sbeadmr gis optimization working group meeting 9/17/2015
TRANSCRIPT
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