Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis
Project
Summary Report for Arizona
November 2006
This project and publication made possible through a grant from the USDA Forest Service
Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Summary Report for Arizona – November 2006
Produced by the
Arizona State Land Department
Forestry Division
1110 W Washington St
Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 771-1400
This project and publication were made possible through a grant from
the USDA Forest Service.
Cover Photo: Humphrey’s Peak AZ taken by Aaron Green, 2006.
Acknowledgements:
The Arizona State Land Department Forestry Division would like to
thank the USDA Forest Service for providing funding and guidance
to complete this Spatial Analysis Project and report.
We would also like to thank the many individuals and organizations
that contributed to the completion of this project, report, and related
data development.
Karl Dalla Rosa, Elaine Waterbury, George Martinez, and many
other USDA Forest Service personnel within Region 3 and the
Washington Office participated in meetings and offered feedback that
resulted in a greatly improved product.
Members of the Arizona Forest Stewardship Committee and Forestry
Division staff offered substantial input and valuable suggestions and
support along the way.
Gene Trobia of the Arizona State
Cartographer’s Office was integral to initiating this project and
continuing to offer feedback and final review.
Skip Edel of the Colorado State Forest Service has been a key
resource from the beginning, and has provided knowledgeable input
and timely responses to many of our ongoing questions.
Most importantly, we were able to learn volumes from the many
states that previously completed the Spatial Analysis Project and had
already worked out answers to problems that we would not need to.
We also thank these states for allowing us to borrow and massage a
few well thought-out concepts, phrases, and ideas from their reports
and maps.
Page ii
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
PART 1 –
SUMMARY REPORT
3
Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) Introduction
SAP Implementation
Suitability Analysis
Data Layer Weighting Process
Model Results
Existing Landowner Forest Stewardship Plans
Implementation and Future of Use
PART 2 –
FINAL MAP RESULTS
17
PART 3 –
METHODOLOGY REPORT
33
Model Builder
Data Layer Development
APPDENDICES
45
Appendix A: FSP Spatial Analysis Project Concept Paper
Appendix B: Activity Codes
Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project Land Cover Descriptions for
Arizona
National Land Cover Datalayer (NLCD)
USDA FS Aerial Detection Survey Damage Causal Agent Codes –
Arizona
Appendix C: GIS Data Resources
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
This project and publication
made possible through a
grant from the USDA Forest
Service.
Page iii
Contact Info:
Al Hendricks, Stewardship Coordinator
Arizona State Land Department Forestry Division
3650 Lake Mary Rd
Flagstaff, AZ 86001-3255
Office: (928) 774-1425
alhendricks@azstatefire.org
Glen Buettner, GIS Manager
Arizona State Land Department Forestry Division
1110 W Washington St
Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2957
Office: (602) 771-1410
glenbuettner@azstatefire.org
Eric Kenney, GIS Project Coordinator
Arizona State Land Department Forestry Division
1110 W Washington St
Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2957
Office: (602) 771-1418
erickenney@azstatefire.org
Page iv
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project
Executive Summary
The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) was developed to
evaluate the impact over the landscape that the FSP has had over the last decade and identify
areas of stewardship suitability to allow for strategic delivery of the FSP. Over the past 15 years,
landowner forest stewardship plans (LFSP) have been developed in Arizona under the guidance
of the state priority plan. The SAP has two main components: an historic spatial database of
stewardship plan tracts, and a layer-based suitability analysis. Both components are used
together in a GIS analysis to categorize areas within a state according to the area‟
s stewardship
potential, and evaluate how effective the state has been at delivering the FSP in those priority
areas.
The Arizona State Land Department –
Forestry Division (Forestry Division) has invested many
hours into the Spatial Analysis Project over the past two years. The majority of that time was
committed to collecting data for the stewardship plan database. All Forestry Division districts
were visited, every LFSP evaluated, and plan authors were interviewed for details. The majority
of the plans were digitized by hand into a geospatial database (ArcGIS Personal Geodatabase).
We have digitized and mapped 200 LFSP with a few remaining plans still being researched and
collected.
Analysis Results:
Stewardship Capable lands in Arizona:
There are approximately 40.3 million acres of land in Arizona capable of being included
in the Forest Stewardship Program
Of those 40.3 million acres, approximately 9.6 million are forested
Existing LFSP acres total 172,865 and include approximately 0.97% of the total forested
stewardship capable lands in Arizona
Stewardship Potential in Arizona:
Of the 40.3 million acres capable of stewardship, 15% are c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
„
h
i
g
h
‟
s
t
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
potential (based on the layer suitability analysis),
27% are c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
„
m
e
d
i
u
m
‟
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
a
n
d
58% are cons
i
d
e
r
e
d
„
l
o
w
‟
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
Discussion:
Stewardship potential is considered on all private, state trust, and tribal lands, both non-forested
and forested. The vast majority of mapped landowner forest stewardship plans are in high and
medium potential areas. This means the Forestry Division has done a good job of understanding
where high priority stewardship areas are, and has focused program delivery in those high
priority areas.
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Executive Summary
Page 1
Page 2
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Executive Summary
Part 1 –
Summary Report
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Summary Report
Page 3
Page 4
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Summary Report
Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) Introduction
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. In Arizona, FSP is guided by
the state Forest Stewardship program plan and the state priority plan.
SAP Purpose and Background:
Since its inception, the FSP has been delivered and made available to nonindustrial private forest
landowners on a first-come, first-served basis. This customer-friendly approach assists
landowners in improving their forest resources; however, it fails to allow assessment of the
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
‟
s
f
u
l
l
potential across the landscape. It does not take into consideration the connectivity
of stewardship tracts, nor does it target landowners whose forestland 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
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
,
a
s
s
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
‟
s
t
a
x
p
a
y
e
r
s
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
implementation is efficient and effective, and positively affects forest resources.
After over a decade of implementation, it is timely to evaluate the impact the Forest Stewardship
Program has had on the landscape and position the program to address critical resource
management needs in the future, while meeting landowner objectives.
In FY2001, the Northeastern Area and the states of Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and
Missouri began a pilot Forest Stewardship Program Spatial Analysis Project. The purpose of the
pilot was to create a better way to assess the impact of the Stewardship program to date, and to
strategically implement the program to more effectively address critical resource management
needs in the future.
Since 2001, the Spatial Analysis Project has expanded and work is at various stages of
completion in many other states.
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Summary Report
Page 5
SAP Implementation
The FSP Spatial Analysis Project is comprised of two major components. The first part is the
stewardship suitability analysis. Using common data layers developed by the four pilot states,
and other state specific layers of importance, an overlay analysis is conducted. The results of
this overlay are then classified into regions of low, medium, and high stewardship potential.
Once the overlay is finished, it is compared to the second component of the SAP; the historic
database of landowner forest stewardship plans. The plan boundaries are digitized into a
Geodatabase along with relevant attribute information. These digitized plans are combined with
the suitability analysis to determine how effective the stewardship program has been based on
location of plans and the percentage of plans within each stewardship potential category. The
two components are then used to identify areas of need and opportunity. Strategic delivery of
the Forest Stewardship Program is accomplished through pursuing stewardship opportunities of
higher priority.
Page 6
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Summary Report
Suitability Analysis
One-half of the SAP is the statewide stewardship suitability analysis. It is comprised of 12
common data layers, an analysis mask, and other state-specific layers deemed important to that
particular state. The layers are divided into three categories: analysis mask, resource richness,
and resource threat.
Analysis Mask
1.
Eligible Lands –
defines areas for the
analysis to take place.
Resource Richness
2.
Private Forest Lands
3.
Riparian Corridors
4.
Priority Watersheds
5.
Forest Patch Size
6.
Threatened and Endangered Species
7.
Public Water Supply
8.
Proximity to Public Lands
9.
Wetlands
10.
Topographic Slope
Resource Threats
11.
Forest Health
12.
Developing Areas
13.
Wildfire Assessment
The layers are created as a raster or converted from a vector data type for faster geoprocessing
time and then reclassified to a common scale. Scale values of each layer are weighted and added
together (the overlay) to reveal areas of high, medium, and low stewardship suitability. This
overlay analysis allows for strategic stewardship program delivery (as opposed to first come, first
served method) as well as a spatial means of work planning and prioritizing. The process of
developing the individual data layers for Arizona is described below.
