Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
California Spatial Analysis Project
Jeff Calvert, Statewide Stewardship Coordinator
Suzanne M Lang, Research Program Specialist
Richard Walker, PhD, Research Program Specialist
Herb Bunt, Registered Professional Forester
Bill Snyder, Deputy Director
Resource Management
California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection
January, 2008
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 1 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
The California Stewardship Potential GIS Layer
Executive Summary
The Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) is a national effort lead by the USDA Forest Service to standardize the collection and tracking of
information on forest stewardship plans, and to analyze the relative potential for forest stewardship on private lands across all 50 states.
Three products are the primary goals of this project: 1) a standardized geodatabase containing information on recent, current and future
forest stewardship plans; 2) spatial data (digitized polygons) representing recent and current forest stewardship plans; and 3) statewide GIS
layers assigning low, medium or high rankings of the stewardship potential on all private undeveloped land. This document summarizes the
approach taken by the state of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to meet these objectives.
Data were gathered from stewardship plans that had been initiated and completed since 1996, or are currently in process. 502 plans were
captured in the GIS, with the most pertinent ancillary information entered into a slightly customized version of the standardized Web-DET
geodatabase for California. Digitized plans varied in size from a few acres to a single plan in 1998 that covered all of Tehama County (1.76
million acres).
To lay the foundation for the forest stewardship potential layer, a presentation was made to the state Forest Stewardship Coordinating
Committee describing the program goals and purpose of the stewardship potential layer. The ten committee members were asked to rank
into three categories (low, medium, high) each of 25 possible themes (i.e. wildfire hazard) to include in the GIS synthesis of ranked
stewardship potential. Scores were then tallied across all members, with 3 points given for each “high” ranking; 2 points given each
“medium” ranking and 1 point for each “low” ranking. The top scoring 13 themes were selected from the pool according to highest scores
given by the committee, and each theme was then weighted proportional to its relative score. Twelve themes were discarded either because
the scores were too low or redundant to thematic layers already in the top 13. Performing raster analyses in the GIS, weights were
normalized to sum to 1 among all 13 themes (1 would thus be the highest possible stewardship potential score, resulting when all themes for
a given pixel were positive – i.e. presence of all 13 thematic factors). Values in the final result ranged from 0.03 to 1.0, excluding the 0
values coded for areas not available for stewardship. Reviewing the mapped results, and based upon best professional judgment, pixels of
low potential were coded for values ranging from 0.03 to 0.200; medium potential from 0.201 – 0.450; and high potential from 0.451 – 1.0.
As might be anticipated —and born out in other regions of the country, areas of low potential consisted largely of agricultural fields and
grasslands in the lower elevations of the state. Areas that ranked medium often occurred in shrublands and more open woodlands in low
foothills. The areas of highest potential were generally those with conifer or mixed hardwood and conifer forests, often in more mountainous
terrain.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 2 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Abstract
As part of the U.S. Forest Service’s Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) initiative, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
produced GIS data representing forest stewardship plans in progress or completed since 1996, and a GIS layer depicting forest stewardship
potential for the state of California. Stewardship plan records were systematically gathered across the state, locations of the plans were
digitized, and information from the plans pertinent to the program was captured in attribute tables.
The forest stewardship potential GIS layer was created according to program guidelines, and closely following examples from the states of
Colorado and Missouri. Ten members of the California Forest Stewardship Council were solicited to weight the relative importance of 25
factors for determining an area’s stewardship potential, with the choices of low, medium or high. Based primarily upon those collective
ratings, 13 factors deemed of high importance were selected by the Council, and weighted roughly proportional to their total score. The best
available GIS data was then matched to each factor, the data converted into binary (factor either present or absent) layers, and a map created
of stewardship potential for all of California from the score-based weightings, with output classes high, moderate and low potential.
