potential for Washington State. Resource
Rich datalayers were added together using their relative weights assigned by the Stewardship
Committee and Tribes in the suitability analysis. The data was normalized to match the 0 to 1
scale as used in the suitability analysis.
Data Layer
EAST
Riparian Areas
T&E
Public Drinking
Water
Proximity to
Public Lands
Wetlands
Topography
Priority Watersheds
Private Forestlands
Forest Patch Size
Overlay Weighting Scheme Rank Scale
3
8
Values from 1 to 12 (1 is the highest weight, 12 the lowest)
4
3
2
5
4
1
1
6
4
3
11
6 10
5
Mean
Inverse
Relative
Weight
Weight
2.9
6.6
Weight
9.1
5.4
(Proportion)
0.14
0.08
Weight
0.21
0.12
6
11
6
7
3
11
11
12
8.4
3.6
0.05
0.08
7
11
12
8
5
12
12
8
9
10
8
12
7
9
12
10
8
9
12
4
7
6
2
7
9.0
6.9
10.0
3.0
5.1
2.0
0.05
0.08
0.03
0.07
0.12
0.05
10
10
5
9
6
7
8
8
7.9
4.1
0.06
0.09
4
5
2
9
11
10
1
11
1
10
1
5
9
2
10
9
4.9
7.6
7.1
4.4
0.11
0.07
0.66
0.16
0.10
1.00
Total
WEST
Riparian Areas
T&E
Public Drinking
Water
Proximity to
Public Lands
Wetlands
Topography
Priority Watersheds
Private Forestlands
Forest Patch Size
Normalized
2
4
1
5
1
5
2
3
3
10
3
7
4
8
2
1
2
5
2
3
1
4
2.0
5.1
10.0
6.9
0.15
0.10
0.19
0.13
5
1
6
1
0
7
12
4
7
4
6
9
3
1
5
6.1
5.9
0.09
0.11
11
6
9
3
12
7
10
8
7
12
12
5
5
2
6
4
8
9
10
1
6
4
7
2
8.6
5.3
3.4
6.8
0.05
0.10
0.06
0.13
7
10
8
12
11
10
11
12
5
11
12
9
9.8
2.2
0.03
0.04
8
2
9
9
5
4
1
3
7
4
7
3
5.2
6.8
0.10
0.13
2
5
6
8
10
9
1
11
1
9
1
2
12
3
11
10
2
4
9
8
9
8
6
11
5.8
7.3
6.2
4.7
0.09
0.07
0.79
0.12
0.09
1.00
Table 5: Overlay Weighting Scheme Rank Scale with Normalized Weights for both Eastern and Western
Washington State.
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
16
Map #5A & 5B: Resource Threats
The resource threats map defines areas considered resource threats to the Forest Stewardship
Program in Washington State. The layer was created by using only the resource threat datalayers from the suitability analysis. The relative weights of each layer were kept and then normalized to match the 0 to 1 scale used in the original suitability analysis.
Data Layer
Overlay Weighting Scheme Rank Scale
EAST
Wildfire Assessment
Forest Health
Developing Areas
1
2
9
WEST
Wildfire Assessment
Forest Health
Developing Areas
12
1
3
Mean
Weigh
t
3.0
2.6
8.3
Values from 1 to 12 (1 is the highest weight, 12 the lowest)
3
1
5
4
3
3
4
1
2
4
2
2
5
3
7
7
6
8
12
6
11
11
4
7
11
2
6
6
4
5
8
2
6
9
8
11
6
7
7
8
9
7
12
11
3
12
7
6
10
5
11
12
10
8
9.8
5.8
6.7
Inverse
Relative
Weight
Normalized
Weight
9.0
9.4
3.8
(Proportion)
0.14
0.14
0.06
0.34
Weight
0.41
0.42
0.17
1.00
2.3
6.2
5.3
0.03
0.09
0.08
0.21
0.16
0.45
0.39
1.00
Table 6: Overlay Weighting Scheme Rank Scale with Normalized weights for Resource Threats.
