the texas approach - texas a&m forest service · 9/28/2008 · assessment (sfla) and the...

1

Developing a Statewide Assessment of Forest Resources

The Texas Approach September 2008

Developing a Statewide Assessment of Forest Resources The Texas Approach September 2008 Produced by

Brad Barber Texas Forest Service John B. Connally Building 301 Tarrow, Suite 364 College Station, TX 77802-7896 (979) 458-6630 Development and publication of this document was assisted by a grant from the National Association of State Foresters Abbreviations Used:

AMO Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation BMPs Best Management Practices CARS Community Accomplishment Reporting SystemCCX Chicago Climate Exchange EPA Environmental Protection Agency ETJ Extraterritorial Jurisdiction FEI Fire Effects Index FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis GIS Geographic Information Systems HUC Hydrologic Unit Code LOC Level of Concern MRLC Multi-resolution Lands Characteristics ConsortiumNASF National Association of State ForestersNED National Elevation Dataset NHD National Hydrography Dataset NHP Natural Heritage Program NIDRM National Insect and Disease Risk MapNLCD National Land Cover Database NRCS Natural Resource Conservation ServiceNWI National Wetlands Inventory PAD Protected Areas Database PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation REIT Real Estate Investment Trust S&PF State & Private Forestry SAP Spatial Analysis Project SFLA Southern Forest Land Assessment SGSF Southern Group of State Foresters SPB southern pine beetle SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Dataset STATSGO State Geographic Dataset SWRA Southern Wildfire Risk AssessmentTFS Texas Forest Service TIMO Timberland Investment Management OrganizationU.S. United States USDA United States Department of AgricultureUSFS United States Forest Service WFSI Wildland Fire Susceptibility Index

The Texas Forest Service is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer committed to excellence through diversity and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability in employment or in the provision of services.

Developing a Statewide Assessment of Forest Resources—The Texas Approach

Contents i

Developing a Statewide Assessment of Forest Resources

The Texas Approach

CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Background ........................................................................................................ 1 National Guidance on Statewide Assessments .................................................. 1 SGSF State Assessment Task Force .................................................................. 2 Purpose ............................................................................................................... 3 Data Available Regionwide ......................................................................................... 4 Data Available from the Southern Forest Land Assessment ............................. 4 Forestland ............................................................................................... 5 Forest Patches ........................................................................................ 6 Riparian Areas ....................................................................................... 7 Wetlands ................................................................................................ 8 Priority Watersheds ................................................................................ 9 Public Drinking Water ........................................................................... 11 Protected Areas ...................................................................................... 12 Threatened and Endangered Species ..................................................... 13 Slope ...................................................................................................... 14 Site Productivity ..................................................................................... 15 Development Level ................................................................................ 17 Forest Health .......................................................................................... 19 Wildfire Risk .......................................................................................... 20 Additional Data Available for Urban Forestry Analysis ................................... 21 Tree Canopy ........................................................................................... 21 Imperviousness ...................................................................................... 22 Community Accomplishment Reporting System .................................. 23 How Texas Developed Its Statewide Assessment ...................................................... 24 Issue Identification ............................................................................................. 24 Stakeholder Input ............................................................................................... 24 Separate Spatial Analyses .................................................................................. 25 Layer Selection .................................................................................................. 25 Layer Weighting ................................................................................................ 25 Weighted Overlay Analysis ......................................................................................... 28 A Simplified Approach ...................................................................................... 28 Preparation of SFLA Data for Overlay .............................................................. 31 Preparation of Non-SFLA Data for Overlay ...................................................... 32 Determining Acreages for the Various Priority Classes .................................... 33 Summarizing by Geographic Area ..................................................................... 34


ii Contents

How to Build a Single-Process Model in ArcGIS ModelBuilder ............................. 35 Example Model Output ...................................................................................... 45 Determining Acreage for Example Model Output ............................................. 46 Summarizing by Geographic Area ..................................................................... 47 Using the National Assessment Tool as an Alternative ............................................ 50 Lessons Learned ........................................................................................................... 51 Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 53 Online Stakeholder Survey Issues .................................................................. 54 Cover Letter for Online Stakeholder Survey .................................................. 55 Survey Question 1: Population Growth and Urbanization ............................. 56 Survey Question 2: Central Texas Woodland Conservation .......................... 58 Survey Question 3: Sustainability of Forest Resources in East Texas ........... 59 Survey Question 4: Water Quality and Quantity ............................................ 60 Survey Question 5: Urban Forest Sustainability ............................................ 61 Survey Question 6: Texas Forest Health ....................................................... 62 Survey Question 7: Please Tell Us Other Issues Important to You ............... 63 Survey Mailing List ........................................................................................ 66


Introduction 1

INTRODUCTION Background In 2008, the USDA Forest Service implemented a “Redesigned” State and Private Forestry (S&PF) program. The S&PF Redesign effort was conceived in response to the combined impacts of increasing pressures on our nation’s forests and decreasing S&PF resources and funds. Significant threats to forests, such as insect and disease infestations, catastrophic fire, and the loss of critical forested landscapes to development, coupled with the pressure placed on local economies by the increasingly global nature of the forest products industry, pointed to the need for more progressive strategies for conserving our nation’s forest resource. Under Redesign, each state is required to analyze forest conditions and trends in the state and delineate priority rural and urban forest landscape areas. From this assessment, a statewide forest resource strategy will be developed as the basis for formulating competitive proposals for S&PF funds. National Guidance on Statewide Assessments To ensure that federal and state resources are being focused on important landscape areas with the greatest opportunity to address shared management priorities and achieve meaningful outcomes, each state and territory will work collaboratively with key partners and stakeholders to develop a statewide assessment of the forest resources. The statewide assessment should provide a comprehensive analysis of the forest-related conditions, trends, threats, and opportunities within the state. At a minimum, the statewide assessment will: • Provide an analysis of present and expected future forest conditions,

trends, and threats on all ownerships in the state. • Identify forest-related threats, benefits, and services consistent with the

S&PF redesign national themes. • Delineate priority rural and urban forest landscape areas to be

addressed by the state resource strategy. • Work with neighboring states to identify any multi-state areas that are

a regional priority. Delineation of priority rural and urban forest landscape areas should be accomplished through geospatial analysis. The geospatial analysis should include at least one data layer that addresses each of the following core issues or themes: • Development Risk • Fish and Wildlife Habitat • Fragmentation • Water Quality and Supply • Wildfire Risk • Economic Potential • Forest Health Risk • Green Infrastructure


2 Introduction

Each core issue, or theme, is tied to one or more of the S&PF redesign themes and associated national objectives. Regional and multistate analyses that delineate multistate priority landscape areas, where states can share resources to address regional threats and opportunities, are strongly encouraged. In addition, priority landscape areas may include urban areas and non-forested lands, such as grasslands, agricultural lands, and riparian areas, where agroforestry or forestation will produce environmental benefits. A state’s geospatial assessment can include one or more weighted overlay analyses and should result in a composite data layer that delineates priority landscape areas. A state may choose to conduct separate analyses to address specific management or unique program-related questions, or use analyses already completed for individual programs, such as those completed for the Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project. A state’s assessment of forest resources should include a description of all spatial analysis methods and logic and one or more maps that identify priority forest landscape areas. SGSF State Assessment Task Force The Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF) decided that the Texas Forest Service would develop a “template” for the statewide assessment that other states could use in developing their own state assessments. A multi-state, multi-program task force—State Assessment Template Task Force—was formed with Carl Garrison, state forester for Virginia, serving as chair. The task force was composed of representatives from various members of the SGSF including the states, SGSF staff, and the USDA Forest Service. The task force convened in College Station, Texas on March 3 and 4, 2008 to guide and formulate how the assessment template would be developed. States not present at the meeting were represented through SGSF committee or task force chairs who were present. Attendees included are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. SGSF State Assessment Template Task Force

Name State/Organization Name State/Organization

Ken Arney USFS John Giedraitis TX Brad Barber TX Marilynn Grossman TX Mark Bays OK John Miller VA Ron Billings TX Bill Oates TX Tom Boggus TX Scott Phillips SC Laura Calandrella USFS Jim Rooni TX John Campbell VA Pete Smith TX Burl Carraway TX Tom Spencer TX Mike Countess SGSF Darren Spinks AR Jan Davis TX & RIC † Mark Stanford TX Carl Garrison (Chair) VA

† Redesign Implementation Council The task force concluded that the assessment should be issue-driven rather than resource-driven. Because issues are expected to vary in importance among the states, the task force decided that instead of a “fill-in-the-blank” template as originally envisioned, Texas would produce more of an example, or model, assessment that other states could use in developing their own assessments. To aid in this, in addition to the “example” plan,


Introduction 3

which also serves as the state assessment for Texas, this document—The Texas Approach—was produced to describe how Texas developed its assessment. Purpose The purpose of this document is to describe how Texas developed its assessment and provide guidance on how relevant spatial data can be analyzed to identify priority landscape areas. States are free to follow this model or develop one that better fits their state and preferences. However, by following this model, a better comparison of assessments across the states will be possible.

Developing a State Assessment for State and Private Forestry Redesign—The Texas Approach

Data Available Regionwide 4

DATA AVAILABLE REGIONWIDE National Guidance encourages states to draw from existing data sources and layers, including those provided by the National Assessment or developed for the Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project, Forest Legacy Assessment of Need, and State Wildlife Action Plans as technically valid and appropriate. A major strong point for the South is the existence of two regional geospatial assessments: the Southern Forest Land Assessment (SFLA) and the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment (SWRA). These cooperative projects identified important rural forests lands and areas at risk of wildland fire across the South, respectively. However, since the objectives of these assessments were to identify areas in the rural and wildland landscape, urban areas were masked out of these analyses. Although several of the layers used in the SFLA provide useful information for analyzing and prioritizing urban forests, additional data and information are needed for urban forest analysis. Data Available from the Southern Forest Land Assessment The Southern Forest Land Assessment serves as the resource assessment part of the Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project. It provides 13 layers that can be used in spatial analyses for state assessments. They can be grouped into two major groups based on whether they are considered a threat to the resource or a richness characteristic of the resource as given below.