Introduction
The U.S. Forest Service created the Spatial Analysis Program (SAP) in an effort to standardize spatial forest stewardship information across
the country, and to provide a means for the systematic tracking of past and current stewardship activities in each state. State compliance
with the program is voluntary, with the federal government providing matching funds for these state-performed efforts. The program seeks
to help foresters compare the location of recent forest plans with the relative potential for forest stewardship across the state. The two main
spatial (GIS) layers produced in this effort are: 1) forest stewardship potential on private lands; and 2) locations of forest stewardship plans
during the past 10 years, entered into a standardized geodatabase template.
The SAP guidelines make allowances for minor modifications to the standard geodatabase (Web-DET) to meet custom requirements of
individual states, with the restriction that changes only be added and that no part of the core standard schema be removed or altered. This
facilitates the compilation and tracking of stewardship plan information across regions and all states in the country, a goal of the Spatial
Analysis Project.
Guidelines as to environmental and social factors for consideration in each state’s GIS forest stewardship potential layer were adhered to by
the California SAP team. Twelve “common data layers” (factors) are highlighted as centrally important inputs to the final stewardship
potential layer (see Table 1.) The program acknowledges that significant differences can occur between states with regard to forest
stewardship, and some factors that are important in one state may be much less so, or missing altogether, in another. The program
guidelines allow for relative weights (i.e. relative importance) assigned to each input “common” layer and state-specific “custom” layer to
vary between states according to judgment of state professionals knowledgeable of the region.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 3 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Background
The SAP seeks to strike a balance between the need for standardization among forest stewardship related data
collected in all 50 states, and the needs of individual states for a certain degree of customization to fit their
particular requirements. Reflecting this, the core of the Web-DET geodatabase is not to be altered, but each
state can add pieces to the schema for its own purposes.
Similarly, with regard to the statewide forest stewardship potential layer, states are strongly urged to include
at a minimum the twelve common data layers (Table 1), although their relative importance (weighting) can be
greatly varied. For example, Missouri and Colorado, two states with completed SAP requirements, show
significant variations in the weightings they applied to the common layers. Wildfire hazard, rated as the most
important factor (15% of the total) in Colorado was weighted as the least important factor included in
Missouri’s forest stewardship potential layer (less than 5% of the total). Conversely, the highest ranked factor
in Missouri, riparian vegetation (11.6% of the total), is tied for last in importance among Colorado’s input
layers (3% of the total).
Common SAP Data Layers
Wildfire Hazard
Private Forested Lands
Slope
Changes in housing Density
Priority Watersheds
Forest Pests
T&E Species
Riparian Areas
Public Drinking Water
Sources
Proximity to Public Lands
Forest Patch Size
Forested Wetlands
Table 1. The 12 SAP common data
layers (in no particular order)
Methods
Collecting California Stewardship Plan Data
The California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection has not consistently employed a standardized system of recording most forest resource
non-industrial management practices undertaken by the state or private landowners. Participation in the Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) has
been an opportunity to move the department forward in consolidated GIS data capture.
The department divides the state of California into two regions and 21 administrative units. Each unit administers state and federal forestry
assistance programs to improve the health and productivity of private forest lands and reduce wildland fuel loads. California's Forest
Improvement Program (CFIP) and other federal programs that the department administers, offer cost-share opportunities that assist
individual landowners with land management planning and practices. The department also delivers the Forest Stewardship Program which
combines funds from state and federal sources to assist communities with multiple-ownership watershed and community issues related to
pre-fire fuels treatment, forest health, erosion control, and fisheries issues.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 4 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
To accomplish the task of creating spatial data representing past stewardship activities, a
veteran forester with experience in the department’s forestry and fuels management grant
programs visited every unit statewide. Archived documents were retrieved and reviewed,
and hardcopy documentation of plans approved for funding and operations between
1996-2006 were scanned.(see right)
Maps were georeferenced in ArcMap, then digitized and attributed in the GIS. Data was
captured in Teale Albers NAD27 at a scale of 1:2500 or better. Stewardship plans were
not initially digitized or attributed into the SAP Web-DET schema, but into a flat data
structure whose attributes were cross-walked into the standard Web-DET schema. This
was somewhat problematic; new tables were not incorporated into the Web-DET schema,
but some additional attributes, following the FACTS model were added into the domain
structure to allow for the California data to be fully expressed. See Tables A and B
below.