Map #6A & #6B: Forest Stewardship Potential on Non-Forested – Non-Developed Lands
and Existing Stewardship Plans
Map 6A and 6B define areas with stewardship potential on non-forested and non-developed
lands for Washington State. NLCD non-forested, non-developed values (31, 33, 71, 81, 82, 83,
84, 85 and 92) within our analysis mask were selected and added to the stewardship potential
grid. The ‘extract by mask’ tool in the Spatial Analyst toolbox was then used to determine
acreage for non-forested, non- developed lands with stewardship potential and with existing
stewardship plans.
Map 7: Forest Stewardship Potential on Non-Industrial Private Forests vs. Non-Forest and
Existing Stewardship Plans for the Spokane area
Washington’s regional map displays non-industrial private forests and non-forested lands with
stewardship potential. The forested stewardship potential maintains the green color scale while
the non-forested lands are represented by an orange color scale. The Spokane area is displayed
in this map at a 1:200,000 scale. Counties, selected cities, roads, rivers, lakes were also added
to the map to relate where there is stewardship potential.
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
17
Appendix A: Stewardship Committee Ranking Form
Rank these layers 1 being highest importance to Stewardship potential and 12 being the lowest importance to Stewardship potential.
EAST
WEST
Riparian Areas
Wildfire Assessment
Forest Health
Threatened and Endangered Species
Public Drinking Water
Proximity to Public Lands
Wetlands
Developing Areas
Topography
Priority Watersheds
Private Forestland
Forest Patch Size
Please do not hesitate to call if you have questions or comments. Thank you.
Nicki Eisfeldt
Washington Department of Natural Resources
1111 Washington St SE
Olympia, WA 98504-7037
360-902-1330
nicholene.eisfeldt@dnr.wa.gov
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
18
Appendix B: National Land Cover Datalayer Definition
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
19
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
20
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
21
Appendix C: Tribal Participation Documents
• Letter to Tribes
• Brochure for AT&I Conference
• Contact spreadsheet
• Tribal Datalayer Ranking Form
Washington Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project—Final Report
22
Developing Areas
This datalayer emphasizes areas that are projected to have an increase in
housing development over the next 30 years. Which may influence long
term forest management potential.
Priority Watersheds
This datalayer is intended to place emphasis on landscapes that impact longterm watershed function. These watersheds were chosen using Federal EPA
impaired waters data.
Drinking Water Supply Sources
This datalayer places emphasis on areas of watersheds that drain onto public
drinking water supply intake points.
Wetlands
This datalayer should identify wetlands where planning and management can
achieve a higher degree of protection for purposes including water quality and
wildlife habitat.
Forest Health
This datalayer places importance on areas where silvicultural treatments
can address risks to forest health.
Wildfire Assessment
Identifies areas where planning and management are likely to reduce a
relatively high risk of fire.
Riparian Areas
This datalayer places importance on river and stream corridors
where buffers of forest or vegetative cover can have a positive or
restorative effect on water quality and riverine ecosystems.
Forest Patch Size
This datalayer represents all forestland in Washington state.
Threatened and Endangered Species
This datalayer identifies areas that provide habitat for Federally threatened and
endangered species.
Proximity to Public Lands
The assumption is that Public lands are permanently protected (managed) and
thus contribute to a viably large, interconnected forest landscape. This layer
includes all land within one mile proximity to public lands.
Private Forested Lands
This datalayer is intended to place emphasis on eligible non-industrial private
lands with existing forest cover.
Topographic Slope
This datalayer is included for timber or fiber productivity because of its
relationship to ease and feasibility for forest harvesting operations. For
Washington we included all lands that have 0-40% slope.
Benefits
Tribes within Washington State are eligible to receive
professional planning and technical assistance from
the DNR Forest Stewardship Program. The goal of
the program is to assist landowners in keeping their
land productive and healthy. Tribes could potentially
benefit from the inclusion in the Forest Stewardship
Program as delivered by DNR Forest Practices Division and the U.S. Forest Service.