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Summary Report
Page 7
Arizona Analysis
Arizona used other state results as guidance to establish a baseline for our model and weights.
We met with agency forestry staff and the Arizona Forest Stewardship Committee (AFSC) to
ensure t
h
a
t
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
l
a
y
e
r
s
a
n
d
m
o
d
e
l
a
r
e
i
n
l
i
n
e
w
i
t
h
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
‟
s
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
identified forestland
priorities. After several planning meetings, we contacted numerous Federal, State, local, and
private organizations to obtain the best available data for the various data layers. We conducted
a survey of all stakeholders to elicit feedback on data sources, data quality, and appropriate
weighting and identified one additional layer to be included in the model.
Arizona Data Layers:
Analysis Mask
1.
Eligible Lands –
defines areas eligible and ineligible for stewardship programs.
Ineligible Lands include, Barren Lands, Open Water, and Public Lands
Resource Richness
2.
Forest Lands –
All forested areas (from Southwest Regional GAP) (SWReGAP)
3.
Riparian Areas –
All riparian areas (from Arizona Game and Fish Department)
4.
Priority Watersheds –
5th Level Hydrological Unit Codes (HUCS) that contain perennial
streams (from NRCS and The Nature Conservancy)
5.
Forest Patch Size –
Forest patches greater than 100 acres (from SWReGAP and AZ
Department of Transportation)
6.
Priority Habitats –
A combination of two datasets of important habitat areas identified by
the Arizona Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy (from Special
Species (T&E) information from state Natural Heritage Program and EcoRegions from
The Nature Conservancy)
7.
Public Water Supply –
A combination of well protection areas and watersheds that
supply reservoirs (from AZ Department of Environmental Quality, NRCS, Bureau of
Reclamation)
8.
Proximity to Public Lands –
Public and protected lands buffered by 800 meter (~ ½ mile)
(from ALRIS land management)
9.
Forest Wetlands –
All forested wetlands (from SWReGAP vegetation data)
10.
Topographic Slope –
Slope of less than 40% (from National Elevation Dataset)
Resource Threats
11.
Insect Damage Threats –
Bark Beetle impact aerial detections over 5 year period buffered
by 800 meter /~ ½ mile (from USDA FS aerial survey data 2001 to 2005)
12.
Risk of Development –
Large projected growth areas by census block (from US Census
Bureau, AZ Demographer
‟
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
,
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
)
13.
Wildfire Assessment –
Areas of highest threat from wildfire (from Arizona Wildland
Urban Interface Assessment, 2003)
Additional Layer for Arizona
14.
Priority Forest Type –
Areas of highest forest priority due to timber resources, increased
wildfire risk, and high recreational value (SWReGAP, and Forest Inventory Analysis)
Page 8
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Summary Report
Data Layer Weighting Process
To implement the suitability model, each of the individual component layers needed to be
weighted, as not all layers within the analysis are equally important to forest stewardship
suitability. In effect, the weighting skews the suitability analysis in favor of layers with greater
importance. In Arizona, the threat of wildfire has become the resource issue of highest
importance. Insect threats, human development, riparian areas, animal habitats, and water issues
are also very influential when determining stewardship suitability in the state.
The percent influence for each of the layers in Arizona was determined from both the strategic
priorities of stakeholders (such as the Forestry Division and AFSC), and resource issues of
current importance to the state (such as wildfire or the recent bark beetle epidemics.) Once the
percent influence for each layer was determined, the layers were analyzed using a weighted
overlay, and the results were classified using a Natural Breaks method.
The Natural Breaks classification is a method of manual data classification that seeks to partition
data into classes based on natural groups in the data distribution. Natural breaks occur in the data
distribution histogram at the low points of valleys. Breaks are assigned in the order of the size of
the valleys, with the largest valley being assigned the first natural break.
The final analysis returned values between '0' and '1', with the highest value reaching 0.95.
Values less than 0.189 are classified as low stewardship potential, values between 0.189 and 0.42
have a moderate stewardship potential, and values between 0.421 and 0.95 are classified as high
stewardship potential.
Arizona Data Layer Weights:
Resource Threats
Weight
Decimal Weight
Wildfire Hazard
Insect Damage Threats
Risk of Development
20%
15%
10%
(.20)
(.15)
(.10)
Resource Richness
Weight
Decimal Weight
10%
10%
10%
10%
5%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
(.10)
(.10)
(.10)
(.10)
(.05)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
(.02)
Riparian Areas
Priority Watersheds
Priority Habitats
Forest Lands
Priority Forest Type
Slope
Public Water Supplies
Proximity to Public Lands
Forest Patch Size
Forested Wetlands
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Summary Report
Page 9
Page 10
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Summary Report
Wildfire Hazard
Insect Damage Threats
Risk of Development
Riparian Areas
Priority Watersheds
Priority Habitats
Forest Lands
Priority Forest Type
Slope
Public Water Supplies
Arizona
Analysis Layers
Used for the
Suitability Analysis
Proximity to Public Lands
Forest Patch Size
Forested Wetlands
Analysis Mask
Model Results
T
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
l
a
y
e
r
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
c
e
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
„
0
‟
a
n
d
0
.
9
5
.
A
t
o
t
a
l
o
f
2
9
,
5
0
9
,
3
1
5
100-meter cells were evaluated statewide. There are a total of 16,326,798 100-meter cells of
eligible lands. Of those cells –
21,826 p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
a
„
0
‟
v
a
l
u
e
,
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
5
3
,
9
3
3
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
l
a
n
d
in the state do not match any of the prioritized criteria. A Natural Breaks classification was used
to determine High, Moderate, and Low values as follows:
Table 1: Stewardship potential cell values
Stewardship Potential
Cell Values
Cell Count
Reclassified
Low
0.00 –
0.18
9,407,533
1
Moderate
0.189 –
0.42
4,443,285
2
High
0.421 –
0.95
2,475,980
3
The statewide analysis was filtered using the Analysis Mask to eliminate the ineligible lands and
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
c
e
l
l
s
w
e
r
e
r
e
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
o
a
n
i
n
t
e
g
e
r
g
r
i
d
w
i
t
h
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
„
1
‟
,
„
2
‟
,
a
n
d
„
3
‟
t
o
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
Low, Moderate, and High stewardship potential.
Table 2: Stewardship Eligible Lands in Arizona
Stewardship Capable Lands
Stewardship
Potential
Forest
Non-Forest
Total
Acres
% of total Forest
Acres
% of total non-Forest
Acres
% of Total
High
5,115,900
53.50%
1,002,242
3.26%
6,118,142
15.17%
Moderate
3,459,869
36.18%
7,519,729
24.43%
10,979,598
27.21%
Low
986,062
10.31%
22,260,461
72.32%
23,246,523
57.62%
Total:
9,561,831
30,782,432
40,344,263
Table 3: Stewardship Potential acres in Arizona
Total:
Stewardship Potential
Low
Medium
High
Forested
Non-Forested
Combined
23,246,523
10,979,598
6,118,142
9,561,831
30,782,432
40,344,263
Stewardship
Plan Acres:
43,110
99,900
29,855
93,218
79,647
172,865
Stewardship Plan
Acres vs. Stewardship
Capable Acres (%):
0.19%
0.91%
0.49%
0.97%
0.26%
0.43%
Acres Capable of
Stewardship:
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Summary Report
Page 13
Existing Landowner Forest Stewardship Plans
The second main component of the Spatial Analysis Project was the collection and digitizing of
existing landowner forest stewardship plans. For Arizona, this process proved to be the most
time-consuming since all records were created from scratch. Stewardship plan information was
not centrally located and each of the Forestry Division districts was visited to collect the
necessary information. Collection from each district was time consuming because every office
had a different method of filing and organizing plan information. Another hurdle faced in data
collection was inadequate plan information. On plans created at the beginning of the
stewardship program maps sometimes had been misplaced and we had to work with the Service
Foresters to recreate the maps from scratch. We have been able to map 200 plans as of
September 30, 2006. The mapped acres vary slightly from reported plan acres because of errors
in creating map features and other introduced modeling errors due to map scale.