Richness • Forestland • Forest Patches • Riparian Areas • Wetlands • Priority Watersheds • Public Drinking Water • Protected Areas • T&E Species • Slope • Site Productivity

Threat • Development Level • Forest Health • Wildfire Risk

A description of these 13 layers follows. All are 30-meter grid raster files.



Forestland The Forestland layer (Figure 1) emphasizes lands with existing forest cover. Forested areas were derived from the 2001 National Land Cover Database (NLCD 2001) produced through a cooperative mapping effort of the Multi-resolution Lands Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). The NLCD 2001 data layer identifies 16 classes of land cover and was produced from Landsat 5 and 7 imagery. The NLCD 2001 dataset was reclassified to contain the following forested categories: Deciduous Forest (41), Evergreen Forest (42), Mixed Forest (43), Shrub/Scrub (52), and Woody Wetlands (90). For NLCD mapping zones 25, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, 36, and 38 in western Texas and western Oklahoma, land cover class 52 (Shrub/Scrub) was not included as forest. Forestland is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 SFLA Forestland

Forestland


6 Data Available Regionwide

Forested Patches The Forest Patches layer (Figure 2) is intended to emphasize forest patches of ecologically and/or economically viable size. The Forest Patches layer was created by first subtracting from the Forestland layer a buffered (30 meters) rasterized road layer and then using the Region Group and Zonal Geometry tools within ArcGIS to group contiguous forest grid cells into patches. The road layer used was ESRI’s U.S. Highways, which represents the major and minor highways of the United States. These include Interstates, federal highways, state highways, major roads, and minor roads. This dataset is a subset of the Streets dataset and contains all Class 1, 2, and 3 road segments plus any other road segments necessary to provide network connectivity for the Class_Rte field. Values for grid cells are the area in square meters of the forest patch in which a cell belongs. For a cell to be contiguous with an adjacent cell, there must be at least one side common to both cells. Corners simply touching does not constitute contiguousness. The layer is further processed within the SFLA models to produce layer values ranging from 0 to100 based on patch size. The layer values scheme used in the SFLA is given in Table 2.

Table 2. Layer Value Scheme for Forest Patches

Layer Value Patch Size (square meters) Patch Size (acres)

0 < 2,019,382 < 500 10 2,019,382 – 4,042,809 400 – 999 20 4,042,810 – 6,066,237 1,000 – 1,499 30 6,066,238 – 8,089,665 1,500 – 1,999 40 8,089,666 – 10,113,093 2,000 – 2,499 50 10,113,094 – 12,136,521 2,500 – 2,999 60 12,136,522 – 14,159,949 3,000 – 3,499 70 14,159,950 – 16,183,377 3,500 – 3,999 80 16,183,378 – 18,206,805 4,000 – 4,499 90 18,206,806 – 20,230,233 4,500 – 5,000 100 > 20,230,233 > 5,000

< 500 acres

> 5,000 acres

Figure 2 SFLA Forest Patches



Riparian Areas The Riparian Areas layer (Figure 3) places importance on river and stream corridors where buffers of forest vegetative cover can have a positive or restorative effect on water quality and riverine ecosystems. The layer was created from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) flowline (high-resolution) data. Stream segments, or reaches, were buffered by one or two distances using the buffer tool within ArcGIS. The two buffer distances were applied to stream segments based on the Stralher stream order. An ArcInfo macro was run on the segments to determine stream order. Segments with stream orders of 1 through 4, i.e. stream segments closer to the headwaters, were buffered by 50 meters. All remaining segments were buffered by 100 meters. The data were rasterized to a 30-meter grid. The NHD is a feature-based database that interconnects and uniquely identifies water-related entities, such as industrial discharges, drinking water supplies, fish habitat areas, and wild and scenic rivers. -

Riparian Areas

Figure 3 SFLA Riparian Areas



Wetlands The Wetlands layer (Figure 4) identifies forested wetlands where planning and management can achieve a higher degree of protection for purposes including water quality and wildlife habitat. The Forested Wetlands layer was created by combining wetlands data from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) dataset and the 2001 National Land Cover Database. The NWI dataset represents the extent, approximate location, and type of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the conterminous United States. These data delineate the areal extent of wetlands and surface waters as defined in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States by Cowardin et al.† The NWI class "freshwater forested/shrub wetland" was selected from the NWI dataset and converted to a 30-meter grid. The NLCD 2001 data were reclassified to contain only the woody wetlands (NLCD class 90). These datasets were then combined in such a way that the NWI data was used in its entirety for areas where it was available. Where NWI data were not available, NLCD 2001 data were used.

† Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C., FWS/OBS-79.

Figure 4 SFLA Wetlands

Wetlands



Priority Watersheds The Priority Watersheds layer (Figure 5) emphasizes landscapes that impact long-term watershed function. The national SAP intent statement for this layer suggests priority watersheds can be those that are impaired or deforested, but could be measurably improved through planning and active management, or those that are currently productive, but somehow threatened. Two methodologies were used to derive Priority Watersheds depending upon whether an area was “historically forested” or “historically non-forested.” All areas in the South were considered historically forested except for western Texas, western Oklahoma, southern Texas, the coastal prairies of Texas and Louisiana, and the Everglades of southern Florida. For historically forested areas, the following methodology was used. This methodology was used in all of AL, AR, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, and PR and portions of FL, LA, OK, and TX. For this methodology, the data were created using a combination of (1) percentage of riparian area forested within a 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watershed and (2) percentage of same watershed forested. Percentages were rounded to the nearest 10 percent. A two-dimensional matrix with each of these measures was produced by combining the two measures using the Combine function within ArcGIS. A total of 121 classes resulted from this combining process. Two existing input layers in the SFLA were used to calculate Priority Watersheds—Forestland and Riparian Areas. Twelve-digit watershed boundary shapes were obtained from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in each state. The data were rasterized to a 30-meter grid. The SFLA models reclassify these 121 classes to a layer value ranging from 0 to 100 based on the two watershed measures. Greater importance was placed on lower percentages for both measures. Table 3 shows the layer value scheme used.

Table 3. Layer Value Scheme for Priority Watersheds

Percent of watershed forested

Percent of riparian area forested within watershed

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0% 100 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10% 100 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 20% 90 90 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 30% 80 80 80 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 40% 70 70 70 70 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 50% 60 60 60 60 60 60 50 40 30 20 10 60% 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 40 30 20 0 70% 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 30 20 0 80% 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 20 0 90% 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0 100% 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0



The second methodology—that for the historically non-forested regions of FL, LA, OK, and TX—used EPA’s Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters to determine whether a watershed should be given priority. Because the ecoregions used in the SFLA do not adequately separate historically forested from historically non-forested areas, EPA’s Level IV ecoregions were used to delineate these areas. In this methodology, any 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watershed that contained an impaired water segment was considered a priority watershed. In addition, any upstream 12-digit HUC watershed was included up until the 8-digit HUC watershed was encountered. A priority watershed was assigned a layer value of 100 and all others were assigned a value of 0. The data were rasterized to a 30-meter grid. The SFLA model overlays a layer entitled wshd_mask that identifies the historically forested areas from the historically non-forested areas. In this mask, the historically forested areas have a value of 1 and the historically non-forested areas have a value of 0. Within the two models, layer values for the priority watersheds determined using the impaired waters methodology are reduced from 100 down to 70. This reduction parameter can be modified on the model interfaces when they are run.

Figure 5 SFLA Priority Watersheds

Layer Value010 20 30 40 50

6070 80 90 100



Public Drinking Water The Public Drinking Water layer (Figure 6) emphasizes areas of watersheds that drain into public drinking water supply intake points. This dataset is comprised of the 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds that contain a surface water intake for public drinking water. Twelve-digit watershed boundary shapes were obtained from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in each state. Each watershed that contains a surface water intake was given a value of 100. All other watersheds were given a value of 0. The data were rasterized to a 30-meter grid. Data for surface water intakes were obtained from the appropriate state agency responsible for regulating public drinking water.

Watersheds (12-digit) with surface water intake

Figure 6 SFLA Public Drinking Water



Protected Areas

The Protected Areas layer (Figure 7), also known as Proximity to Public Land, emphasizes areas that are assumed to be permanently protected (and managed) and thus contribute to a viably large, interconnected forest landscape. This layer is based on the assumption that public lands are in a permanently protected status, and is intended to include private lands in a permanently protected status (easements, or other).

The public lands data (including private protected areas in perpetual easements) was produced from the Protected Areas Database (PAD), Version 4, developed by the Conservation Biology Institute of Corvallis, OR. Some modifications were made for Texas and South Carolina. The South Carolina Forestry Commission provided polygons of state forests (and nurseries) that were either not included in the PAD data or where more accurate boundaries were available. Data for Texas is primarily that provided to the Texas Forest Service (TFS) by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department who compiled spatial data for public land in 2003. In addition, Texas General Land Office land that the Texas Forest Service manages was included (as drawn by TFS). Any additional areas in the PAD (primarily Department of Defense lands) was appended. In addition, any inholdings (as provided in the AVSORT attribute) were deleted from the PAD data.

Buffers were created for areas between 0 and 0.5 miles of public land, as well as for areas between 0.5 and 1.0 miles of public land. The SFLA model reclassifies these public lands (including private protected areas) and the buffers surrounding these lands to layer values of 50 or 100. Public lands (and private protected areas) and the 0–0.5 mile buffers are given a layer value of 100. The 0.5–1.0 mile buffers are given a value of 50. All other areas outside the protected areas and their associated buffers are given a layer value of 0. The data were rasterized to a 30-meter grid.

Figure 7 SFLA Protected Areas

Protected Areas (PAs) and areas within 0.5 miles of PAs Areas within 0.5 to 1.0 miles from PAs



Threatened and Endangered Species The Threatened and Endangered Species layer (Figure 8) identifies areas that provide habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species (TES). Natural Heritage Program data (NHP) were obtained from the appropriate state agencies responsible for maintaining the data. In addition to TES, the data includes rare plant communities and other communities of conservation value. Because of the sensitive nature of precise point locations, the measure used for this layer is number of occurrences of NHP data within a quarter quad (one quarter of a USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle). Quarter quad shapes were obtained from the USDA Geospatial Gateway (http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/). Using these shapes and point data representing occurrences of NHP data, the number of occurrences within each quadrangle was determined in ArcGIS using Hawth’s Count Points in Polygon tool. This tool is free for download from Hawth’s Analysis Tools for GIS (http://www.spatialecology.com/htools/). The point count was then classified into four quantiles plus zero separately for each state. Each category was assigned a layer value ranging from 0 to 100 in increments of 25. Layer values and quantiles are given in Table 4.