Domain
Code
4475
4561
4982
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4993
4994
4995
2996
2997
2998
9999
— FACTS_Timber_Siviculture
Description
Spray
Animal Control
Planting
Follow-up: slash disposal
Follow-up: herbicides
Release: mechanical
Release: herbicide
Tree Shelters
Management Plan
Broadcast Burning: range improvement
Broadcast Burning: understory
Mechanical Mastication
Mechancial Biomass
Mechanical Pile/Burn
Non-commercial thinning
Manual Cut/Chip
Manual Combination Cut/Chip/Pile/Burn
Other treatment methods
Table A. Added domain code values specific to
California in the FACTS_Timber_Silviculture domain.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Scanned stewardship project.
Domain
Code
401
402
403
— Program_Funding
Description
CFIP – California Forest Incentive Program
Vegetation Management Program
Community Assistance Grant
Table B. Added domain code values in the Program_Funding
domain specific to California.
With guidance derived from Migrating SAP Data from
the Stewardship Access Database to the Web-DET
ArcGIS Geodatabase (Frost and Barnett), the California
data was imported to the ManagedArea feature class and
the ACTIVITY and PLANINFORMATION tables.
page 5 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Summary Results: Forest Stewardship Plans 1996-2006
There are 58 counties within the state of California, of
which 31 had forest stewardship activities between
1996 and 2006.
There were 502 projects spatially captured in the GIS
and migrated into the Web-DET database. Table C
below illustrates the distribution of those plans over
time and Figure A to the left illustrates the geographic
density and distribution of plans by county. In 2004,
the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection was
able to administer state Proposition 40 funds which
contributed to an escalation in the amount of grants
awarded.
Figure A.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 6 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Forest Stewardship Plans 1996-2006
120
Number of Plans
100
80
60
40
20
Year
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Table C. Distribution of stewardship plans over time.
Creation of the Statewide Forest Stewardship Potential Data Layer
Based on the Forest Service SAP guidelines, a list was compiled of environmental and social factors that potentially have bearing on an
assessment of 1) assets that would benefit from forest stewardship (resource richness), and 2) threats to those assets/resources that could be
mitigated with stewardship activities. This list of potential factors was in large part compiled independently of GIS data availability. The
list was presented to the California Forest Stewardship Committee, along with the intent of the SAP for characterizing forest stewardship
potential across the state. Ten committee members rated each of the 25 factors listed as “high”, “medium” or “low” (or “eliminate from
consideration”) according to their best professional judgment on its importance to the final stewardship evaluation. An additional two
factors were added to the list by members, bringing the total to 27. Each factor was then scored on the basis of all votes cast by committee
members, according to the formula:
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 7 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Score = 3*(# votes for high) + (# votes for medium).
After some experimentation, this formula was selected because it gave appropriate importance to “high” votes, and also considered the
“medium” vote count. The “low” votes were not included in the scoring. The results are summarized in Table 2. The highest score using
this formula was Wildfire Hazard with 30 points (all 10 votes were “high”), and lowest scoring factor was Developed Recreational Sites
(receiving 0 “high” votes and 2 “medium” votes).
Available GIS spatial data for all of California were then matched with the environmental or social factors listed, to select the best sources
for characterizing each factor, and also identify any data gaps that could compromise its inclusion in the final stewardship potential map
layer. In some cases there was an excellent fit. In other cases the available data quality was poor, or no pertinent data could be found (i.e.
no existing data captured the intent of the factor).