Page 14
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Summary Report
Implementation and Future Use
The initial analysis generated by the Arizona SAP, at a statewide-scale, will be meaningful in
steering efforts into regions of highest priority and will be used by the Forestry Division in
directing limited resources. The analysis at this scale is not ideal for identifying stewardship
potential on small, individual parcels of land. There may be factors at a local scale, which
necessitate or prohibit implementation of a specific LFSP or specific activities.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
f
o
r
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
‟
s
FSP to have continued strategic delivery, data must be updated as
better information becomes available and new LFSPs are completed or modified. The versatility
of the model allows for modification over time as agency priorities and resources change and this
will necessitate ongoing adjustments. We will continue to work with stakeholders and Forestry
Division personnel to improve the quality and timeliness of data used in the analysis layers as
well as development of more detailed information on active LFSP.
We are currently aware of several data sets being developed for Arizona and will continue to
monitor progress and availability of these and other potentially useful data. Some of the
anticipated data sets include:
Population Growth –
predictions from the Arizona State Demographer’
s Office
Priority Watersheds –
6th Level NRCS HUC boundaries
Forest Health Threats –
USDA FS Risk Maps for Insect and Disease Damage
Overall, the analysis has helped the Forestry Division identify ongoing issues that will require
additional discussion and investigation:
The analysis maps have identified high Forest Stewardship potential for a substantial
amount of A
r
i
z
o
n
a
‟
s
v
a
s
t
t
r
i
b
a
l
l
a
n
d
s
. While many of these lands are managed as
industrial forestland by the tribes, the remainder are eligible for assistance through the
FSP. To date, efforts to provide assistance on tribal forestlands have met with limited
success; however, a substantial increase in dedicated funding and staffing would
improve the effectiveness of those efforts. This issue will prove to be an ongoing
challenge for the Forestry Division, AFSC, and our national partners.
Technical skills of Forestry Division field personnel will need improvement over time
to enable continued accurate mapping of project activities and to ensure supply of
current information to Forestry Division and USDA Forest Service databases. This
may require development of ongoing training activities, standardized procedures, and
related resource materials, but in the long term would greatly benefit the FSP and many
other programs.
Resolution of these and other issues will be dependent upon ongoing availability and allocation
of resources, which are already committed to other high priority activities. Serious commitment
to new activities without abandonment of important current priorities may prove to be an
extremely difficult, or impossible, decision.
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Summary Report
Page 15
Page 16
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Summary Report
Part 2 - Final Map Results
Completion of the Spatial Analysis Project requires the initial suitability analysis, mapping of
existing plans, and a series of seven maps with their own analysis and statistics. There are three
groups of maps. The first series contains the results of the model analysis, the results with
existing LFSP, and a regional map. The second series of maps stratifies the results into forested
areas and non-forested areas. The last series of maps looks at Resource Richness and Resource
Threats. Once the maps were finished, they were exported as PDF files for easier viewing,
printing, and distribution
Note: The maps are numbered as requested by the USDA Forest Service, but are not in
numerical order in this report. They are grouped here by theme.
Analysis Results
Map #1: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits
This displays the statewide suitability analysis. Accompanying the map is a table
comparing each level of stewardship potential with total stewardship capable lands.
Map #2: Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits and Existing
Stewardship Plans
This map is similar to Map #1, with the addition of existing landowner forest stewardship
plans.
Map #7: Stewardship Potential on Forested vs. Non-Forested Lands and
Existing Stewardship Plans for the Pinetop-Lakeside Area
This example o
f
o
n
e
o
f
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
‟
s
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
m
a
p
s
j
u
x
t
a
p
o
s
e
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
a
n
d
n
o
n
-forested
stewardship potential. It is overlaid with existing landowner forest stewardship plan
locations. The forested stewardship potential retains the green color scale while the nonforested areas receive a yellow-brown color scale. The map shows stewardship potential
in detail for the Pinetop-Lakeside area. Other data layers such as roads, rivers, lakes, and
municipal areas were added to the map for a clearer understanding. Production of more
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
a
r
e
a
m
a
p
s
b
y
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
‟
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
F
o
r
e
s
t
e
r
w
i
l
l
p
r
o
v
e
t
o
b
e
beneficial in work planning and prioritizing.
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Final Map Results
Page 17
Forest vs. Non-Forest
Map #3: Forest Stewardship Potential on Private Forest Lands and Existing
Stewardship Plans
This map looks at stewardship potential only on private forestland. It is overlaid with
existing landowner forest stewardship plan locations.
Map #6: Forest Stewardship Program Potential on Non-Forested Lands
and Existing Stewardship Plans
This map displays forest stewardship potential on stewardship capable lands that are not
forested. It is also overlaid with existing landowner forest stewardship plan locations.
Resource Potential
Map #4: Forest Stewardship Potential Resource Richness
The resource richness map displays an aggregate of the ten resource potential data
themes. Arizona added these ten layers together using their relative weights, totaling
55%, assigned in the suitability analysis. The analysis was filtered using the Analysis
Mask to eliminate the ineligible lands and remaining cells were reclassified into an
i
n
t
e
g
e
r
g
r
i
d
w
i
t
h
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
„
1
‟
,
„
2
‟
,
a
n
d
„
3
‟
t
o
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
L
o
w
,
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
,
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
stewardship potential.
Map #5: Forest Stewardship Potential Resource Threats
The resource threats map is an aggregate of the three resource threat data themes. Again,
Arizona kept the relative weights of each and classified the data using the same method
as Map #4.
Page 18
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Final Map Results
1
Potential for Forest
Stewardship Program Benefits
-ArizonaStewardship Potential
Areas without
Stewardship Eligibility
Low
Medium
High
0
Stewardship
Potential
High
Moderate
Low
Total:
Acres
12.5
25
3,459,869
986,062
75
100
Miles
³
Stewardship Capable Lands
Forest
5,115,900
50
Non-Forest
Total
% of total Forest
Acres
% of total non-Forest
Acres
% of Total
53.50%
1,002,242
3.26%
6,118,142
15.17%
36.18%
10.31%
9,561,831
7,519,729
24.43%
10,979,598
27.21%
22,260,461
72.32%
23,246,523
57.62%
30,782,432
40,344,263
Weighting Scheme by Layer:
20%
15%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
5%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Wildfire Hazard
Insect Damage
Risk of Development
Riparian Areas
Priority Watersheds
Priority Habitats
Forest Lands
Priority Forest Type
Slope
Public Water Supplies
Proximity to Public Lands
Forest Patch Size
Forested Wetlands
MAP NOTES:
Date: September 2006
Datalayer: rc_state_mask
File name: AZFinal1.mxd
Map by: Eric Kenney,
GIS Database Coordinator,
OSF GIS
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Office of the State Forester
Arizona State Land Department,
1110 W Washington St., Suite 100
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 771-1400
Projection: NAD 1983 HARN UTM ZONE 12N
2
Potential for Forest Stewardship
Program Benefits and
Existing Stewardship Plans
-ArizonaStewardship Potential
Medium
High
0
Stewardship
Potential
High
Moderate
Low
Total:
Acres
12.5
25
³
Stewardship Plans
Areas without
Stewardship Eligibility
Low
50
75
100
Miles
Stewardship Capable Lands
Forest
Non-Forest
% of total Forest
Total
Acres
% of total non-Forest
Acres
3.26%
6,118,142
15.17%
57.62%
5,115,900
53.50%
1,002,242
7,519,729
24.43%
10,979,598
986,062
10.31%
22,260,461
72.32%
23,246,523
3,459,869
9,561,831
36.18%
30,782,432
40,344,263
Stewardship Potential
Total:
Low
Medium
High
43,110
99,900
29,855
172,865
0.19%
0.91%
0.49%
0.43%
Acres
Capable of 23,246,523 10,979,598 6,118,142 40,344,263
Stewardship:
Stewardship
Plan (acres):
Stew.Plan vs.
Acres Capable
of Stewardship (%):
MAP NOTES:
Date: September 2006
Datalayer: rc_state_mask
File name: AZFinal2.mxd
Map by: Eric Kenney,
GIS Database Coordinator,
OSF GIS
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Office of the State Forester
Arizona State Land Department,
1110 W Washington St., Suite 100
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 771-1400
Projection: NAD 1983 HARN UTM ZONE 12N
% of Total
27.21%
7
¹
?