Table 4. Layer Value Scheme on Number of Occurrences of Natural Heritage Program Data Layer Value

AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TN TX VA PR

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 1 1 1 – 2 1 1 – 2 1 1 1 – 2 1 1 1 – 2 1 1 – 2 1 – 2 50 2 – 3 2 – 3 3 – 5 2 – 3 3 – 4 2 – 3 2 – 3 3 – 6 2 2 – 3 3 – 5 2 3 – 5 3 – 4 75 4 – 8 4 – 8 6 – 12 4 – 8 5 – 10 4 – 6 4 – 8 7 – 15 3 – 4 4 – 8 6 – 12 3 – 4 6 – 10 5 – 11 100 9 – 466 9 – 79 13–292 9 – 166 11–148 7 – 121 9 – 221 16–218 5 – 12 9 – 162 13–218 5 – 77 11–316 12–149

Figure 8 SFLA Threatened and Endangered Species

0 25 50 75 100

Layer Value



Slope Although the National Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project’s intent for this layer is to serve as a proxy for forest timber or fiber productivity potential, the national intent was not known when this layer was originally defined within the SFLA, and thus the intent within the SFLA was an integration of forest management operability and erosion potential. The dataset was derived from the U.S. Geological Survey's National Elevation Dataset (NED). The NED is a seamless mosaic of best-available elevation data. Percent slope was calculated within ArcGIS from the NED 30-meter data. The SFLA model reclassed these slope values to a layer value of either 0 or 100. Slopes between 10 and 50 percent (inclusive) received a value of 100 while all other slope values received a layer value of 0 (Figure 9).

Figure 9 SFLA Slope

0 25 50 75 100

Layer Value



Site Productivity The Site Productivity layer (Figure 10) emphasizes areas with higher potential productivity in terms of timber production. The measure used for site productivity in the SFLA is site index (tree height in feet at age 50) as determined by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The preferred source of data was the NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. Where SSURGO data was not yet available, the State Geographic (STATSGO) database was used. Each database has a common link to attribute data files for each map unit component. The SSURGO database provides the most detailed level of information. Components of map units are generally phases of soil series that enable precise interpretation. Soil maps for STATSGO are more generalized than for SSURGO. This layer used SSURGO data that was available on July 5, 2007. Where SSRGO data were not available as of this date, STATSGO data were used. Complete SSURGO coverage is expected sometime in 2008. The SSURGO data required extensive processing to get it in a form usable for the SFLA. The data were downloaded from the Soil Data Mart website (http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/). Each soil survey area, which is composed of usually one but sometimes two counties, contains spatial data (polygons) and attribute data. Attribute data are contained in 24 relational tables, four of which are needed to produce this Site Productivity dataset: Legend (legend.txt), Mapunit (mapunit.txt), Component (comp.txt), and Component Forest Productivity (cfprod.txt). Legend contains information about the soil survey area. Mapunit links to the soil mapping polygons and contains information about the soil mapping unit. Component contains information about the components that make up a soil mapping unit. Each mapping unit contains from one to several components. Component Forest Productivity contains site index values for one to several species per component. Therefore, each mapping unit usually contains several site index values. To develop the Site Productivity layer, a process was developed for calculating one site index value per soil mapping unit. Each component was assigned the highest site index value that occurred in that respective component, regardless of species. A weighted (by proportion of mapping unit that each component comprises) average for site index was calculated for each soil mapping unit. Components that did not have a related site index value were not factored in (i.e., the component proportions were normalized to sum to 1). After one site index value was assigned to each of the soil mapping units, the soil survey vector data were rasterized to a 30-meter grid. The SFLA models reclassify these site index values to produce a layer value ranging from 0 to 100. Table 5 shows the layer value scheme used.



Table 5. Layer Value Scheme for Site Productivity

Layer Value Site Index (height in feet at age 50)

0 < 60 25 60 – <70 50 70 – <80 75 80 – <90

100 >= 90

Figure 10 SFLA Site Productivity

< 6060 −< 70 70 −< 80 80 −< 90 > 90

Site Index



Development Level The Development Level layer (Figure 11) emphasizes areas that are projected to experience increased housing development in the next 30 years. Increased management of private forests can improve the likelihood that these lands will remain forested and continue to provide forest values such as timber, wildlife habitat, and water quality. This layer is especially important in the wildland-urban interface. The layer was derived from housing density projections for 2030 developed by David Theobald of Colorado State University. The projections were derived through Theobald’s Spatially Explicit Regional Growth Model (SERGoM v2) which uses data from the Census Bureau for 2000, Protected Areas Database v3, Geographic Data Technology’s Road Density, county population projections, and National Land Cover Data 1992. Data were provided in 15 classes depending on housing density as given in Table 6.

Table 6. Theobald’s Housing Density Classes

Generalized Group Theobald Class Units/Ha × 1000 Units/Acre × 1000 Acres/Unit

Undeveloped Private 1 <= 1 <= 0.5 >= 1,853.3 2 2 – 8 0.6 – 3.4 1,853.2 – 305.3 3 9 – 15 3.5 – 6.2 305.2 – 159.6 Rural 4 16 – 31 6.3 – 12.6 159.5 – 78.5 5 32 – 49 12.7 – 19.9 78.4 – 49.9 6 50 – 62 20.0 – 25.2 49.8 – 39.6 7 63 – 82 25.3 – 33.3 39.5 – 30.0 8 83 – 124 33.4 – 50.3 29.9 – 19.9 Exurban 9 125 – 247 50.4 – 100.1 19.8 – 10.0 10 248 – 494 100.2 – 200.0 9.9 – 5.0 11 495 – 1,454 200.1 – 588.5 4.9 – 1.7 Suburban 12 1,455 – 4,118 588.6 – 1,666.6 1.6 – 0.6 13 4,119 – 9,884 1,666.7 – 4,000.0 0.5 – 0.3 Urban 14 9,885 – 24,711 4,000.1 – 10,000.3 0.2 – 0.1 15 >= 24,712 >= 10,000.4 < 0.1

The 100-meter raster data provided by Theobald were resampled to 30 meters. The 2000 data were combined (using the Combine function within ArcGIS) with the 2030 data to produce a matrix of classes where one dimension is housing densities in 2000 for each of the 15 classes and the other dimension is housing densities projected for 2030. A total of 120 classes were produced from this combine process. The SFLA models reclassify these 120 classes to a layer value from 0 to 100 based on three premises:

1. There is resource threat from increases in density occurring in rural areas. 2. There is more threat to the resource when increases are larger in magnitude. 3. Once housing densities reach a certain threshold, there is little chance we can

affect change, therefore, increase in these areas has no more threat.



Table 7 shows the layer value scheme used.

Table 7. Layer Value Scheme for Development Level †

2030 UP Rural Exurban SU Urban 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 0 50 70 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 0 60 80 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3 0 70 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 4 0 80 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 5 0 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 6 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 7 0 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 8 0 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 9 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 14 0 0 15 0 † UP = Undeveloped Private SU = Suburban

For further information on the housing density datasets, see: Theobald, D. 2005. Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology and Society 10(1): 32. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art32/

Figure 11 SFLA Development Level

010 20 30 40 50

6070 80 90 100

Layer Value



Forest Health The Forest Health layer (Figure 12) places importance on areas where silvicultural treatments can address risks to forest health. This data layer was derived by extracting data from Version 3.3 of the National Insect and Disease Risk Map project (NIDRM) (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/nidrm.shtml) developed by the Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team within the USDA Forest Service. The NIDRM was driven by 188 models that attempt to predict how individual tree species will react to various mortality agents. The models, in turn, are the interactions of predicted agent behavior with known forest parameters. The NIDRM data used in the SFLA provide potential percent loss of total basal area in the next 15 years from three diseases and three insect pests common to the South. These pests include annosus root disease, fusiform rust, beech bark disease, southern pine beetle, gypsy moth, and balsam woolly adelgid. Projections of risk mortality were made using empirical data, models, and expert judgment. The original forest health grid (1 kilometer resolution) was resampled to 30 m. The SFLA models reclassify these potential percent loss values to four layer values as given in Table 8.

Table 8. Layer Value Scheme for Forest Health

Layer Value Mortality Expected Over Next 15 Years

0 < 5% 33 5 – 15% 67 15 – 25% 100 > 25%

Figure 12 SFLA Forest Health

Mortality Expected Over Next 15 Years

< 5%5 – 15% 15 –25% > 25%



Wildfire Risk The Wildfire Risk layer (Figure 13) is intended to identify areas where planning and management are likely to reduce a relatively high risk of wildfire. Wildfire Risk was derived from the Level of Concern (LOC) for Wildfire Risk output layer developed for the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment. The Level of Concern model integrates historical weather, fire history (ignitions), surface fuels, roads, wildland-urban interface, fire behavior analysis, fire effects, and suppression effectiveness to derive an overall wildfire risk. It combines the probability of an acre burning with the expected effects if a fire occurs. This reflects the possibility of suffering loss. The LOC data was provided as floating point data for value. In order to reduce the size of the dataset and improve processing efficiency, the data were reclassified into integers. This layer is further processed within the SFLA model to produce layer values ranging from 0 to 100 based on Level of Concern. The layer value scheme is given in Table 9.