Table 2. Factors selected for inclusion in the forest stewardship potential evaluation
Factor
Wildfire Hazard
Private Forested Lands
Wildland-Urban Interface
Soil Erodibility
Changes in housing density
Forest Industry
Forest Type
Priority Watersheds
Forest Pest
Riparian Areas
T & E Species
Proximity to Public Lands
Public Drinking Water Sources
High
10
7
7
6
6
5
4
4
2
3
4
3
0
VOTES (importance)
Med.
Low
Elim.
0
3
2
3
2
4
5
4
8
4
2
3
7
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
4
4
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
Score*
Weight*
30
24
23
21
20
19
17
16
14
13
14
12
7
13.04
10.43
10.00
9.13
8.70
8.26
7.39
6.96
6.09
5.65
6.09
5.22
3.04
Weight*
(modified)
15
12
11
10
9
8
7
7
5
5
5
3
3
*see above text for explanation
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 8 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Based upon the scoring, spatial data availability, and efforts to reduce redundancy among closely related factors, 13 of the 27 were selected
for inclusion into the forest stewardship potential evaluation. The scores of the 13 selected were also used as a basis for assigning relative
weights to each factor (proportional to its percentage of the sum of all scores of the 13 selected).
Basis Weight = Score / (sum total of all Scores)
Slight upward adjustments were made to give further bias to the weights of the four highest scoring factors (Wildfire Hazard, Private
Forested Lands, Wildland-Urban Interface and Soil Erodibility), and to make all weights integers and sum to 100. The result was the
modified weight in table 1.
Two factors not included in the SAP guidelines common data layer list came out as being very important as weighted by the committee.
These were of Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), where there is a mixture of structures (assets) present in a wildland matrix (hazard), and
Forest Type, showing where commercial timber species (conifers) are present. Additionally, Forest Industry was included (similar to
Colorado’s Agroforestry).
Factors removed from further consideration, with their scores, are listed in table 3. Some of these factors had moderately high scores, but
were eliminated for a variety of reasons (table 4). Several factors were deemed to have significant overlap with, or redundancy to, factors
already selected for inclusion. Factors removed for this reason were soil type and slope, which were effectively captured in available data
on soil erodibility. Forested wetlands was removed due to the rarity of this type of vegetation in California (other wetlands in California
typically have only water and graminoid vegetation, excluding riparian areas). Available spatial information on groundwater recharge
information was insufficient to retain that factor in the final mix. Finally, some factors were removed for lack of clear understanding on
how they would affect the results, either positively or negatively. These included Forest Patch Size and Ecoregion layers
Table 3. Factors removed from consideration for the stewardship potential evaluation**
Factor
Groundwater Recharge
Soil Type
Forested Wetlands
Slope
Agroforestry
Forest Patch Size
Eco Regions
Demographic Profile
303(d) Listed Impaired Waters
Recreation Trails
Invasive species.
Site class
Developed Recreation Sites
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
High
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
Med.
5
4
1
4
2
2
4
3
0
3
0
0
2
Low
2
4
5
0
4
6
2
2
7
5
0
0
7
Elim.
1
0
1
4
2
0
3
4
1
2
0
0
1
Score*
11
10
10
10
8
8
7
6
6
3
3
3
2
page 9 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
With the production of the forest stewardship potential layer, there were diminishing returns with the inclusion of the factors scoring low on
the list. Moreover, given that all input data were in binary (presence/absence) form, there is likely to be negligible affect on the final results
from any data source with a very low weighting. It was partly for this reason that the number of data layers input was limited at 13. And
although two common layers were excluded in this process, this is effectively the same result as if they were included with appropriately
small weights, as even the effect of a single factor of the bottom five or so selected (i.e. those with the lowest weightings) on the final forest
stewardship potential product is probably undetectable.
Table 4. Reasons for (table 2) factor removal
Factor
Groundwater Recharge
Soil Type
Forested Wetlands
Slope
Agroforestry
Forest Patch Size
Eco Regions
Demographic Profile
303(d) Impaired Waters
Recreation Trails
Invasive species.