Ä
?
v
I
¦
I
v
I
SHOW LOW
ô
?
v
I
SPRINGERVILLE
PINETOP-LAKESIDE
v
I
APACHE
COUNTY
EAGAR
ô
?
NAVAJO
COUNTY
b
?
g
?
ø
?
¦
I
õ
?
Forest Stewardship Potential on
Forested vs. Non-Forested Lands
and Existing Stewardship Plans
-Arizona (Pinetop-Lakeside Area)-
GILA
COUNTY
Stewardship Potential for:
Private Forest
Low
Non-Forest
Low
Medium
Á
?
Medium
High
2.5
1.25
Other Map Items:
Stewardship Plans
Areas Without
Stewardship Eligibility
Municipalities
High
0
2.5
5
7.5
Miles
MAP NOTES:
Date: September 2006
Datalayer: state_for/state_nf
File name: AZFinal7.mxd
Map by: Eric Kenney,
GIS Database Coordinator,
OSF GIS
³
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Office of the State Forester
Arizona State Land Department,
1110 W Washington St., Suite 100
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 771-1400
Projection: NAD 1983 HARN UTM ZONE 12N
¥
I
3
Forest Stewardship Potential
on Private Forest Lands
and Existing Stewardship Plans
-ArizonaStewardship Potential
All Forests
Medium
High
0
12.5
25
³
Stewardship Plans
Low
Non-Forest
50
75
100
Miles
Private Forest Lands
Stewardship Potential
Acres
Capable of
Stewardship:
Stewardship
Plan (acres):
Stew.Plan vs.
Acres Capable
of Stewardship (%):
Low
986,062
Medium
High
Total:
3,459,869 5,115,900 9,561,831
10,462
56,281
26,475
93,218
1.06%
1.63%
0.52%
0.97%
Forest Classifications (MRLC):
- Deciduous Forest - S023
- Evergreen Forest - S039, S040, S051, S035, S111, S112, S032,
S034, S028, S030, S025, S038, S036
- Woody Wetlands - S093, S094, S097, S098, D04
('S' Codes are from SWReGAP data)
MAP NOTES:
Date: September 2006
Datalayer: rc_state_f
File name: AZFinal3.mxd
Map by: Eric Kenney,
GIS Database Coordinator,
OSF GIS
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Office of the State Forester
Arizona State Land Department,
1110 W Washington St., Suite 100
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 771-1400
Projection: NAD 1983 HARN UTM ZONE 12N
6
Forest Stewardship Potential
on Non-Forested Lands
and Existing Stewardship Plans
-ArizonaStewardship Potential
Private Forest
Areas Without
Stewardship Eligibility
Medium
High
0
12.5
25
³
Stewardship Plans
Low
50
75
100
Miles
Non-Forested Lands
Stewardship Potential
Total:
Low
Medium
High
32,648
43,619
3,380
79,647
0.15%
0.58%
0.34%
0.26%
Acres
Capable of 22,260,461 7,519,729 1,002,242 30,782,432
Stewardship:
Stewardship
Plan (acres):
Stew.Plan vs.
Acres Capable
of Stewardship (%):
Non-Forest Classifications (MRLC)
- Barren Lands
- Scrub
- Grassland/Herbaceous
- Emergent Herbaceous Wetland
- Altered or Distubed Land Cover
- Developed and Agriculture Cover
- Other Cover
('S' Codes from SWReGAP data are available in Appendix B)
MAP NOTES:
Date: September 2006
Datalayer: rc_state_nf
File name: AZFinal6.mxd
Map by: Eric Kenney,
GIS Database Coordinator,
OSF GIS
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Office of the State Forester
Arizona State Land Department,
1110 W Washington St., Suite 100
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 771-1400
Projection: NAD 1983 HARN UTM ZONE 12N
4
Forest Stewardship Potential
Resource Richness
-ArizonaResource Richness
Non-Mask, Non-Resource
Areas without
Stewardship Eligibility
Low
Medium
High
0
12.5
25
50
75
100
Miles
³
Includes Forest Stewardship
Spatial Analysis Data Layers
- Forest Lands
- Forest Patch Size
- Forested Wetlands
- Priority Forest Lands
- Priority Habitats
- Priority Watersheds
- Proximity to Public Lands
- Public Water Supplies
- Riparian Areas
- Slope
MAP NOTES:
Date: September 2006
Datalayer: rc_richness
File name: AZFinal4.mxd
Map by: Eric Kenney,
GIS Database Coordinator,
OSF GIS
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Office of the State Forester
Arizona State Land Department,
1110 W Washington St., Suite 100
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 771-1400
Projection: NAD 1983 HARN UTM ZONE 12N
5
Forest Stewardship Potential
Resource Threats
-ArizonaResource Threats
Non-Mask, Non-Threat
Areas without
Stewardship Eligibility
Low
Medium
High
0
12.5
25
50
75
100
Miles
³
Includes Forest Stewardship
Spatial Analysis Data Layers
- Insect Damage Threats
- Risk of Development
- Wildfire Hazard
MAP NOTES:
Date: September 2006
Datalayer: rc_threats
File name: AZFinal5.mxd
Map by: Eric Kenney,
GIS Database Coordinator,
OSF GIS
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Office of the State Forester
Arizona State Land Department,
1110 W Washington St., Suite 100
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 771-1400
Projection: NAD 1983 HARN UTM ZONE 12N
Part 3 –
Methodology Report
The methodology report describes the completion of the Spatial Analysis Project analysis from a
technical perspective. The following information will be helpful to those wishing to recreate the
Arizona results or use similar techniques for other analysis.
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Methodology Report
Page 33
Page 34
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Methodology Report
Model Builder
Arizona used ESRI ArcGIS 9.1 SP2 (ArcInfo License) Model Builder on a Windows XP
Professional PC platform to model and run each of the analysis steps. Two main models were
created, the first for the Analysis Mask, the second for the overlay analysis. There are nine
additional models used by the overlay analysis as tools to create individual data layers. Some of
the processes performed to prepare the data for usage in the Model Builder were performed using
various geoprocessing tools in ArcMap. This was particularly the case for the Priority
Watersheds and Public Water Supplies layers due to their complexity.
Model Builder Environment Settings
For the Model in Model Builder, certain Environment Settings had to be set to produce the
correct spatial extent and coordinate system. Under Model, select Model Properties and the
analysis properties will be displayed for the current model. The following steps were used to run
the model statewide. Select the check boxes for Current Workspace, Output Coordinate System,
and Output Extent under General Settings and check Cell Size and Mask under Raster Analysis
Settings.
Click on the
Values Button and the
Environment Settings box
will appear. In this box set
the Output Coordinate
System and Output Extent
to the state or region being
modeled. Set the Raster
Analysis Settings to Same
a
s
D
a
t
a
s
e
t
“
S
t
a
t
e
M
a
s
k
”
which is created by
rasterizing a state boundary
data layer. Using this mask
will force the analysis to
occur statewide.
The
“
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
M
a
s
k
”
i
s
u
s
e
d
i
n
the last step of the model to
create the final output layer.
Note: Though other states
limited the area of analysis
using the analysis mask, in
Arizona, the analysis was
completed statewide and
the results were then
filtered utilizing the mask.
Figure 1 Model Builder Environment Settings
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Methodology Report
Page 35
Data Layer Development
To organize the layers for the analysis, Arizona developed a personal
Geodatabase containing all of the data layers. A custom toolbox was
added to the Geodatabase that contained the models for analysis. All of the
analysis elements were then created within the folder containing that
Geodatabase. Organizing the data in this manner allowed for easy sharing
of the data, since all of the analysis, map documents, and workspace were
contained within one folder. Metadata was produced for the final 13 layers
used in the suitability analysis, the resource richness layers, the resource
threats layers, and the stewardship potential layer using FGDC standards.
Analysis Mask:
1.
Eligible Lands
The analysis mask identifies those cells within the analysis extent
that are considered for stewardship potential. Although other states
used the analysis mask to determine processing on selected
locations, Arizona decided to run a statewide analysis, and then
apply the analysis mask afterward to eliminate the ineligible lands.