Table 9. Layer Value Scheme for Wildfire Risk

Layer Value Level of Concern

0 < 10 11 10 – 400 22 401 – 2,400 33 2,401 – 45,800 44 45,801 – 642,900 55 642,901 – 1,359,300 67 1,359,301 – 3,426,800 78 3,426,801 – 4,999,900 89 4,999,901 – 14,999,000 100 > 14,999,000

Figure 13 SFLA Wildfire Risk

Layer Value 011 22 33 44

55 67 78 89 100



Additional Data Available for Urban Forestry Analysis Tree Canopy Tree Canopy (Figure 14) is a derivative of the NLCD 2001 that quantifies spatial distribution of tree canopy as a continuous variable from 0 to 100 percent. When comparing Tree Canopy to Forestland, several key points are informative:

1. Pixel value for Tree Canopy is a continuous variable that can range from 0 to 100 percent.

2. Pixel value for Forest is a discreet variable with four possible values (41, 42, 43, or 90)

3. The minimum size of a NLCD mapping unit is approximately 1 acre (four pixels).

4. To be classed as Forest, tree canopy must be at least 20 percent. This data can be downloaded from the Multi-Resolution Land Classification Consortium (MRLC) website at the following URL: http://www.mrlc.gov/.

Figure 14 NLCD Tree Canopy

Tree Canopy 0% 1%

100%



Imperviousness Impervious surface (Figure 15) is also a derivative of the NLCD 2001 and refers to impenetrable surfaces such as rooftops, roads, or parking lots. Imperviousness offers a relatively objective measure of urban density and provides a forum for its classification. For NLCD 2001, imperviousness was chosen as the surrogate for the urban intensity characterization used in the original NLCD 1992. The NLCD 2001 imperviousness quantifies the spatial distribution of impervious surfaces as a continuous variable for urban areas from 0 to 100 percent.

0% 1% 100%

Imperviousness

Figure 15 NLCD Imperviousness



Community Activity Reporting System (CARS) The Community Activity Reporting System (CARS) is a web-based tool for collecting, storing, and reporting information on urban and community forestry programs at the national, regional, and state level. It is used to report annual accomplishments for the Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) Program of the USDA Forest Service. Four of the reporting items under CARS can be used in assessing a community’s urban forestry development:

1. Existence of an active urban forest management plan developed from professionally-based resource assessments or inventories.

2. Existence of professional forestry staff that have degrees in forestry or related field and/or are certified arborists through the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).

3. Existence and adoption of ordinances or policies that focus on planting, protecting, and maintaining their urban and community trees and forests.

4. Existence of local advocacy/advisory organizations, such as active tree boards, commissions, or no-profit organizations that are formalized or chartered to advise and/or advocate for the planting, protection, and maintenance or urban and community trees and forests.


24 How Texas Developed State Assessment

HOW TEXAS DEVELOPED ITS STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT Issue Identification Following the meeting of the SGSF State Assessment Task Force, Texas Forest Service program leaders met two times in March and April of 2008 to identify the top forest resource issues in Texas to include in the assessment. Six issues were identified:

1. Population Growth and Urbanization 2. Central Texas Woodlands Conservation 3. Sustainability of Forest Resources in East Texas 4. Water Quality and Quantity 5. Wildfire and Public Safety 6. Urban Forest Sustainability

For each issue, a leader was selected who was responsible for developing the narrative for the issue. Stakeholder Input The national guidelines for statewide assessments and the 2008 Farm Bill state that development of assessments should be done with input from partners and stakeholders. Although face-to-face meetings are recommended to solicit this input, due to the compressed timeline that Texas faced in developing this example assessment, a streamlined process for stakeholder input was used. An on-line survey was developed using the services of Survey Monkey (www.SurveyMonkey.com). Details of the survey and responses can be found in Appendix A. Please note that the original issues identified included Forest Health but not Wildfire and Public Safety. Forest Health was dropped because it was felt that this issue was adequately covered by several of the other issues. Conversely, the Wildfire and Public Safety issue was not included initially because it was deemed integral to several other issues. Results from the stakeholder survey indicated a need to include Wildfire and Public Safety as a separate issue. Of the 292 stakeholders surveyed, 86 (29.5%) responded. Although all issues were important to the responders, Water Quality and Quantity received the highest average importance (Table 10).

Table 10 Summary of Stakeholder Survey on Issues

(86 responses to 292 surveyed)

Issue Extremely Important Important Doesn’t

Matter Much Not

Important Don’t Know

Numbers of Comments

Population Growth and Urbanization 48 35 3 16 Central Texas Woodlands Conservation 48 33 3 1 1 9 Sustainability of Forest Resources in East TX 48 38 9 Water Quality and Quantity 66 20 9 Urban Forest Sustainability 40 42 2 2 8 Forest Health 46 40 3 Other Issues of Stakeholder Importance 40


How Texas Developed State Assessment 25

Separate Spatial Analyses Although a modified SFLA analysis serves as an overall priority index for the rural landscape areas in Texas, the group decided to conduct separate spatial analyses for each issue. In addition, the Urban Forest Sustainability issue was broken into six different analyses to correspond with the national goals for the Urban and Community Forestry program. An overall urban analysis was then accomplished by combining the analyses for each of the goals. An overall statewide priority was produced by overlaying results from the overall urban analysis with the SFLA-modified rural analysis to fill the urban void left in the SFLA. Layer Selection The SFLA input data layers and principles of weighted overlay analysis were presented and explained to the group to prepare the program leaders for selecting layers and assigning layer weights for each issue. At this meeting, the group decided on a preliminary list of SFLA layers to include in each of the rural issues. Using all or some of the SFLA input layers was considered sufficient for spatially identifying priority areas across the landscape. If a layer was considered to inform an issue, then it was included for that issue. Because the SFLA was designed to include only rural areas, additional data layers were used in the Urban Forest Sustainability issue. The Urban Forest Sustainability Issue was broken into six different analyses to correspond with the national goals for the Urban and Community Forestry program. In addition to 8 of the 13 SFLA input layers, 16 other layers were developed for the Urban Forest Sustainability analyses. The layers used in each analysis can be found in each issue section of the Texas State Forest Resource Assessment. Layer Weighting Weighted overlay analysis involves assigning weights to thematic layers according to the relative importance of each layer in addressing the objectives of the analysis. In this statewide assessment of forest resources, Texas Forest Service program leaders assigned weights to the included layers for each issue. Each program leader was asked to assign weights to layers in each of all issues. Though several program leaders provided weights for all issues, some did so only for their respective program area. For each issue, layer weights from the various program leaders were averaged, with an issue leader’s values counting double. Results were presented to the program leaders and the issue leader was free to take the average for his issue, or use his own after considering the averages and the discussion generated from the averages. For the final weights used and presented, weights to one decimal place indicate an average while integers indicate weights finalized by the issue leader. An interactive Excel worksheet was developed that allowed for an easy and visual way to assign layer weights to an issue (Figure 16). Assignments of weights using the worksheet involved two main steps.


26 How Texas Developed State Assessment

Figure 16 Example Worksheet for Assigning Layer Weights


How Texas Developed State Assessment 27

First, the assigner ranked the pertinent layers in descending order of importance. This would automatically list the layers in a table at the bottom of the worksheet, sorted in descending order of importance. Second, the assigner would distribute 100 weighting points among the included layers. As values were entered, an adjacent bar chart would plot the layer weight, thus giving a visual indication of the relative layer weights. As values were entered, the running total and point balance were displayed below the list of layers. Table 11 provides a list of all weights used for each layer by issue analysis. A total of 29 layers were used in these analyses. In addition, three different layer values schemes were used for the Development Level: one for the SFLA rural analysis, one for the Central Texas Woodlands Conservation issue, and one for the urban analyses.

Table 11 Layer Weights by Issue Analysis

Layer 1 2 3 4 5 6-1 6-2 6-3a 6-3b 6-4&5 6-6 U † R ‡

Forestland 12 30 22.6 9.0 20 15 20 9.1 16.3 Forest Patches 9 7 7.1 3.0 20 3.3 6.0 Priority Watersheds 2 7.0 26.1 6.3 Riparian Areas 7 9 4.6 17.3 10 1.7 12.6 Wetlands 1 1.8 13.0 3.2 Public Drinking Water 8 3.9 21.9 25 4.2 10.6 Site Productivity 6.4 5 0.8 2.6 Protected Areas 1 1 2.1 5.0 10 1.7 2.8 T&E Species 1 3 1.3 4.9 Slope 4 0.8 2.0 Development Level 30 20 17.9 1.8 40 15 15 15 14.1 11.3 Wildfire Risk 20 15 8.6 0.9 5 0.8 11.9 Forest Health 10 10 16.8 1.4 9.5 Place Growth Zone 10 1.7 Tree Canopy 40 6.7 Hurricane Risk 25 4.2 Ice Storm Risk 15 2.5 Population Density by BG 10 15 20 7.5 Tornado Risk 0.8 Absence of Tree Canopy 40 6.7 Ozone Nonattainment Areas 30 5.0 Imperviousness 25 30 9.2 Impaired Watersheds 10 1.7 Plantable Space 10 1.7 Total Place Population 40 6.7 No Professional Staff 30 5.0 No Management Plan 20 3.3 No Tree Ordinance 5 0.8 No Advocacy Group 5 0.8 † Overall Urban Forest ‡ Rural analysis which is updated SFLA for Texas. These values are simple means of the weights assigned by NLCD 2001 mapping zones used for ecoregions. The Rural analysis was conducted following the SFLA model where layer weights were assigned by ecoregions.


