SBEADMR GIS Optimization Working Group Meeting 9/17/2015.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A CAUTIOUS CONSERVATIONISTS VIEW OF STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING.
Advertisements

Stewardship Contracting on the Brush Creek/Hayden Ranger District USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National.
Managing Northern Spotted Owl Habitat in Dry Forest Ecosystems Presented By Cindy Donegan U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning College of Architecture Texas A&M University April 24, 2002 Presented By Jin Y Jun Site Selection.
080820_v1DP TRAVEL MANAGEMENT - PROCESS ON THE GILA NATIONAL FOREST.
Spruce Beetle Epidemic & Aspen Decline Management Response EIS Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests.
Spruce Beetle Epidemic & Aspen Decline Management Response EIS Adaptive Implementation Process.
Roadless Area Conservation: National Forest System Lands in Idaho Proposed Rule www. roadless.fs.fed.us State of Idaho.
- Description of scenarios -No treatment -Status quo -Resilience - Preliminary model results - Management and decision making in Envision.
Uneven-aged beech stand, Germany. Uneven-aged mixed-hardwood stand, Michigan.
WOODSHED ANALYSIS Addison County Five Towns Analysis by Marc Lapin, Chris Rodgers, & David Brynn Winter/Spring 2009.
Watershed Update, Kahler, ECF, 6/26/2014. The Kahler Challenge.
Science & Monitoring Team Meeting Sept 23rd. Agenda Introductions Overview of CPRW & CO Conservation Exchange Review draft charter/workplan Watershed.
Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response Project Adaptive Implementation Strategy Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests.
Northwest Regional Office HFR and WUI Programs Fire Planning & Fuels Reduction Efforts (Discuss Ground Rules for da money)  National Fire Plan Goals:
What are the key/critical elements?
Why calculate slope and Aspect? Study the flow of water Identify the habitats of plants Identify potential sites for urban growth Drainage patterns on.
Areas Forest Management in British Columbia Parks and Protected Areas Presented by: Lyle Gawalko Forest Ecosystem Officer Ministry of Environment Parks.
Jeremy Erickson, Lucinda B. Johnson, Terry Brown, Valerie Brady, Natural Resources Research Institute, University of MN Duluth.
Geographic Information Systems Applications in Natural Resource Management Chapter 12 Synthesis of Techniques Applied to Advanced Topics Michael G. Wing.
Rural to Urban Conditions Habitat varies to a slight degree across Cass County Generally large rural areas surrounding isolated communities and some.
Most Common Conservation Practices Forestry Illinois.
Prescribed Fire: A Tool For Ecosystem Management Ryan Harr, Guest Lecturer NREM 390 Fire Ecology November 2010.
Centre for Non-Timber Resources Royal Roads University Victoria, BC Cost Benefit Analysis of Wildland Urban Interface Operations.
Landscape Classification System & Environmental Macro-Siting GIS Mark Lotts James Madison University Office of the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative.
UPPER MONUMENT CREEK LANDSCAPE RESTORATION Allan Hahn – District Ranger Mike Picard – ID Team Leader.
Forestry-related Ordinances in Florida What are the potential influences of county and municipal ordinances on forest land retention and sustainability?
Growth and Land Use Planning Analysis for Washington County, Utah Presented by: Eric D Zimmerman.
Island Biogeography First proposed by E.O. Wilson & Robert MacArthur in the 1960s. Now is a fundamental concept in conservation techniques. “Island” is.