For the purpose of the SAP analysis, the mask included all areas that are not barren lands,
public ownership, and open water. The mask was created by combining a grid of
Southwest Regional GAP (SWReGAP) suitable areas and a grid of land management
from Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS). The SWReGAP values of
S002, S006, S010, S011, S012, S013, S014, S015, S016, S017, S018, S019, S021, S022,
N11, and N31 (see Appendix B for SWReGAP definitions) received a NoData value and
the remaining SWReGAP values received a „
0‟
. Private, state trust, and tribal lands in
the grid receive a value of „
0
‟
. When the rasters are combined using the Weighted
Overlay tool, the mask is produced.
Final Grid name=AnalysisMask
Figure 2 Analysis Mask Model
Page 36
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Methodology Report
Resource Richness
1.
Riparian Areas - The riparian zone dataset is created by using the SWReGAP values of
S091, S093, S094, S097, S098, and D04.
Final grid name = rc_riparian
Figure 3 Riparian Areas Model
2.
Priority Watersheds – Priority Watersheds in Arizona were determined using the
perennial streams data from The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Freshwater Assessment.
Fifth level hydrological units (5th Level, 10 digits, HUCs) from Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) were classified based on the presence of a perennial
stream. The shapefile was then converted to raster and reclassified to a ‘1’, ‘0’ scale.
HUCs with a perennial stream received a ‘1’, while those units without any perennial
stream received a ‘0’.
Final grid name= rc_prtyws10
3.
Priority Habitat – Special Status Species quarter-quad (SSS4Q) level information was
collected from the Arizona Natural Heritage Program. EcoRegional Assessment (ERA)
information was collected from The Nature Conservancy (TNC). We selected and
exported the Quarter-Quads that had an Endangered Species Act (USESA) code of 'LT',
'LE', 'PT', or 'C' or an Element Occurrence (EORANK) of 'A', 'A?', 'AB', 'AC', 'B', 'B?',
'BC', 'BD', 'C', 'C?', 'CD', 'D', 'D?', or 'E'. Using the ERASE tool, we eliminated SSS4Q
data coincident with the ERA data, and then used the UNION tool to combine the two
layers. These data were converted to a grid with occurrence areas receiving a value of ‘1’
and other areas receiving a value of ‘0’.
Final grid name = rc_prtyhab
Figure 4 Priority Habitats Model
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project – Methodology Report Page 37 4.
Forest Patch Size –
To create the dataset, larger contiguous patches of forest need to be
isolated and patches below the size threshold need to be removed. The patch size
threshold for analysis was set at 100 acres or 404,686 m2 (square map units).
Forested values in the SWReGAP dataset were selected (S023, S025, S028, S030, S032,
S034, S035, S036, S038, S039, S040, S051, S093, S094, S097, S098, S111, S112, and
D04), then a buffered (100ft.) road layer from ALRIS was subtracted from the forested
areas to create a layer of forest patches. The patches were classified by size using the
Region Group and the Zonal Geometry tool. Patches over 100 acres were extracted using
the Extract by Attributes tool.
Because of the 100-meter cell size used in the analysis, the road layer became fragmented
and as a result w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
„
p
u
n
c
h
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
‟
t
h
e
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
l
a
y
e
r
and this created invalid areas
of forest. To overcome this problem, a 25-meter cell size was used to create the road
raster. Then the road grid was expanded one cell to fill in the roads, allowing them fully
to punch through the forested areas and to remove the invalid forest areas. This increased
the road buffer by an amount of 25 meters.
Final grid name = rc_ac_patch
Figure 5 Forest Patch Size Model
Page 38
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Methodology Report
5.
Public Water Supply –
We identified and digitized a point feature class of the location
of major retention dams from the Bureau of Reclamation using the Geographic Names
Information System (GNIS) feature class from USGS. Then using a streams feature class
from ALRIS, we selected first and second order streams that are upstream from those
dams. We classified 5th Level Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC), from the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS), to a
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
„
1
‟
i
f
a
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
s
t
r
e
a
m
w
a
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
r
a
value of „
0
‟
i
f
a
s
t
r
e
a
m
w
a
s
n
o
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
H
U
C
p
o
l
y
g
o
n
s
were then converted to a
grid based on the stream classification. We then added a Well Protection Area layer
provided from Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to create a final
Public Water Supply layer.
Final grid name = rc_pubwater
Figure 6 Public Water Supply Model
6.
Forested Lands –
We selected the values of S023, S025, S028, S030, S032, S034, S035,
S036, S038, S039, S040, S051, S093, S094, S097, S098, S111, S112, and D04 from
SWReGAP data.
Final grid name = rc_priv_for
7.
Proximity to Public Lands –
An 800-meter (~ ½ mile) buffer of public lands was
created to locate private lands in proximity to public lands. Using an Arizona ownership
dataset produced by ALRIS, all lands were selected that were not public where
CATEGORY is equal to 'BLM', 'Forest', 'Military', 'Natl. Parks', 'Other', 'Wildlife'. Since
we ran the analysis statewide, we did not encounter problems other states did where they
needed to over-ride the analysis mask in the model settings.
Final grid name = rcpub_land_ex
Figure 7 Proximity to Public Lands Model
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Methodology Report
Page 39
8.
Forested Wetlands –
The data for forested wetlands came from SWReGAP vegetation
information using the values S093, S094, and S097.
Final grid name = rc_wetlands
9.
Slope –
A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of Arizona from USGS was used to create the
percent slope layer in the analysis. This grid was then reclassified to a value of „
1‟
for
slope less than or equal to 40% and „
0‟
for all cells with a slope of greater than 40%. The
slope classification of 40% or less was determined to be the reasonable range of
operability (for mechanical harvesting) in Arizona.
Final grid name = rc_per_slpe
Figure 8 Slope Model
Page 40
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Methodology Report
Resource Threats
10.
Insect Damage Threats –
Using the USDA FS Forest Health Aerial Survey information
from 2001 - 2005, DCA1 codes of 11000, 11002, 11006, 11007, 11009, 11019, 11030,
11035, and 11055 were selected to isolate areas of bark beetle activity. The identified
areas were buffered outward by 800 meters (~ ½ mile). This information was then
converted to a grid.
Final grid name= rc_insectdam
Figure 9 Insect Damage Model
11.
Risk of Development –
We started with 2000 U.S. Census Block Groups population
totals for the entire state, then calculated population density of persons per square
kilometer. We categorized all census block groups with <100 persons/ km2 as „
Rural‟
,
between 100 and 193 persons/ km2 as „
E
xurban‟
, between 193 and 386 persons/ km2 as
„
S
uburban‟
and >386 persons/ km2 as „
U
rban‟
. Using countywide population predictions
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
e
r
‟
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
,
we calculated predicted population change
between 2000 and 2020. Using the 2000 to 2020 percent-change determined for each
county, we projected calculated population growth for each census block group within
that county using that county value. For the SAP analysis, 2000 density projections were
subtracted from the 2020 density to determine areas under pressure from development. If
a census block group positively increased from one classification to another it was
considered an area at risk of development. Lastly, the raster was reclassified so areas of
risk return a value of '1' while other areas return a '0' value.
Final grid name = rc_pop_den
Classification Methodology: Based on the U.S. Census classification of urban and rural,
a
n
d
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
“
Vegetation and Population Density in Urban and Suburban
Areas in the U.S.A
”
(
P
o
z
z
i
,
2
0
0
2
)
a
t
t
h
e
S
o
c
i
o
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
a
t
a
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
t
Columbia University, we reclassified the data into four categories. The US Census
Bureau defines an urban area as: "Core census block groups or blocks that have a
population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and
surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square
mile (193 per square kilometer)." Pozzi “
considers suburban areas to be those with
population densities between 100 and 10,000 persons/km2.
”
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Methodology Report
Page 41
Figure 10 Risk of Development Model
12.
Wildfire Assessment –
The wildfire assessment layer was created by combining two
wildfire hazard layers created by the 2003 Arizona Wildland Urban Interface Assessment
from Arizona Interagency Coordination Group (AICG). We used the Land Hazard layer
that did not take into account Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and a second layer that
did include the WUI. We reclassified values of 9-15 for the both l
a
y
e
r
s
t
o
a
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
„
1
‟
a
n
d
a
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
v
a
l
u
e
s
a
s
„
0
‟
.