DNR is seeking to collaborate with Washington
Tribes to include Tribal lands in the Spatial Analysis
Project. DNR’s goal is to create a natural resources
data layer of information including Tribal land to
identify where potential for Stewardship exists. The
Spatial Analysis Project can include data to indicate
where resource-rich areas are located and where Forest Stewardship Program assistance can be focused.
This project provides tools that can help Tribes focus
future Forest Stewardship Program efforts to effectively and efficiently address critical forest resource
issues.
For more information about the Spatial Analysis
Project and how to participate please contact::
Nicki EisfeldtWashington State Department of Natural Resources.
Phone: 360-902-1330
Email: nicholene.eisfeldt@dnr.wa.gov
Forest Stewardship Program
Spatial Analysis
Project
Description
Process
Administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and implemented by
State forestry agencies, the Forest Stewardship Program encourages private forest landowners to actively manage their lands using professionally prepared Forest Stewardship plans. These plans consider all associated forest-related resources to meet
landowner objectives, including—but not limited
to—timber, wildlife, fish, water, and aesthetics.
•
Develop a geodatabase that spatially displays
Forest Stewardship plans and captures associated management activities.
•
Analyze 12 common data layers that address
resource potentials and threats and encourage
States to use additional layers to address Statespecific conditions/issues.
•
Exclude areas not eligible for Forest Stewardship Program assistance.
•
Overlay common and State-specific datalayers
to create a composite that maps areas of highest
Forest Stewardship Program potential.
•
Assess existing Forest Stewardship tracts
against the composite to quantify impact and
identify opportunities.
•
Solicit State Stewardship Committee input
throughout project development.
The Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) is a geographic
information system (GIS)-based strategic management tool that allows Washington State Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) to identify and spatially display important forest lands (e.g., rich in
natural resources or vulnerable to threat), tracts
currently under Forest Stewardship plans, and areas
where there may be an opportunity to focus future
Forest Stewardship Program efforts. DNR is currently working to complete the Spatial Analysis Project for Washington State.
Objectives
•
Promote strategic program delivery over traditional first-come, first-served basis.
•
Address accountability for positive results on
the ground.
•
Provide a standard, consistent way to assess the
impact Forest Stewardship plans have on the
forest resource in addressing regionally or nationally important issues.
Example of overlay analysis
process
Tribes Contacted
Confederated Tribes of the Umitilla Reservation
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
Lower Elwha Klallam
Lumi Indian Tribe
Nooksack Indian Tribe
Snoqualmie Tribe
Chehalis
Colville
Conf. Tribes of Umatilla IR
Cowlitz Indian Tribe
CRITFC
Hoh
Kalispel
Makah Tribe
Muckleshoot Tribe
Nez Perce Tribe
NW Indian Fish Commission
Point no Point Treaty Council
Port Gamble S'Klallam
Puyallup Tribe
Quileute Tribe
Quileute Tribe
Quinault Indian Nation
Quinault Indian Nation
Samish
Sauk-Suiattle Tribe
Shoalwater Bay
Skokomish Tribe
Spokane Tribe
Squaxin Island Tribe
Stillaguamish Tribe
Suquamish Tribe
Swinomish
UCUT
Warm Springs CT
**Hilighted Tribes participated in the SAP project
Rank these layers 1 being highest importance to Stewardship potential and 12 being the
lowest importance to Stewardship potential.
Riparian Areas
Wildfire Assessment
Forest Health
.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Public Drinking Water
Proximity to Public Lands
Wetlands
Developing Areas
Topography
Priority Watersheds
Private Forestland
Forest Patch Size
Please do not hesitate to call if you have questions or comments. Please return as
soon as possible. Thank you.
Nicki Eisfeldt
Washington Department of Natural Resources
1111 Washington St SE
Olympia, WA 98504-7037
360-902-1330
nicholene.eisfeldt@dnr.wa.gov