Site class
Developed Recreation Sites
Reason for removal
Insufficient high quality available spatial data
Pertinent info factored into included soil erodibility data
A rarity in California
Pertinent info factored into included soil erodibility data
Few large monotypic plantations, redundant to forest industry
Low score, uncertainty on quantifying and effect on results
Low score, uncertainty about affect on results
Low score
Low score
Low score
Low score, too few votes
Low score, too few votes
Low score
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 10 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Figure 1.
Final Map of Potential for Forest Stewardship Program Benefits
in California: This is the composite of the following 13 binary
GIS themes, with relative weightings:
Wildfire Hazard
15%
Private Forests
12%
Wildland-Urban Interface 11%
Soil Erosion Hazard
10%
Change in Housing Density 9%
Forest Industry
8%
Forest Vegetation
7%
Priority Watersheds
7%
Insect and Disease Hazard 5%
Riparian Zones
5%
Threatened and Endangered
Species
5%
Public Water Supply
3%
Proximity to Public Lands 3%
Each of the above inputs is described in turn below.
Data inputs to the Forest Stewardship Potential GIS layer
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 11 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Figure 2.
Wildfire Hazard (15%): We used a statewide coverage (100m
grid cells) on Fuel Rank from Fire Regime and Condition Class
(see complete metadata at
http://www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/output/cafrcc.txt ).
The Fuel_Rank attribute values of 2 and 3 (“high” and “very
high”) were coded as 1 (go); all else was coded with 0 (“no go”)
for Wildfire Hazard.
The fuel ranking methodology assigns ranks based on expected
fire behavior for unique combinations of topography and
vegetative fuels under a given severe weather condition (wind
speed, humidity, and temperature). Its intended use is to identify
and prioritize pre-fire projects that reduce costs and losses from
large fire events. The fuel ranking procedure makes an initial
assessment of rank based on an assigned fuel model and slope,
then raises ranks based on the amount of ladder and/or crown fuel
present to arrive at a fuel rank.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 12 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Figure 3.
Private Forested Lands (12%): From a GIS layer compiled by
CALFIRE-FRAP as the next generation of the data described in
the metadata file
http://www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/output/fveg02_2.txt, - the best available land cover data for the entire state, updated in
2006. From this 100m grid layer Conifer Forest and Hardwood
Forest types were selected from the California Wildlife Habitat
Relationship attribute WHR13NAME.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 13 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Figure 4.
Wildland-Urban Interface (11%): Complete metadata on the
layer used is at:
http://www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/output/wui.txt. Areas
within the Wildland-Urban interface in this 100m grid layer are
coded as 1. These data describe relative risk to areas of
significant population density from wildfire by intersecting
residential housing unit density with proximate fire threat to give
a relative measure of potential loss of structures and threats to
public safety from wildfire. The data are buffered out to 800
meters from residential structures in the wildland matrix. Within
California, both wildfire risk and asset characteristics can vary in
the same area. To account for these multiple combinations, spatial
data is used to distinguish fire-related characteristics from assets,
and spatial rules are applied for determining relative risk of loss.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 14 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Figure 5.
Soil Erosion Hazard (10%): From the Post-fire Erosion Potential
layer described at:
http://www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/output/perod.txt.
Areas of high to moderate soil erosion hazard (Erosion_Class = 1
or 2) were selected from this CALFIRE-produced layer. These
data represent CALFIRE-FRAP's best estimate of the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) in a post-wildfire
environment. FRAP adapted RUSLE, used for agricultural soil
loss, for wildland post-fire erosion based on the interaction of fire
threat and vegetation cover.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 15 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Figure 6.
Change in Housing Density (9%): Projections of development by
decade in California. Complete metadata for the source 100m
grid file are provided at:
http://www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/output/projdev.txt.
All areas projected to be developed from 2010 to 2050 (attribute
DECADE_DEV) were included.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 16 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Figure 7.