We then added the layers together and everything with a
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
„
1
‟
o
r
„
2
‟
w
a
s
r
e
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
t
o
„
1
‟
a
n
d
a
l
l
t
h
e
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
„
0
‟
r
e
m
a
i
n
e
d
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
.
Final grid name = rc_wf_haz
Figure 11 Wildfire Assessment Model
Additional Layer for Arizona:
13.
Priority Forest Type –
We selected the values of S023, S025, S028, S030, S032, S034,
S035, S036, and S111 and classified those cells t
o
a
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
„
1
‟
a
n
d
a
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
cells to
value of „
0
‟
from SWReGAP data.
Final grid name = rc_forclass
Forest Stewardship Plans:
14.
The first step in digitizing stewardship plans for the SAP was to determine how they
would be stored. Arizona decided to store the data in the personal Geodatabase that is a
downloadable version of the Web-DET application. Once the Geodatabase was
designed, stewardship plan boundaries were either heads-up digitized from the
stewardship plan topographic map and a corresponding topographic Digital Raster
Graphic (DRG) or they were copied from existing county parcel data and pasted into the
Geodatabase. Once the plan boundary was digitized, specific plan information was
entered manually into various Web-DET tables –
PLAN INFORMATION, PROPERTY
ADDRESS, and PROPERTY OWNER. Additional tables are available to track
treatment information and additional property/plan information.
Page 42
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Methodology Report
Overlay Analysis Model
Figure 12 Overlay Analysis Model
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Methodology Report
Page 43
Page 44
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Methodology Report
Appendices
Appendix A: FSP Spatial Analysis Project Concept Paper
47
Appendix B: Activity Codes
55
Appendix C: GIS Data Resources
63
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix A
Page 45
Page 46
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix A
Appendix A: FSP Spatial Analysis Project Concept Paper
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix A
Page 47
Page 48
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix A
Fiscal Year 2004
Forest Stewardship Program
Spatial Analysis Project
Capturing impact, establishing baseline, and focusing future efforts through spatial analysis
“We can’t know where we’re going until we know where we are.”
Background
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.
Issue
Since its inception, the FSP has been delivered and made available to non-industrial private forest landowners
on a first-come, first-served basis. This customer-friendly approach assists landowners in improving their
forest resources; however, it fails to allow 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 over a decade 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.
The Project
What: The FSP Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) provides participating States a consistent methodology (while
offering them the ability to customize it according to State conditions) to spatially display:
•
Important forest lands (rich in natural resources, vulnerable to threat, or both);
•
Existing stewardship tracts (properties under stewardship plans); and
•
Areas of opportunity to focus future FSP efforts (stewardship potential).
The SAP addresses the following questions, as they relate to the FSP:
1. Where are the State’s stewardship tracts?
2. Where are the priority lands (those lands of highest potential to benefit from the FSP)?
3. How do the State’s stewardship tracts and priority lands overlap (or not)?
4. Where should greater FSP efforts be considered in the future?
5. What has been the impact of FSP efforts on priority lands and other forest lands?
Why: The SAP responds to the issues identified above by:
•
Assessing program effectiveness in serving State-identified critical resource management needs;
•
Creating geo-referenced, spatial data displaying stewardship tracts relative to FSP potential;
•
Relating factors such as stewardship practices completed and resource condition to help determine future
practices that might be most effective in addressing critical needs based on the site-specific resource
condition; and
•
Providing tools that help States focus future FSP efforts to effectively and efficiently address critical forest
resource issues.
FSP Spatial Analysis Project Concept Paper, FY 2004
Who: The SAP involves each participating State’s geographic information system (GIS) staff and FSP
coordinator in cooperation with the State Stewardship Coordinating Committee, and USDA Forest Service
(FS) resource and GIS specialists.
How: There are three major components to the FSP Spatial Analysis Project:
1. Development of a historic stewardship plan database and associated geo-referenced map of existing
stewardship plans in the State, to be maintained on an ongoing basis following initial project completion.
2. Development of a statewide assessment of important forest lands incorporating spatial and tabular display
of natural resource data critical to the sustainability of forest resources and the risks or vulnerabilities
facing those resources.
3. Analysis of the location of lands currently under stewardship plans and how they relate to the important
forest lands in the State, and assessment of how the State intends to use the results of the SAP to guide
future FSP activities in conjunction with other assistance programs available to nonindustrial private forest
landowners (figure 1).
Figure 1. Overall design of the FSP Spatial Analysis Project, Connecticut
When (and How Much!): The SAP is entirely voluntary, driven by both State interest and readiness, and
Forest Service and State funding capabilities. As a project within FSP, it is cost-shared with participating
States. The total funding amount is determined, negotiated, and mutually agreed upon by each State and the
Forest Service. On a regular basis, as funding permits, FS managers will invite another “tier” of States into the
SAP. To date, four States served by the Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry (Connecticut, Maryland,
Massachusetts, and Missouri) have pilot tested the SAP and have draft results. Based on these results and
intended next steps, the Forest Service is launching the next tier of States during Fiscal Year 2004 – five
additional States in the northeastern United States, and three western States.
Details
Stewardship Plan Data Layer: There are two parts to the stewardship plan data layer. Collaboratively, FS
database managers and project team members from the four pilot States developed the FS-designed Microsoft
Access database structure. This tabular database includes stewardship plan date and location, tract size,
pertinent resource information (e.g., linear stream length, other resources), pertinent management information
(e.g., conservation easement, tax program, tree farm), planned forestry activities and associated practices, and
implemented practices and date accomplished. No confidential information is included in this tabular database,
although the participating State may choose to link the database to a more detailed database housed entirely
and solely by the State.
The geo-referenced, spatial database is linked to the tabular database by case number and shows locations of
all stewardship tracts in the State. The preferred method is to display stewardship tracts as geo-referenced
polygonal shape files; however, tract location by center point (centroid) is minimally acceptable. The
stewardship plan data layer is prepared at a minimum scale of 1:100,000.
-2-
FSP Spatial Analysis Project Concept Paper, FY 2004
This portion of the SAP project is highly labor intensive, considering that FSP plans developed over the years
often exist only as paper copy and must be manually entered into the electronic database, and the tract location
scanned and digitized.
Key Point: Once a State participates in the SAP, it is imperative to continue to enter new plans into the
electronic database, lending to currency and accuracy. The Forest Service is working with the initial pilot
States to develop and test a Web-based tool to allow natural resource professionals preparing the plans to enter
the information once electronically, including “drawing” the tract location on Web-based available maps. This
step is critical to the long-term success and utility of the SAP and will facilitate future FS reporting
requirements.
Statewide Assessment of Important Forest Lands: The statewide assessment focuses on current
conditions to help identify the highest need or opportunity for future Forest Stewardship Program delivery. It is
a composite of common data layers (table 1) determined by the pilot States and FS specialists to spatially
map risks or vulnerabilities to existing forest resources, natural resources important to forest sustainability,
current public forest land management, and existing stewardship plans (see discussion on geo-referenced,
spatial database, page 2). The common data layer selection criteria are as follows:
•
The attribute (data layer) represents a strong connection to the potential benefits to be derived from the
development and implementation of a forest stewardship plan.
•
The data source is existing and readily available at the State, regional, or national level.
•
The minimum standard of map scale and resolution is consistent across States.
•
The vulnerability or resource potential applies across the States (not solely a single-State concern).
Table 1. SAP Common Data Layers
Data Layer
Source*
Scale
Wildfire assessment
Grid analysis on landcover and DEM
30 meter
Forest patches
MRLC
TM 30 meter
Proximity to public land
CT DEP—public, Federal, and
municipal lands
1:24000
Private forested lands
MRLC and DEP
30 meter
Threatened and endangered
species
DEP—Heritage database
1:24000
Change in households
USFS, Census block data
30-meter grid
Forest pests
USFS
1:24000
Wetlands
DEP/NRCS or USGS
1:24000
Riparian areas
Derived from DEP hydro streams
1:24000
Public water supplies
DEP—Aquifer protection wells and
surface water quality layer
1:24000
Slope
Statewide NED DEM layer, USGS
30 meter
Priority watersheds
HUC from USGS
1:100000
Analysis mask (urban, open
water, public lands)
MRLC and DEP data sets
30 meter
Stewardship tracts (polygons)
Digitized or town parcel data
variable
Stewardship tracts (centroids)
Polygon script or address match
variable
*Source will vary by State. Connecticut sources shown as an example.