28 Weighted Overlay Analysis

WEIGHTED OVERLAY ANALYSIS For each issue, a separate geospatial analysis was conducted to identify areas across the landscape that are important for focusing Cooperative Forestry efforts. Geospatial analysis, or simply spatial analysis, is a way of making sense of how various types of information (e.g., natural resource, environmental, or cultural) are related geographically and expresses this visually as a map. Spatial analysis involves geospatial layers, or themes. A layer is a thematic set of spatial data representing one type of information, such as land use, cover type, roads, census tracts, or streams. When only two or three layers are overlaid and are made somewhat transparent, the apparent relationship between the two layers can be easily seen and understood. However, as more layers are added, comprehension becomes more difficult, if not impossible. Spatial analysis allows us to simplify and quantify these relationships. Spatial analysis can be performed in many ways. In producing the priority maps for this state assessment, weighted overlay analysis was used. This technique involves assigning a weight to each of several geospatial layers, overlaying them, and summing the weighted values of coincident pixels for all the layers. A pixel is a square unit that represents a specific spot on the ground and is the smallest unit of resolution of geographic area used in the analysis. For the Texas assessment, all analyses were done at the 30- by 30-meter pixel size (0.22 acres). A simple example of weighted overlay analysis can be found in the appendix of the Texas Statewide Assessment of Forest Resources. A Simplified Approach With the exception of the overall rural analysis, which used the updated SFLA model for Texas, overlay analysis was straight forward in this assessment. The weighting of layers and addition of layers and inclusion of the appropriate masks were all done in one operation, after the layers were prepared for overlay. The SFLA can be used as-is if only any of the 13 SFLA and/or two additional layers are used. The model is somewhat complex in that it accounts for missing data and allows for differential layer weighting across ecoregions. Due to this complexity, the model runs slowly. The full 13-layer model for Texas on an up-to-date workstation (Intel Xeon E5335 @2.00 GHz with 2 GB RAM) takes 17 hours to run. The process was simplified by using only one set of weights for each analysis across the entire state (i.e., not weighted by ecoregion). In addition, there was no missing data, thus the functionality for accounting for missing data was not needed. The customized models now take only about one hour to run for the state. In this assessment, each overlay analysis was conducted using simple models developed in ArcGIS Modelbuilder. The geoprocessing tools in ArcGIS make it easy to process spatial


Weighted Overlay Analysis 29

data to model aspects of the real world. However, when many steps are involved in the geoprocessing work flow, it can be difficult to keep track of the assumptions, tools, datasets, and other parameter values used. An easy way to automate the work flow and keep track of the geoprocessing tasks is to create a model. A model consists of one process or, more commonly, multiple processes strung together. A process consists of a tool and its parameter values. A model allows one to perform a work flow, modify it, and repeat it over and over with a single click. A model built in Modelbuilder looks like a flowchart and consists of processes linked together that will run in sequence when the model is run. An example of the model used for the Central Texas Woodlands Conservation analysis is shown in Figure 17. Elements in a model diagram represent tools and their parameter values. A process consists of a tool element and its parameter values. Typically, elements represent the input data parameter value, the tool that operates on the input data parameter values, and the derived data parameter value. Input data elements are represented by blue ovals, tools are represented by yellow rectangles, and derived data elements are represented by green ovals. In the example, we process 12 layers, which includes 10 thematic layers and 2 masks—water and urban—by one tool to produce one output layer, the priority index for Central Texas Woodlands Conservation. In the models, layers were weighted, added together, and applied with the appropriate masks in one process, or equation, using the Single Output Map Algebra tool found in ArcGIS Toolbox under Spatial Analyst Tools (this assumes Spatial Analyst is installed). An algebraic equation that defines the process is entered in the tool’s window when building the model (Figure 18). The equation is one that adds each layer after being multiplied by its appropriate weight. Two masks are included, one for water and one for urban. Although a mask can be set as an environmental setting for the raster analysis for either the tool or the model as a whole, preference was given to explicitly include it in the overlay equation. This is done by creating a mask where the geographic area desired to be included in the analysis is given a value of 0. All areas not within these areas but within the extent, or bounds, of the raster layer are given a value of NoData. This works as a mask because when any layer has a value of NoData for a particular pixel, the resulting output value of the overlay for that coinciding pixel is also NoData, whether or not values exist for the other included layers. For all models, the input data layers were all prepared for inclusion into the models as separate processes. This process is described in the next section.



Figure 17 Example of Modelbuilder—Model for Central Texas Woodlands Conservation

Figure 18 Example of Single Output Map Algebra Tool



Preparation of SFLA Data for Overlay Although any data processing can be incorporated into a model, it is simpler to pre-process the data and prepare it before including it in the final overlay. This is especially advantageous when the input data layers are used in several different analyses. Although several of the layers from the SFLA require no pre-processing, others do. This pre-processing was required to build the layer value schemes used in the SFLA where layer values included more values than simply 0 and 100 (Table 12).

Table 12 SFLA Layers Need for Reclassing into Layer Value Scheme

Before Inclusion in Overlay Analysis

Layers Needing Reclassification Layers Needing No Reclassification

Forest Patches Forestland Priority Watersheds Riparian Areas Slope Wetlands Site Productivity Protected Areas (Proximity to Public Land) Development Level Public Drinking Water † Forest Health Threatened and Endangered Species Wildfire Risk

† No need for reclassification; however, this layer was modified from that used for the SFLA

To build the layer value schemes for each of the layers needing it, a simple model was built using the Reclassify by Table tool in ArcGIS Toolbox under Spatial Analyst Tools (Figure 19). This process can also easily be done without building a model simply by running the tool within ArcToolbox.

Figure 19 Example of Model to Reclass Site Productivity Layer into

Layer Value Scheme Using Reclass by Table Tool The Reclass by Table tool requires two input parameters: the input raster file or layer and the table containing the reclassification scheme (Figure 20). The Reclass table is either a DBF table or a table within a personal geodatabase (MS Access). Three fields within the table provide additional parameters for the tool. The table should contain a From Value field, a To Value field, and an Output Value field. As implied, these fields provide the necessary values for reclassifying the raw values for the layer, in this case, Site Index, to the final layer values that range from 0 to 100.



Figure 20 Example of Reclass by Table Tool

The layer value schemes can be easily defined using the Access interface built for the SFLA (Figure 21). For example, the reclassification table specifies that site index values from 70 through 79 are assigned a layer value of 50, and that site indices of 90 and greater receive a full layer value of 100.

Figure 21 Example of Setting the Layer Value Scheme Using a SFLA Personal Geodatabase (MS Access) Form

Once this reclassification according to layer value scheme is accomplished, the overlay analyses can proceed. Preparation of Non-SFLA Data for Overlay The process described above for preparing the data for overlay analysis is all that need be done when only SFLA layers are included. This was the case for all our issue analyses except for the Urban Forest Sustainability issue. The latter required seven different analyses and included 24 different input layers of which 16 were not produced by the



SFLA. Some layers were obtained as raster files while most were built from vector files (polygons) and converted to raster format (ESRI Grid). Tree Canopy and Imperviousness data, which were downloaded from the MRLC website by multi-zone region, only required the data to be clipped by state boundary and merged (Mosaic to New Raster tool) to produce one file for the state. Two layers—Absence of Tree Canopy and Plantable Space—were derived from Tree Canopy and/or Imperviousness using Raster Calculator within the Spatial Analyst toolbar in ArcMap. Some layers were produced or derived from existing vector files (polygons) including Place Growth Zones, Total Place Population, Hurricane Risk, Population Density by Block Group, and Impaired Watersheds. Other layers, including Ice Storm Risk, Tornado Risk, and Ozone Nonattainment Areas, were created from paper maps. Still other layers were created using a vector file and attaching new attributes to it. These included the layers created from CARS—No professional Staff, No Management Plan, No Tree Ordinance, and No Advocacy Group. Vector files were converted to raster format using the Polygon to Raster tool within the To Raster toolset of the Conversion Tools toolbox of ArcToolbox. In converting the vector files to raster format, it was important to ensure that the extent of the raster and the alignment of pixels all matched the SFLA layers in order to ensure accurate overlay analyses. This was done by setting some of the analysis environment parameters. These settings can be accessed by clicking the Environments button at the bottom of the tool interface window. We always set the Output Coordinate System and the Extent under General Settings to a “SpatialExtent” layer we had produced from the SFLA Forestland layer. This layer was simply a raster layer with values of 0 for all pixels in the state of Texas and NoData for those outside the state but within the extent of the raster. (Extent is represented by a rectangle with coordinates that bound a raster layer.) In addition, we always unchecked the Build Pyramids checkbox under Raster Storage Settings since we were not satisfied with the pyramid files that were produced by default. The final raster layers had values ranging from 0 to 100 for every pixel that occurs within the state. All other pixels within the extent of the raster but not within the Texas boundaries were given values of NoData. Determining Acreages for the Various Priority Classes Maps of priority index for the various issues were prepared by classifying through symbolization the raw output layer values into five priority classes using, in most all cases, Natural Breaks classification. However, this does not provide a measure of area for each class. To get the area comprising each priority class, the data were reclassified into the five classes to produce new output raster layers using Spatial Analyst with ArcGIS. This resulted in Value Attribute Tables that contained the count (or number) of pixels within each reclassified class. The count was then multiplied by 0.222395 to obtain acres.



Summarizing by Geographic Area In addition to maps showing results at the 30- by 30-meter pixel level (maps with identifiers ending in “a”), summary maps by geographic area were produced (maps with identifiers ending in “b” or “c”). These summary maps show the mean value of pixels within geographic area boundaries. Summarization was done to the county level for rural issues and to the U.S. Census Places level for the urban issue. In addition, for the Combined Rural and Urban Analysis, summarization also was done to the 8-digit HUC watershed level and to the ecoregion level (to compare with the state wildlife action plan). This was accomplished using the Zonal Statistics tool within the Spatial Analyst extension of ArcGIS.


How to Build a Simple Model in ArcGIS ModelBuilder 35

HOW TO BUILD A SINGLE-PROCESS MODEL IN ARCGIS MODELBUILDER

Building a single-process model is a simple process in ArcGIS ModelBuilder. In our example, we will build a weighted overlay model that includes three layers from the SFLA. These layers and weights assigned to them are as follows:

Layer Weight

Forestland 40 Forest Patches 40 Site Productivity 20

Total 100

The example will also mask the water and urban areas. The following are step-by-step instructions for building a single-process model.

1. Open ArcMap. 2. Open the ArcToolbox window by clicking the ArcToolbox tool button ( ) on the

Standard toolbar, or by selecting Window>ArcToolbox. 3. Create a new toolbox by right-clicking on ArcToolbox at the top of the window and

selecting New Toolbox. 4. Name it “State Assessment” ( ) 5. Create a new model by right-clicking on State Assessment and selecting New>Model. 6. Step 5 opens a new model window in which the model can be built. Click on the

Save button and close the model (in order to rename it).


36 How to Build a Simple Model in ArcGIS ModelBuilder

7. Right-click on Model and select Rename and give the model a name (in this case,

“State Assessment Example.” 8. Open the State Assessment Model by right-clicking on it and selecting edit. 9. Reposition and resize the model building window so it and the ArcToolbox window

can be seen simultaneously. 10. Add the three thematic layers and mask by clicking on the Add Data button ( ).