Forest Industry (8%): Originally intended by the stewardship
committee to be derived from buffering distance to nearest
operating lumber mill. However, 1) currently operating mills are
quite evenly distributed across the region and 2) the future status
of some mills is uncertain. In place of this, data of distribution of
merchantable timber (conifer forests, with trees of 11” DBH or
greater) on private lands was used. The source file metadata is at:
http://www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/output/fveg02_2.txt;
the attributes used were WHR13NAME = Conifer Forest and
WHRSIZE >= 4.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 17 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Figure 8.
Forest Vegetation Types (7%): Conifer and Hardwood forests of
all tree sizes, taken from WHR13NAME = (Conifer Forest or
Hardwood Forest), from the 2006 updated version of the data
http://www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/output/fveg02_2.txt.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 18 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Figure 9.
Priority Watersheds (7%): High priority watersheds were taken from
the Clean Water Action Plan, California Unified Watershed
Assessment (CUWA 1998), a process described at
http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/features/projects/cwap/ . Priority
Category I Watersheds (see
http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/features/projects/cwap/cat1priormap.html
) were selected and coded using Calwater delineated watersheds.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 19 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Figure 10.
Insect and Disease Hazard (5%): From data produced by Region 5 of
the US Forest Service
(http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/projects/gis/data/calcovs/calrisk03_1g.html).
An area was defined to be at risk if 25% or more tree mortality (beyond
the normal level of approximately 0.6% annually) was expected over the
next 15 years. This effort developed a statewide insect mortality risk
layer based upon rules and statistics developed for the National forests
and expanded to cover all state and private forest land. Rule structures
were based primarily upon stand density index and also included,
precipitation, percent canopy cover of host species, and host type.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 20 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Figure 11.
Riparian Zones (5%): Potential and actual riparian vegetation
zones were taken from hydrologic vector data of permanent lakes,
streams and rivers (bluelines) in the 1:100,000 USGS topographic
map series, then rasterized into 100m grids. On average each
stream is thus buffered at 50m (~150’) on either side. The source
data for California is available from the National Hydrography
Dataset (NHD), US Geological Survey
http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html .
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 21 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Figure 12.
Threatened and Endangered Species (5%): California is
particularly rich in sensitive, threatened and endangered species.
We took the presence of any such species from the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), coded on a 1:24000 USGS
topographic quad map basis. The source for this layer was a
compilation done for the California Gap Analysis, and more
information on the CNDDB is found at:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 22 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Figure 13.
Public Water Supply Sources (3%): Source data were compiled
for the California Fire Plan on a grid cell basis called Q81 (9 by 9
cells per 1:24000 USGS topographic quad sheet – 81 cells in all).
Municipal water supply assets were ranked according to their
importance. Watersheds ranked medium or high (2 or 3) in
attribute RANK_SUP were selected and made into a 100m grid
layer.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 23 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Figure 14.
Proximity to Public Lands (3%): A 100m scale grid layer was
created from rasterizing a polygon layer of the boundaries of all
lands managed by the federal government, with a buffer of 800m.
The source file was the CDF State Responsibility Area (SRA) file
available online at:
http://www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/select.asp .
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 24 of 25
Spatial Analysis Project
California Stewardship
Conclusion
To meet the goals of the SAP in California, the state’s Forest Stewardship Committee selected and ranked 25 data themes for their relevance
to producing a GIS layer of forest stewardship potential on private lands. Thirteen were selected for inclusion in the final product, after the
remainder were eliminated for one or more reasons. The final result reflects the weighted sum of these thirteen layers and can help guide
forest stewardship efforts and funding in the state.
Participation in the national Spatial Analysis Project has given California’s Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection the opportunity to gather
its stewardship plans into a single spatial database with common attributes which serves as a foundation for future work and analysis. The
goal of assisting private and local landowners in attaining healthy forests on public and private lands remains the goal of this state and
federal partnership, the Spatial Analysis Project.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
page 25 of 25