In addition to the common data layers, each participating State has the opportunity to add State-specific layers
that respond to or reflect conditions or resources unique to the State. Other complementing State assessment
efforts, State natural resource specialist or State Stewardship Coordinating Committee recommendations, or a
combination of these may drive the need for additional data layers. The State is responsible for providing
rationale and metadata for these data layers in addition to the metadata for the common data layers.
-3-
FSP Spatial Analysis Project Concept Paper, FY 2004
A composite map with associated tabular data of all GIS common data layers, including the stewardship plan
data layer, is then developed. States may choose to include the State-specific data layers on this composite map
as well. Based on State Stewardship Coordinating Committee or resource specialist recommendations, the data
layers may be weighted to indicate priority. The final product is a statewide map that indicates high, medium,
and low potential need for development of forest stewardship plans (figure 2).
Figure 2. Individual common data layers, contributing to the weighted composite, Missouri
Analysis: The tabular data and accompanying composite map contribute to in-depth statewide analyses that
consider how stewardship plans correspond to lands identified as having high, medium, or low potential for
Forest Stewardship Program benefit. For those working with private landowners on a local level, the results of
the analyses can spatially display the potential for stewardship benefit and guide efforts within a given
watershed or service forester jurisdictional area. This will aid not only in plan preparation but also in
implementation of the activity practices. The analysis and assessment will lead to informed recommendations,
considering the resources and vulnerabilities beyond the boundaries of the tract the plan addresses. Based on
where the tract is located and surrounding opportunities or challenges, the professional forester may
recommend to the landowner that practices be implemented to complement the surrounding land base or to
respond to the landscape surrounding the given tract.
-4-
FSP Spatial Analysis Project Concept Paper, FY 2004
Potential Applications
Ability to show program effort in working on lands impacted by critical resource management
issues in conjunction with other landowner assistance programs, not only to landowners and
resource managers, but also to the lawmakers who design the programs, appropriate funds, and
to whom we are ultimately accountable.
Not only can Forest Stewardship Program results be quantified (in the form of number of acres and number of
plans) within a State, those results can also be displayed. The Spatial Analysis Project enables resource
managers to demonstrate connectivity in program efforts of plan development and how they complement other
natural resource efforts and other State and Private Forestry programs. Through time, they will be able to track
the accomplishment of plan-prescribed activities on given stewardship tracts.
The results of this project give resource managers the capability to gather and display information according to
geographic area, watershed, congressional district, county, or service area (such as district forester jurisdiction)
to assess the amount and type of work completed and yet to do.
Ability to ensure that new stewardship plans consider elements deemed important by the State’s
Stewardship Coordinating Committee.
The Forest Stewardship Program emphasizes addressing the landowner’s objectives through professional
forest management. Often a forest landowner is not aware of the importance of the resources on his or her land,
particularly as they relate to surrounding properties. A professional forester has an obligation to help the
landowner understand the full potential and extent of the resources on the tract. With that body of information,
the landowner then has the capability of making informed decisions about long- and short-term objectives.
The Spatial Analysis Project provides key information concerning not only resource potential and
vulnerability, but also the extent of professional management occurring around a given tract, respecting private
property rights and confidential information. Landowners may find new opportunities to complement the
activities already begun in a geographic area, or learn of a need to protect their tracts from a significant
vulnerability such as invasive insects or fire threats.
Ability to conserve and consolidate forest patch size in critical areas.
In addressing a plan request backlog or as new opportunities arise to promote the Forest Stewardship Program,
service and consultant foresters can build from a core base of forest land. They will be able to identify forest
lands of high stewardship potential based either on richness of forest resources or on vulnerabilities, or a
combination of the two. They will have enhanced information at their fingertips as they approach and work
with forest landowners.
Ability to more effectively allocate staff resources across the landscape.
The results of this project can provide information to State forestry agency managers so they can strategically
allocate staff resources throughout the State based on the greatest needs and opportunities. In a similar manner,
consultant foresters have the ability to look at project results across the State, and target their professional
forestry services accordingly. Further, service foresters working within their assigned areas have the ability to
determine high, medium, and low needs and opportunities to help prioritize their efforts.
-5-
FSP Spatial Analysis Project Concept Paper, FY 2004
Project Responsibilities
The Forest Service will:
1. Provide funding as mutually agreed upon by both parties, consistent with FSP guidance.
2. Provide a conceptual design of the project (concept paper) and technical oversight and support.
3. Assume responsibility for developing or adapting a consistent data structure to be used by participating
States.
4. Concur with State-developed methodology and standards for digitizing stewardship tract locations.
5. Prepare a final report of participating State results, incorporating previous results from pilot States.
Participating States will:
1. Establish methodology identifying stewardship plan tract location for GIS, determining and mapping
components of high-risk and suitability for increased stewardship planning emphasis.
2. Collect and enter historic stewardship implementation data into the database (all plans since 1990, or the
best of the State’s ability). Database elements to include, at a minimum, those core items listed on page 2
(tabular database).
3. Create a historic GIS data layer linked to the database with point data or polygonal data files of all current
stewardship tracts.
4. Develop a geo-referenced, spatial dataset (ArcView-Arc/Info compatible) of existing plan location and
associated attribute information.
5. Develop common data layers in compliance with those listed in table 1 (page 3).
6. Involve the State Stewardship Coordinating Committee at key decision points throughout project
development.
7. Determine the need for additional State-specific data layers (either vulnerabilities or natural resources) and
develop them accordingly. Consult the State Stewardship Coordinating Committee concerning the
additional data layers.
8. Prepare metadata for spatial data in conformance with minimum Federal metadata standards.
9. Update the electronic stewardship plan database continually beyond project completion. Submit updates to
the Forest Service annually or as prescribed.
Participating States and the Forest Service will:
1. Compare stewardship tract location and implementation data with areas identified as fire and forest health
risks, areas subject to rapid land use change, priority watersheds, and other factors related to critical-land
identification.
2. Complete comparison of stewardship plans and historical action with strategic direction for future plan
development.
3. Complete analysis, addressing key questions identified on page 1 (The Project).
4. Complete a final report for each State.
Revised: 03-19-2004
-6-
Appendix B: Activity Codes
Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project
Land Cover Descriptions for Arizona
http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/
SCODE Ecological System / Land Cover Type
NLCD* Barren Lands
S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland
S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune
S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa
S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland
S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land
S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 13
S018 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dune
S017 North American Warm Desert Badland
S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop
S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement
S022 North American Warm Desert Playa
S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland
S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree
S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock
NLCD* Deciduous Forest
S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland
NLCD* Evergreen Forest
S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland
S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland
S051 Madrean Encinal
S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland
S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland
S111 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland
S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland
S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland
S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland
S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland
S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland
S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland
S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix B
Page 55
NLCD* Scrub/Scrub
S058 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub
S062 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub
S116 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub
S068 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub
S061 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub
S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland
S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland
S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland
S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral
S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland
S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland
S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub
S057 Mogollon Chaparral
S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub
S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland
S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub
S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub
S129 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub
S063 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub
S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland
NLCD* Grassland/Herbaceous
S077 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe
S113 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland
S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna
S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe
S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland
S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe
S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna
S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow
S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland
NLCD* Woody Wetland
S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat
S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque
S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
S020 North American Warm Desert Wash
S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland
NLCD* Emergent Herbaceous Wetland
S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh
S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow
Page 56
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix B
ALTERED OR DISTURBED LAND COVER TYPES
D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland
D08 Invasive Annual Grassland
D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland
D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
D02 Recently Burned
D03 Recently Mined or Quarried
DEVELOPED AND AGRICULTURE COVER TYPES
N80 Agriculture
N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity
N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity
OTHER COVER TYPES
N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific
N11 Open Water
* Approximate National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) 2001 Land Cover Class Definitions
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix B
Page 57
National Land Cover Datalayer (NLCD)
2001 Classification System
http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/definitions.html
10. Water - All areas of open water or permanent ice/snow cover.
11. Open Water - All areas of open water, generally with less than 25% cover of
vegetation or soil.