Navigate to the disk location where the raster files are located, select the layers (hold the [CNTL] key to select multiple files), and click Add.

11. If desired, the name of these project data elements can be changed by right-clicking

on the element and selecting Rename. Similarly, the width of each element can be customized by either using the element handles to resize with the mouse, or by right-clicking on the element and selecting Display Properties and entering a value for Width.



12. To add the necessary process tool, expand the Spatial Analyst Tools toolbox by clicking on the + sign to the left of the toolbox icon. Then expand the Map Algebra toolset by clicking on the + sign to the left of the toolset icon.

13. Click on the Single Output Map Algebra tool and drag it over top the ModelBuilder

window. 14. Define the three layers and mask as inputs to the process tool by clicking the Add

Connection button ( ) and click on one of the input data elements (e.g., forest) and follow it with a click on the Single Output Map Algebra tool. Do this for each of the three layers and the mask.

click and drag



15. To define the algebraic expression and output raster file to the tool, right-click on the Single Output Map Algebra tool and select Open.

16. To see a list of the four input rasters you have connected to tool, click on the double

arrows pointing down ( ) to the left of Input raster or feature data to show in ModelBuilder.

17. Define the map algebra expression by selecting each raster input file from the list and

dragging it to the Map Algebra expression box and multiplying it by the assigned weight. Separate each raster input file along with its multiplied weight by a plus sign. For the mask layer, simply add it (with no weight) to the others. The mask layer consists of pixels having a value of 0 for any areas to be included in the analysis. All areas outside the analysis area have values of NoData. When



multiple layers are added together and any pixels have a NoData value for any of the layers, the resulting coincident pixels of the output layer will also have NoData values.

18. To define the output raster file, click on the Browse button ( ) to the right of the

Output raster box, navigate to the appropriate path, provide a name for the file, and click OK.



19. For added clarity, provide additional information for the tool name. Right-click on the Single Output Map Algebra tool and select Rename. In the Rename input box, provide a new name by appending additional information to the existing name. Click OK.

20. Because the box size of the tool element is too small to display the whole name,

resize it by either using the element handles to resize with the mouse, or by right-clicking on the element and selecting Display Properties and entering a value for Width.

21. The layout can now be adjusted to provide a more visually pleasing model by either

manually moving elements by clicking and dragging the elements with the mouse. Alternatively, the auto layout feature of ModelBuilder can be used by clicking the Auto Layout button ( ).



22. By default, the output raster file for the Single Output Map Algebra tool is defined as an intermediate file. This means that once the model runs, the file will be deleted. To make the file permanent, right-click on the raster output file element and deselect Intermediate. This is important to remember (and is a common oversight) because if this step is not done, there will be no output file to display.

23. Once the model is built, environment parameters can be set if desired. To do this,

select File>Model Properties to display the Model properties window.

Click to uncheck



24. Expand the General Settings group (by clicking on the + sign to the left of the group) and check Extent and Output Coordinate System. Expand the Raster Analysis Settings and check Cell Size. Expand Raster Storage Settings and check Pyramid. Click on Values.

25. Expand the displayed groups by clicking on the down arrows to the left of each

group. Although none of these settings has to be set, it is a good idea to explicitly set these to ensure everything will process as expected. In most all cases, the default values will be appropriate. However, it is suggested that pyramids not be produced since it may result in some misleading results (author’s opinion). To ensure that everything lines up, set the Output Coordinate System, the Extent, Snap Raster, and Cell Size. All these parameters can be specified by setting them to match one layer. One that works well is to use the Forestland layer from the SFLA. Do this by navigating to the SFLA geodatabase and selecting forests. This may be “overkill” but it will minimize problems that may unknowingly result in some cases. Whether, the above settings are made, the Build pyramids checkbox should be unchecked. Below is an example of this window after settings have been specified.

26. Click the Save button ( ) to save the model. 27. The model can be run several ways. If the ModelBuilder window is open, either

select Model>Run in the ModelBuilder menus or right-click the tool element and select Run.



If the ModelBuilder window is not open, the model can be run by opening the model window by either double-clicking on the tool in the Toolbox window or right-clicking on it and selecting Open. Once opened, click OK to run the model.

28. A progress window will pop up showing the process that is occurring along with its

start and end times. 29. Once the model runs, a message will display in the progress window stating the

model run is complete. Also, total elapsed time will be given.



30. It is a good idea to check the model along with documenting the model by producing a report for the model. To do this, enter the ModelBuilder window as described in step 8 and select Model>Report.

31. In the resulting Model Report window, click on Expand to display all the information.



Example Model Output The pixels of the resulting output layer produced by the example model described above has possible values ranging from 0 to 10,000. The maximum of 10,000 is defined by the product of the maximum possible layer value for any inclusive layer (100) and the sum of the layer weights (100). Therefore, the maximum pixel value for the output layer equals 10,000 (100 × 100). If the sum of layer weights was 10, then the maximum pixel value would equal 1,000 (100 × 10). These numbers can be easily interpreted as percentages by simply moving the decimal point the appropriate number of places to the left. Natural Breaks can be used to classify the output values to several classes (in this case five) under the Symbology tab of the Layer Properties sheet. The following map (Figure 22) shows the example model classified into five classes using Natural Breaks.

Figure 22 Map of Example Model Output

Very Low Low Medium High Very High

0 – 15% 15 – 45% 45 – 68% 68 – 87% 87 – 100%

Priority Index



Determining Acreage for Example Model Output However, classifying through the Symbology tab of the Properties sheet does not produce data that can be used to determine the area within each class. To determine how much area exists for each class, ArcGIS Spatial Analysis can be used. The following steps can be used to determine acreage for each class: 1. Click on Spatial Analyst and select Classify. 2. Select the appropriate raster in the Input raster box. If the input raster is in the Table of

Contents and is selected, it will be the default raster file in the Input raster box. If the layer was already classified into the five classes on the Symbology tab of the Layer Properties sheet, the Set values to reclassify will already be set at the appropriate values. Otherwise, click on the Classify button and use Natural Breaks to classify the layer into five classes. Also, enter a path and file for the output in the Output raster box. The output layer will automatically be added to the map.



3. Right-click the new output layer in the Table of Contents and select Open Attribute Table.

4. Copy and paste each number into an Excel worksheet. Acres can be determined by

multiplying each value by 0.222395. For example, the Very High class (5) contains 5,760,060 acres (25,900,133 pixels ×0.222395 acres/pixel).

Summarizing by Geographic Area To produce summary maps showing the mean of pixel values for each county, use the Zonal Statistics tool in the Spatial Analyst extension of ArcGIS. The following procedure can be used accomplish this. It assumes the output from the example model and a county layer are already loaded on a map. 1. Click on Spatial Analyst>Zonal Statistics.



2. Select the county layer to use as the Zone dataset. Select a unique identifier for each county (e.g., FIPS) for the Zone field, and select the example output raster file for the Value raster. Check Join output table to zone layer, uncheck Chart Statistic, and provide a path and file name for Output table. Click OK.

3. Once the process has completed, close the joined table that displays. 4. Open the Symbology tab on the properties sheet of the zone layer (TX_Counties) and

symbolize the layer using the mean field for quantities. Classify with Natural Breaks. Desired labels for each class can be entered on this sheet. Click OK.

Figure 23 shows the county summary map for the example model output.



Figure 23

Map of County Summary for Example Model Output

Very Low Low Medium High Very High

0 – 5.9% 5.9 – 17.3% 17.3 – 35.8% 35.8 – 58.7% 58.7 – 76.2%

Priority Index


Using the National Assessment Tool as an Alternative 50

USING THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT TOOL AS AN ALTERNATIVE As an alternative to using the SFLA layers and analysis or other source of data, the national assessment tool can be used for determining priority landscape areas for a statewide assessment of forest resources. The national assessment tool will be a web-based geospatial decision support system that allows the user to view the inter-relationships between various data sets and to consider a variety of options and outcomes. The national assessment system will be developed in at least two phases. The first phase consists of building the architecture to run the decision-support system and is being implemented through a contract with Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). A technical team made up of data managers and GIS specialists from the USFS and state forestry agencies is guiding the work. The system will initially use existing, nationally-consistent data sets that are tiered to the three Redesign national themes and will include development risk, woody biomass potential, wildfire and insect and disease risk, critical wildlife habitat, priority watersheds, and the wildland-urban interface. The second phase will involve refinement of data and models and creation of a partner-accessible, web-based component of the database. It is assumed that the second phase of the development of the national assessment tool will be complete in time for states to use the tool to develop their own statewide assessment of forest resources.


Lessons Learned 51

LESSONS LEARNED A pioneering project requires some learning as it develops and almost always results in lessons learned. This knowledge would guide the project somewhat differently if the project were done again. This assessment is no exception. The following is a list of lessons learned through progression of developing the Texas Statewide Assessment of Forest Resources.

• A project of this magnitude is best accomplished on a longer time-line than six months. The inadequacies of this assessment, if any, can be attributed in large part to the abbreviated timeline.

• A six-month timeline lends itself well to the type of stakeholder input solicited for

this assessment, i.e., an email survey using www.SurveyMonkey.com. However, more appropriate face-to-face interaction with stakeholders and partners should be conducted but will require more time. The two years stipulated in the 2008 Farm Bill for producing an assessment is sufficient for producing one with appropriate stakeholder input.

• It is difficult to produce an assessment according to national guidelines when these

guidelines have not been finalized and are subject to change. The formal development of the statewide assessment is best done after national guidelines are formalized.

• It is advantageous for all involved with the development of the assessment to have

a basic understanding of weighted overlay analysis. It would benefit all involved to spend some time understanding this GIS methodology.

• Each person involved with assigning weights to the various layers for weighted

overlay analysis needs to have a basic understanding of the layers and the data that were used to produce them. Without this basic understanding, output from an analysis is also difficult to understand. One needs to fully understand that output layers are a result of the input layers used to produce them, how these layers are defined, and the weights assigned to them. Remember the adage Garbage In, Garbage Out. Moreover, a healthy skepticism of the analyses is welcome. One should keep the sardonic comment on the tendency to put excessive trust in ‘computerized’ data in mind—Garbage In, Gospel Out.

