sbeadmr gis optimization working group meeting 9/17/2015

SBEADMR GIS Optimization

Working Group Meeting9/17/2015

Initial extent ExclusionPrioritization

Initial extent

Initial extent Exclusion

Exclude:Wilderness areasRoadless areasUnsuitable timber

Initial extent Exclusion

Exclude:Wilderness areasRoadless areasUnsuitable timberPast treatments

Initial extent Exclusion

Prioritization

Exclude:Wilderness areasRoadless areasUnsuitable timberPast 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 long0

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 mile0

4

Prioritization – WUI Risk

High priority to treat

Low priority to treat

Extreme WUI Risk

Low WUI Risk

Outside of the WUI0

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):

FUELSAspen mix (2 - moderate)Spruce - Aspen (3 - high)Spruce mix (4 - extreme)

SLOPE31+% Extreme (4)21-30% High (3)9-20% Moderate (2)0-8% Low (1) ASPECT170-240 degrees Extreme (4)165-170 or 240-270 High (3)90-165 Moderate (2)0-90 or 270-360 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) 6 - 10 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):

FUELSAspen mix (2 - moderate)Spruce - Aspen (3 - high)Spruce mix (4 - extreme)

SLOPE31+% Extreme (4)21-30% High (3)9-20% Moderate (2)0-8% Low (1) ASPECT170-240 degrees Extreme (4)165-170 or 240-270 High (3)90-165 Moderate (2)0-90 or 270-360 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) 6 - 10 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 .5Hazards (Fuels) .3Hazards (slope) .1Hazards (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 ExclusionPrioritization

Exclude:Wilderness areasRoadless areasUnsuitable timberPast treatments

Accessibility

Drainage density

WUI Risk

Wildlife

Prioritization

Accessibility

Drainage density

WUI Risk

Wildlife

Weighting

0.30

0.15

0.30

Lynx - 0.15Grouse - 0.1

FlaggingIdentification 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 TreatmentsFuel Break Shelterwood cut Wildlife habitat mechanical treatment Wildlife habitat regeneration cut Salvage cuts from 2003-2014Broadcast burningCoppice cut >25 yo in aspenCoppice cuts in spr-aspen

Possible vegetation classification errorsIdentified based on concurrence of vegetation data from:NLCD GAP dataLandfire veg types