12. Perennial Ice/Snow - All areas characterized by a perennial cover of ice and/or
snow, generally greater than 25% of total cover.
20. Developed - Areas characterized by a high percentage (30 percent or greater) of constructed
materials (e.g. asphalt, concrete, buildings, etc).
21. Developed, Open Space - Includes areas with a mixture of some constructed
materials, but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces
account for less than 20 percent of total cover. These areas most commonly include
large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in
developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes.
22. Developed, Low Intensity - Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials
and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20-49 percent of total cover. These
areas most commonly include single-family housing units.
23. Developed, Medium Intensity - Includes areas with a mixture of constructed
materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50-79 percent of the total
cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units.
24. Developed, High Intensity - Includes highly developed areas where people reside or
work in high numbers. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses and
commercial/industrial. Impervious surfaces account for 80 to100 percent of the total
cover.
30. Barren - Areas characterized by bare rock, gravel, sand, silt, clay, or other earthen material,
with little or no "green" vegetation present regardless of its inherent ability to support life.
Vegetation, if present, is more widely spaced and scrubby than that in the "green" vegetated
categories; lichen cover may be extensive.
31. Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) - Barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps,
talus, slides, volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits and
other accumulations of earthen material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than
15% of total cover.
Page 58
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix B
32. Unconsolidated Shore* - Unconsolidated material such as silt, sand, or gravel that is
subject to inundation and redistribution due to the action of water. Characterized by
substrates lacking vegetation except for pioneering plants that become established during
brief periods when growing conditions are favorable. Erosion and deposition by waves
and currents produce a number of landforms representing this class.
40. Forested Upland - Areas characterized by tree cover (natural or semi-natural woody
vegetation, generally greater than 6 meters tall); tree canopy accounts for 25-100 percent of the
cover.
41. Deciduous Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall,
and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species
shed foliage simultaneously in response to seasonal change.
42. Evergreen Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall,
and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species
maintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage.
43. Mixed Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and
greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species are
greater than 75 percent of total tree cover.
50. Shrubland - Areas characterized by natural or semi-natural woody vegetation with aerial
stems, generally less than 6 meters tall, with individuals or clumps not touching to interlocking.
Both evergreen and deciduous species of true shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that are
small or stunted because of environmental conditions are included.
51. Dwarf Scrub - Alaska only areas dominated by shrubs less than 20 centimeters tall
with shrub canopy typically greater than 20% of total vegetation. This type is often coassociated with grasses, sedges, herbs, and non-vascular vegetation.
52. Shrub/Scrub - Areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy
typically greater than 20% of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young
trees in an early successional stage or trees stunted from environmental conditions.
60. Non-Natural Woody - Areas dominated by non-natural woody vegetation; non-natural
woody vegetative canopy accounts for 25-100 percent of the cover. The non-natural woody
classification is subject to the availability of sufficient ancillary data to differentiate non-natural
woody vegetation from natural woody vegetation.
61. Orchards/Vineyards/Other - Orchards, vineyards, and other areas planted or
maintained for the production of fruits, nuts, berries, or ornamentals.
70. Herbaceous Upland - Upland areas characterized by natural or semi-natural herbaceous
vegetation; herbaceous vegetation accounts for 75-100 percent of the cover.
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix B
Page 59
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.
80. Planted/Cultivated - Areas characterized by herbaceous vegetation that has been planted or
is intensively managed for the production of food, feed, or fiber; or is maintained in developed
settings for specific purposes. Herbaceous vegetation accounts for 75-100 percent of the cover.
81. Pasture/Hay - Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for
livestock grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle.
Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation.
82. Cultivated Crops - Areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn,
soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial woody crops such as
orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total
vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively tilled.
83. Small Grains - Areas used for the production of graminoid crops such as wheat,
barley, oats, and rice.
84. Fallow - Areas used for the production of crops that do not exhibit visible vegetation
as a result of being tilled in a management practice that incorporates prescribed
alternation between cropping and tillage.
85. Urban/Recreational Grasses - Vegetation (primarily grasses) planted in developed
settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. Examples include parks,
lawns, golf courses, airport grasses, and industrial site grasses.
90. 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.
Page 60
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix B
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.
* Coastal NLCD class only
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix B
Page 61
USDA FS Aerial Detection Survey Damage Causal Agent Codes –
Arizona
DCA Code
Common Name
Scientific Name
11000
11001
11002
11006
11007
11009
11019
11030
11035
11050
11055
Bark Beetles
roundheaded pine beetle
western pine beetle
mountain pine beetle
Douglas-fir beetle
spruce beetle
pinon ips
Ips engraver beetles
cedar bark beetles
fir engraver
spruce ips
Dendroctonus adjunctus
Dendroctonus brevicomis
Dendroctonus ponderosae
Dendroctonus pseudotsugae
Dendroctonus rufipennis
Ips confusus
Ips spp.
Phloeosinus spp.
Scolytus ventralis
Ips pilifrons
12000
12003
12040
12045
12054
12186
Defoliators
looper
western spruce budworm
leafhopper
lace bugs
unknown
Choristoneura occidentalis
Cicadellidae
Corythucha spp.
Nepytia janetae
14000
14017
Sucking Insects
spruce aphid
Elatobium abietinum
24000
24017
Decline Complexes/Dieback/Wilts
true fir pest complex
30000
Fire
42000
42003
Domestic Animals
horses
50000
50003
50006
Abiotic Damage
drought
hail
80000
80001
Multi-Damage (Insect/Disease)
aspen defoliation (caused by 12037, 12096, 25036, and 25037)
90000
90008
99999
Unknown
foliage discoloration
No Data
Page 62
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix B
Appendix C: GIS Data Resources
Arizona Game & Fish Department
Heritage Database Management System
WMHB –
HDMS Program
2221 W. Greenway Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85023
Phone: (602) 942-3000
http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml
Data: Special Status Species (Threatened & Endangered Species)
Arizona Interagency Coordination Group (AICG)
“
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
W
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
U
r
b
a
n
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
”
2
0
0
3
http://www.azsf.az.gov/Risk/Arizona%20Wildland%20Urban%20Interface%20Assessment%20
05MAR04.pdf
Data: Wildfire Hazard
Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS)
1616 W Adams St
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 542-2607
http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/
Data: City Boundaries, Interstate Highways, Land Ownership, Riparian Vegetation
Bureau of Reclamation
http://www.ubr.gov
Arizona Dams
http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/azdams.html
Data: Dam locations and type
The Geography Network
http://www.geographynetwork.com/
Data: Census block groups, population
Natural Resources Conservation Service
230 N. First Avenue, Suite 509
Phoenix, AZ 85003-1733
Phone: (602) 280-8801
http://www.az.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/gis/gisdownloads.html
Data: 5th Level Hydrological Unit Codes (HUC) Boundaries
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix C
Page 63
Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center
Urban Remote Sensing
Columbia University of New York
Vegetation and Population Density in Urban and Suburban Areas in the U.S.A
Pozzi, F. and C. Small (2002)
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/urban_rs/index.html
Data: Urban Definition
Southwest Regional GAP Analysis
Utah State University
US Geological Survey
Nature Serve
http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer
Data: SWReGAP Land Cover Descriptions
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
e
r
‟
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
Population Statistics Unit
1789 West Jefferson, First Floor
PO Box 6123 (Site Code 045z)
Phoenix, AZ 85005-6123
(602) 542-5984
http://www.workforce.az.gov/?PAGEID=67&SUBID=138
Data: Population projections
US Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/
Data: Additional population statistics, urban / rural definitions
USDA Forest Service
Forest Inventory and Analysis
1601 North Kent Street, Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 605-4177
http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/
Data: Misc forest classifications
USDA Forest Service
Spatial Analysis Project
1400 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, D.C. 20250-1123
(202) 205-6206
http://www.fs.fed.us/na/sap/
Data: Guidance and requirements
Page 64
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix C
The Nature Conservancy
Eco Regional Assessment
Freshwater Assessment
1510 E. Fort Lowell Rd.
Tucson, AZ 85719
(520) 622-3861
http://www.azconservation.org/ecoregions.htm
http://www.azconservation.org/freshwater.htm
Data: Eco regions, priority habitats, Perennial streams
Arizona Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project –
Appendix C
Page 65