• Each member of the assessment team should adhere to agreed-upon timelines for

providing his or her contributions. This is especially important when operating on an abbreviated timeline.


52 Lessons Learned


Appendix 53

APPENDIX Online Stakeholder Survey Issues .............................................................................. 54 Cover Letter for Online Stakeholder Survey .............................................................. 55 Survey Question 1: Population Growth and Urbanization ......................................... 56 Survey Question 2: Central Texas Woodland Conservation ...................................... 58 Survey Question 3: Sustainability of Forest Resources in East Texas ....................... 59 Survey Question 4: Water Quality and Quantity ........................................................ 60 Survey Question 5: Urban Forest Sustainability ........................................................ 61 Survey Question 6: Texas Forest Health ................................................................... 62 Survey Question 7: Please Tell Us Other Issues Important to You ........................... 63 Survey Mailing List .................................................................................................... 66


Appendix 54

Online Stakeholder Survey Texas State Forest Assessment

As part of the Texas Forest Assessment, Texas Forest Service managers met on March 11, 2008 and developed issue statements for what they considered the top Texas forest resource issues. To test these opinions, an on-line survey was developed using the services of Survey Monkey (www.SurveyMonkey.com). Issues tested with Stakeholders: 1. Population Growth and Urbanization: Texas communities are growing at an alarming rate. Community leaders need proactive management tools and technical support systems to help them prepare for the effects of high velocity growth on forest resources before it happens—not after. 2. Central Texas Woodland Conservation: The woodlands of Central and West Texas are valuable resources for shade, recreation, wildlife, environmental, and watershed protection. Yet, these resources are coming under increasing pressures from an exploding population, land fragmentation, wildfires, invasive plants, oak wilt, and other pest problems. Cooperation and partnerships to protect and conserve these critical resources are essential if the high quality of life residents have come to enjoy in these regions of the state is to continue. 3. Sustainability of Forest Resources in East Texas: For over a century, the forests of East Texas have provided a number of economic and societal advantages—manufacturing, employment, recreation, environmental protection, etc. Today, the pressures on this resource have never been greater. We are experiencing unprecedented change in the management and use of the Pineywoods. Population growth, ownership fragmentation, residential development, and non-consumptive demands will impact the forested landscape for decades to come. 4. Water Quality and Quantity: In Texas, most freshwater resources originate in the eastern portion of the state, making forestland a critical factor in meeting our water needs since they provide the cleanest water of any land use. Outside of East Texas, where water supplies are limited, controlling non native and invasive vegetation may produce higher water yields. With Texans already placing high demands on our water resources, and our population exploding, it is imperative that we continue to focus on this critical issue to ensure the high quality of life that we all enjoy. 5. Urban Forest Sustainability: With the addition of 6.5 million residents since 1990, rapid urbanization is creating intense pressures on the sustainability of the trees and forests in Texas communities. These trees provide economic, health and environmental benefits that are important to the quality of life in our communities. It is critical to plant, care for and conserve the trees in the communities where Texans live, work and play. 6. Texas Forest Health: The forests and woodlands of Texas have long been at risk from outbreaks of native pests, such as the southern pine beetle in East Texas and oak wilt in


Appendix 55

Central Texas. In recent years, a myriad of new pests, including non-native insects, diseases, and invasive plants, have appeared in rural and urban landscapes in Texas. These old and new forest health threats must be addressed to protect and sustain the state’s valuable forest resources. 7. Please tell us if you have other Texas Forest issues that are important to you. The survey was tested internally and then a link was sent out in an email cover letter (p. ) to 292 stakeholders (p. ) on May 15, 2008. Eighty-six stakeholders responded and the following is a summary of the survey results.


56 Appendix

Cover email to Texas Assessment On-Line Stakeholders Survey – Sent out May 15, 2008 Dear Friends and Stakeholders: Texas Forest Service (TFS) has been selected by the USDA Forest Service Southern Region and the Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF) to create a model for assessing the current and future status of state forest resources and determine key issues associated with sustaining those resources for continued public benefit. As a natural resource leader in Texas, your opinion of the opportunities and concerns associated with conserving and protecting the state’s working forest landscapes is vital to the accuracy of the assessment. Therefore, your participation in a short online survey is requested. Would you please spend five minutes of your time to complete the Texas Forest Assessment Online Survey? Results from this survey coupled with existing GIS-based land assessment data will be used for long-term statewide forest resource planning and policy-making decisions in Texas while serving as a model at the regional and federal levels. The assessment will also form the framework for Texas Forest Service’s annual action plans. Additionally, the Texas Forest Assessment model will meet national assessment requirements and is designed to be incorporated by SGSF members in the development of their state assessments. Click on this link to access the survey Texas Online Forest Assessment Survey. We appreciate your continuing efforts as good stewards of Texas’ rich and diverse rural and urban forests. Thank you in advance for your participation in the survey. Sincerely, Tom Boggus Associate Director Texas Forest Service Texas Forest Service provides statewide leadership to assure the state’s trees, forests and related natural resources are protected and sustained for the benefit of all. If you would rather not receive future e-mail messages from Texas Forest Service, let us know by clicking here. Texas Forest Service, 301 Tarrow, Suite 364, College Station, Texas 77840-7896 http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu


Appendix 57

Survey Question 1 Population Growth and Urbanization: Texas communities are growing at an alarming rate. Community leaders need proactive management tools and technical support systems to help them prepare for the effects of high velocity growth on forest resources before it happens—not after. Comments 1. We feel the crunch here in Fort Worth, as the fastest growing city in US of our size. 2. The Texas legislature needs to take steps to create incentives for preserving forests and forest

product resources for the future, marketing Texas sustainable forest products and preserving forest biodiversity

3. I think this is a function of the TFS 4. This statement may be extremely important depending on region (i.e. Houston metroplex,

Austin...) 5. This question is too vague, what is meant by proactive management tools and technical

support systems? It sounds like it was written by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. 6. No only forests but require guidelines for cities to manage or promote community

development 7. We need fully develop Hydrogeomorphic models as functional assessment tools each of the

ecosystems, as recommended by the new mitigation banking guidelines 8. This aligns well with county needs for increased land use and zoning powers. 9. Funding the Texas Purchase of Development Rights program would help tremendously in

community's efforts to protect forest resources from suburban development. 10. Develop model urban tree ordinances to promote in all cities of Texas. 11. Legislature should pass statewide rules requiring developers to set aside certain acres for a

greenbelt. 12. We need to pro active not reactive. Reaction to environmental issues is to late! Only through

planning and management will we protect the community in which we live. 13. Look at the past west of Conroe around the lake dam.!! 14. Statement is sensationalized, not accurately descriptive and hard to assess scientifically. 15. There aren't really any incentives for landowners to keep their lands in timber or farming.

Taxes keep going up along with land values. I've seen lots of timberland being carved up into ranchettes after a cutover especially in SE Texas (Houston-Beaumont) area.

16. Oak Wilt information should be given out to all new home or land owners at the time of closing. The damage we see to the trees from owners that don't have knowledge of this disease is frightening.


58 Appendix

Survey Question 2 Central Texas Woodlands Conservation: The woodlands of Central and West Texas are valuable resources for shade, recreation, wildlife, environmental and watershed protection. Yet, these resources are coming under increasing pressures from an exploding population, land fragmentation, wildfires, invasive plants, oak wilt and other pest problems. Cooperation and partnerships to protect and conserve these critical resources are essential if the high quality of life residents have come to enjoy in these regions of the state is to continue. Comments 1. But, cooperation and partnership must mean voluntary not a government TAKING for the

greater good. 2. We need to lean toward smart growth that provides for all our needs, including woodlands. 3. The lack of marketable forest products from central and West Texas woodlands has resulted

in a lack of management in many cases, and an under appreciation in general that needs to change through awareness and education

4. This is a fire based ecosystem that needs regular fire returned to it. At the urban interface, this may be an issue.

5. I'd like to see conservation through a combination of buffers around forested wetlands, wildlife corridors associated

6. We are beginning to learn that Central Texas woodlands are losing diversity and habitat quality is becoming compromised even within preserve boundaries. We need funding for research and management of protected woodlands - strategies such as prescribed fire, selective thinning, enhancing browse production, and deer population control. I think of this as a Woodland Health Initiative.

7. Regulation should also be a strategy not just volunteer compliance. I doubt oak wilt will ever be treatable—unfortunately.

8. It is hard to get back when gone. 9. This is important so long as it is within the framework of preserving private property rights.


Appendix 59

Survey Question 3 Sustainability of Forest Resources in East Texas: For over a century, the forests of East Texas have provided a number of economic and societal advantages—manufacturing, employment, recreation, environmental protection, etc. Today, the pressures on this resource have never been higher. We are experiencing unprecedented change in the management and use of the Pineywoods. Population growth, ownership fragmentation, residential development, and non-consumptive demands will impact the forested landscape for decades to come. Comments 1. The legislature and local governments need to understand that conservation lands and

managed producing forest lands contribute significantly to sense of place, quality of life and sustainability of other components of regional growth and "progress". Economic development MUST be balanced.

2. This statement may be defined better in relation to the change in large-scale ownership and the decline in long-term ownership and management.

3. The other big issue is reservoir development flooding the remaining bottomland hardwood ecosystems and the Trans-Texas Corridor further fragmenting the landscape and remaining forests.

4. This seems inevitable 5. Again, we need the state to fund the Purchase of Development Rights program so

communities can preserve these forest resources via conservation easements. 6. Why isn't timbering mentioned? Sustainable timbering should not include clear-cutting or

monoculture. 7. I agree that this is extremely important however from a bio-diversity perspective the forests

and forest production is too monoculture where once a variety of trees coexisted now its predominantly loblolly and yellow pines. I would like to see TFS promote more biodiversity in the flora and fauna.

8. The pressures were actually greater in the latter 25 years of the 19th and early 20th centuries when much of the land was in row crop agriculture and small farms with resident landowners. This didn't change all that much until the Depression and World War II moved people off the farms into the cities.