Feedback on the Draft EIS Myrtle HFRA Project 7/17/06.
Models in GIS A model is a description of reality It may be: Dynamic orStatic Dynamic spatial models e.g., hydrologic flow Static spatial models (or point.
INYO NATIONAL FOREST - TRAVEL ANALYSIS PROCESS Public Meeting – April 21, 2015.
Clearwater Basin Collaborative Restoring America’s Forests Oct. 3-5, 2011, Truckee, CA Photo: William H. Mullins Kelly Creek CBC Landscape Assessment Preliminary.
Brad Barber Project Manager for SCFA Texas Forest Service Brad Barber Project Manager for SCFA Texas Forest Service.
FORESTRY TEST BASICS. How To Measure the Diameter of a Tree? Stand next to the trunk (if on an non-level slope – then stand on the uphill side of the.
Assessing the Effectiveness of Landscape Fuel Treatments on Fire Growth and Behavior Rick D. Stratton Presented by Jacob J. LaCroix.
Treatments and methods to manipulate stand structure suitable for fuel reduction.
Using GIS for Analysis: Queries Re-classification Map overlay Real world Land use Elevation Parcels Streets Retail A sample of approaches:
RVCOG Advisory Committee Meeting Discussion on Draft Interpretation of The Urban Reserve Rule Location Factors And Analysis of RPS Growth Areas February.
Landscape Treatment Prioritization to Reduce Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Loss from Wildfire: A Test Case Using Fire Regime and Condition Class on the.
The Colorado Roadless Rule July 31, 2012 Hermosa Creek Roadless Area Trey Schillie US Forest Service: Rocky Mountain Region May 31, 2013.
Assessment & Planning All land ownerships All major upland systems.
Current Conditions of Camp Sacajawea Team Three: Javier, Charlie, Melissa, Angela.
Condition of Forests in San Diego County: Recent Conifer Tree Mortality and the Institutional Response Presented by California Department of Forestry Mark.
SILVICULTURAL PRACTICES. SILVICULTURE The application of various treatments such as; tree planting, pruning, intermediate cuttings and harvest cuts.
The Effect of Fuel Treatments on the Invasion of Nonnative Plants Kyle E. Merriam 1, Jon E. Keeley 1, and Jan L. Beyers 2. [1] USGS Western Ecological.
Bureau of Land Management: Identifying Land with Wilderness Characteristics By: Heather Evans.
Landscape Treatment Priority Analysis Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.
Presented to: Montana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC) Presented by: Julia Riber, R1 Regional Planner Chris Partyka, Lolo NF Env. Coordinator 1.
STORM WATER SOLUTIONS FOR EXISTING URBAN AREAS: IDENTIFYING SITES TO MAXIMIZE RESULTS Jared Bartley, Cuyahoga SWCD September 8, 2011.
GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENTS (AUTHORITY) MARCH 31, 2016.
Capstone Project GI Analysis C Team. Leadership Forum Local/State GIS planners Planning/ZoningUtilities Citizen Groups USACoE Local Developers Parks &
The 21 st Century Wildland Firefighting Triangle.
Moderator. To improve the utilization.
THE CASE FOR RECONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE NANTAHALA/PISGAH STAKEHOLDERS FORUM MAP COMMITTEE Jim Gray Ruffed Grouse Society.
Wind Potential (12% Losses)
SILVICULTURAL PRACTICES
FOR 350 Silvicultural Terminology Review
WDFW Forest Management Mission
How is science like sausage?
MWMA Summary.
Forestry Part 4.
= + + = + Beyond Condition Class:
Clear Creek / Robie Creek
Shelterwood and clearcut
= + + = + Beyond Condition Class:
Wildfire 2017: Causes, Consequences & Solutions to a Wicked Problem
Phases 1 & 2 Units ACTIVITY PLANNED IMPLEMENTING COMMENTS
Managing Forest Resources
Resource Management.
Presentation transcript:

SBEADMR GIS Optimization Working Group Meeting 9/17/2015

Initial extent Exclusion Prioritization

Initial extent

Exclusion Exclude: Wilderness areas Roadless areas Unsuitable timber

Initial extent Exclusion Exclude: Wilderness areas Roadless areas Unsuitable timber Past treatments

Initial extent Exclusion Prioritization Exclude: Wilderness areas Roadless areas Unsuitable timber Past treatments Accessibility Drainage density WUI Risk Wildlife

Prioritization - Accessibility High priority to treat Low priority to treat Accessible by skidder – no road construction needed Accessible by new road < 1 mi long Accessible by new road > 1 mi long 0 4

Prioritization – Drainage density High priority to treat Low priority to treat Low drainage density in the surrounding square mile High drainage density in the surrounding square mile 0 4

Prioritization – WUI Risk High priority to treat Low priority to treat Extreme WUI Risk Low WUI Risk Outside of the WUI 0 4

Values: (based on WUI types and parcel density for the Urban Interface type) Communication Site (3 - high) Developed Recreation Site (3 - high) RAWS Site (1 - low) Utility Corridor (3 - high) Urban Interface (classified based on # of parcels within 1 mi radius) (1-4) *Value ratings are summed when they overlap Hazards (fuels, slope, and aspect): FUELS Aspen mix (2 - moderate) Spruce - Aspen (3 - high) Spruce mix (4 - extreme) SLOPE 31+% Extreme (4) 21-30% High (3) 9-20% Moderate (2) 0-8% Low (1) ASPECT degrees Extreme (4) or High (3) Moderate (2) 0-90 or Low (1) Classification based on VALUES and HAZARDS Areas within the WUI, and WUI areas of higher risk are a higher priority for treatment WUI Extent is defined by existing FS layer (1 mi buffer around communication sites, RAWS sites, Utility Corridor, and Urban Interface; 0.25 mi buffer around Rec Sites) WUI Risk is defined based on the classification below, within the WUI extent Prioritization – WUI Risk Urban interface parcel density classification (# parcels within 1 mi radius): 11+ parcels Extreme (4) parcels High (3) 3-5 parcels Moderate (2) < 3 parcels Low (1)

Values: (based on WUI types and parcel density for the Urban Interface type) Communication Site (3 - high) Developed Recreation Site (3 - high) RAWS Site (1 - low) Utility Corridor (3 - high) Urban Interface (classified based on # of parcels within 1 mi radius) (1-4) *Value ratings are summed when they overlap Hazards (fuels, slope, and aspect): FUELS Aspen mix (2 - moderate) Spruce - Aspen (3 - high) Spruce mix (4 - extreme) SLOPE 31+% Extreme (4) 21-30% High (3) 9-20% Moderate (2) 0-8% Low (1) ASPECT degrees Extreme (4) or High (3) Moderate (2) 0-90 or Low (1) Classification based on VALUES and HAZARDS Areas within the WUI, and WUI areas of higher risk are a higher priority for treatment WUI Extent is defined by existing FS layer (1 mi buffer around communication sites, RAWS sites, Utility Corridor, and Urban Interface; 0.25 mi buffer around Rec Sites) WUI Risk is defined based on the classification below, within the WUI extent Prioritization – WUI Risk Urban interface parcel density classification (# parcels within 1 mi radius): 11+ parcels Extreme (4) parcels High (3) 3-5 parcels Moderate (2) < 3 parcels Low (1) These values and hazards will be weighted and summed for a total score: Weighting: Values.5 Hazards (Fuels).3 Hazards (slope).1 Hazards (aspect).1

Prioritization – Wildlife Neutral priority to treat Low priority to treat No lynx use High lynx use -4 0 High priority to treat Low priority to treat 0 4 Gunnison sage grouse habitat Not GSG habitat

Initial extent Exclusion Prioritization Exclude: Wilderness areas Roadless areas Unsuitable timber Past treatments Accessibility Drainage density WUI Risk Wildlife

Prioritization Accessibility Drainage density WUI Risk Wildlife Weighting Lynx Grouse - 0.1

Flagging Identification of areas that may be undesirable to treat, regardless of their prioritization score Flagged areas include: – Questionable past treatments – Possible vegetation classification errors Questionable Past Treatments Fuel Break Shelterwood cut Wildlife habitat mechanical treatment Wildlife habitat regeneration cut Salvage cuts from Broadcast burning Coppice cut >25 yo in aspen Coppice cuts in spr-aspen Possible vegetation classification errors Identified based on concurrence of vegetation data from: NLCD GAP data Landfire veg types