9. We need encouragement and incentives for forest landowners rather than hassles.


60 Appendix

Survey Question 4 Water Quality and Quantity: In Texas, most of the freshwater resources originate in the eastern portion of the state, making our forestlands a critical factor in meeting our water needs since they provide the cleanest water of any land use. In the rest of the state, where water supplies are limited, controlling non native and invasive vegetation may produce higher water yields. With Texans already placing high demands on our water resources, and our population exploding, it is imperative that we continue to focus on this critical issue to ensure the high quality of life that we all enjoy. Comments 1. To date, local and state governments have been reluctant to regulate land uses of any kind,

including those that significantly reduce downstream water quality, for fear of impinging on "private property rights". The state needs to strike a balance with the public welfare as well.

2. A control program for Salt Cedar and Russian Olive control along the Rio Grande, Pecos and other west Texas rivers is critical.

3. This is the key issue, especially as it relates to interbasin transfers and flooding the few remaining bottomland hardwood ecosystems.

4. We need to explore ways for east Texas to share their water with the rest of the state 5. Value assessments of natural resources become difficult when the resources are irreplaceable.

Many states, such as Florida, have funded ($300 million per year) major conservation initiatives aimed at forest and water resources. Texas can do this as well.

6. I don't support reservoirs in East Texas bottomland hardwoods! 7. Statewide rules for trash disposal in rural areas. Now, trash is thrown in the nearest creek.

Establishing more rural trash pickup stations might keep our streams cleaner. 8. Trees build communities and protect the inhabitants! 9. It may be worth emphasizing that drinking water taste and odor problems, harmful algal

blooms, and other water quality problems may be linked to the land use changes described in #4.


Appendix 61

Survey Question 5 Urban Forest Sustainability: With the addition of 6.5 million residents since 1990, rapid urbanization is creating intense pressures on the sustainability of the trees and forests in Texas communities. These trees provide economic, health and environmental benefits that are important to the quality of life in our communities. It is critical to plant, care for and conserve the trees in the communities where Texans live, work and play. Comments 1. This is more of a local issue. People will plant trees in their yards and common spaces for the

reasons listed above plus shade and other aesthetic values. 2. Trees only provide beauty in urban areas. 3. Education in tree selection, planting, and management is extremely important in urbanized

areas. 4. I do not see conservation of urban trees as a stand-alone strategy. No tree planting plan in

itself will ever derive the benefits we need. We must link urban forestry with broader sustainability initiatives such as the Sustainable Sites Initiative, SMART Growth, and conservation development.

5. I would advocate additional urban foresters for TFS and advocate TFS take an active role in partnering with cities and TCEQ in promoting low impact development which would promote more green space such as forest preserves.

6. City tree ordinances should be encouraged. 7. Consider sunlight and A/C, storms that blow trees over on homes and utility lines, and even

harvest and replants of trees in communities. 8. Tree diversification is paramount. Everything always comes back to more education. The

more people understand about the consequences of their actions, the more care they will take with the resources we have.


62 Appendix

Survey Question 6: Texas Forest Health: The forests and woodlands of Texas have long been at risk from outbreaks of native pests, such as the southern pine beetle in East Texas and oak wilt in Central Texas. In recent years, a myriad of new pests, including non-native insects, diseases, and invasive plants, have appeared in rural and urban landscapes in Texas. These old and new forest health threats must be addressed to protect and sustain the state’s valuable forest resources. Comments 1. Some pests are here to stay. We need to put resources into understanding the big picture of

the entire ecosystem, and applying our limited resources where they will accomplish the most to preserve forest health and native biodiversity.

2. Oak wilt traveling through root grafts won't be helped by addressed by pest control. Be comprehensive in addressing forest health.

3. Chinese tallow tree!!!!! Please get the state involved in a statewide eradication program.


Appendix 63

Survey Question 7 Please tell us if you have other Texas Forest issues that are important to you.

1. All the issues listed in the survey are critical factors and how well we deal with them will

determine the strength of our state and nation. A major challenge for all land managing agencies will be getting the masses to understand what’s at stake here, the relevance of these issues to their next trip to the store and showing them how they can help.

2. Fire protection; landowners and the public are at extreme risk due to a lack of forest fire fighting equipment and man power. During the last bad year (2000) there was 90% more equipment available (public & private) than is available today in East Texas (and there were still significant damages). We are sitting on a time bomb!

3. Some concern about the lack of active management for endangered species on State Forests Managed by the Texas Forest Service.

4. Decline of trained, experienced wood producers critical to the supply chain of fiber to industry and the East Texas economy.

5. What impacts are expected from the emerging bio-energy industry on the Texas resources 6. Utility line clearance across the nation is counter productive to their goals. Over pruning

causes sucker growth more prone to failure. We need a credible voice to educate policy makers. Agencies like the TFS can be one of those voices.

7. Forest product markets, prices and industry economics that are not reflective of value, evidenced by too many small mills going out of business, and too many large timber industries selling off forest land assets.

8. Survival of the forest products industry in East Texas is essential to the long term economic viability of the region. Reforestation declines must be reversed. Wildfire control funding burden must be placed on all property owners. Property tax relief is also essential to the future of Texas forestlands.

9. Promote cohesive and coordinated management on the TX forest landscape - this will likely be a greater challenge with the divestiture and breakup of large corporate ownerships

10. I am concerned about the new timber management groups and their desire or lack of desire to establish good timber management programs that will address some of the concerns expressed in your survey.

11. Having Fire Services available has been a great benefit in handling the dry times in our area. 12. Soil and Water conservation are the most important Texas Forest Issues. The Trans-Texas

Corridor is also going to negatively impact Texas Forests and must be accounted for more accurately in future environmental assessments. The costs of TTC on Texas Forests will paid for generations to come if a responsible plan for I69 (minus TTC) is not developed and championed by the agency charged with conserving Texas Forests.

13. The ability for foresters and loggers to work successfully and competitively in urban and semi-urban settings. 2) Health of the Texas logging force.


64 Appendix

14. I think you have covered everything very nicely. All of the issues are extremely important. 15. Protection of public and private forested lands from illegal ATV intrusions. They are

fragmenting and destroying forests and stream banks. 16. Funding of urban and rural programs such as planting, seedling sources 17. The issue most important beside those previously identified is the loss of forest land due to

public projects such as TTC and water impoundment. 18. Look for opportunities to allow compatible recreational and conservation uses within the state

forests. 19. TFS ability, or lack there of, to use natural control of invasive species such as fire. USFS

seems to burn a lot more than TFS. I know that the Jones Forest is surrounded by homes, but the forest needs to be managed by forester and not home owners or developers.

20. Weather/Environmental stress on trees, increase homeowners knowledge so they may select the right tree for the right place, plant and manage the trees correctly. Stress created by new home construction and homeowners can be reduced.

21. The state must fund the Texas Purchase of Development Rights program beginning above the $100 million per year level.

22. Education (and regulation) on proper pruning—too much topping still going on. Promotion of native trees, encouraging nursery suppliers to emphasize natives. Funding for tree replacement in oak wilt area.

23. The continued effort by the environmental groups that want to lock-up land for wildlife refuges, and the Big Thicket encumbers private landowners within those designated areas that will far reaching negative impact on their right to use the land as they see fit. If a group wants a refuge, they should buy the land themselves and not use government dollars or resources.

24. See above, statewide mandated greenbelts for developers! Tree ordinances in cities. 25. The economic viability of the forest industry i.e., forest landowners, will largely drive the

outcome of this entire survey. Therefore much of the emphasis should be involved with maintaining this economy viability of the forest industry.

26. Restoration of native species, maintenance of endangered species. 27. As a fire chief, I have had the opportunity and pleasure to work with the Texas Forest Service

while working the wild land fires here in west Texas. The Texas Forest Service has a great deal of experience in fighting these types of fires and we took advantage of their expertise by having them come to our fire station and hold classes for our firefighters. I know this knowledge would benefit other fire departments as well.

28. Need more education for our youth on conservation and what it means to be green and recycle

29. Community involvement and education are the keys to sustaining our Urban Forest! 30. Threatened and Endangered Species Management on State Forest lands. 31. Streamside management zones are important factors in protecting water quality as well as

providing critical wildlife habitat. 32. Utilizing fire to keep it from becoming a larger hazard from non-use. Remember

Yellowstone National Park burning badly. The program TFS currently is running that helps keep homes safe by educating what plants burn easily around homes.

33. the ability to respond to wildland and forest fires effectively and efficiently 34. Preservation of private property rights is tantamount to maintaining long term forest health

and conservation. Government management tends to focus on non consumptive uses that create stagnant and weakened forest ecosystems and little, or no economic benefit to the communities where the forests exist.

35. Wildfire 36. Pipeline eminent domain threats! Mills closing! Chinese Tallows! Appraisal Districts that

care nothing about the timber industry or how the law reads. The Death tax coming back.


Appendix 65

37. Wildfire protection and control. These capabilities are diminishing when they should be increasing.

38. I believe that the demands of urbanization will negatively impact commercial forestry. NIMBY issues will grow; drain on fire fighting resources will increase, etc. Education of people regarding the conservation of forests versus preservation will be very important.

39. We need more public education about our resources and what to do to properly take care of them.

40. n/a


66 Appendix

Survey Mailing List (292 Stakeholders) External Stakeholder Name Title/Affiliation Art Crowe TCEQ Adam Whisenant Aquatic Biologist, TPWD Dennis Stepp SHSU Agricultural Resources Manager Albert Alvidrez Border Field Officer Al Lyons Mgr, Silviculture & Stewardship/Hancock Forest Mgmt. Andrea Van Der Wel Tyler County Chamber of Commerce Anthony Netardus DeWitt County Agrilife Extension, Agent Alan Taylor City Manager, City of Amarillo Andy Rash Hood County Judge Keith Argow, PhD National Woodland Owners Association Alan Sadler Montgomery County Judge Alan Sowards Professor of Education Albert Thigpen City of Port Arthur, Parks & Recreation, Director Aaron Wendt State Watershed Coordinator / TSSWCB Beverly Peoples Orchard Manager/Arborgen Barry Ward Executive Director - Trees For Houston Bob Cassell Regional Manager/Hancock Forest Management, Inc. Brian Gowin Conservation & SFI Manager /Campbell Timberland Management, LLC Bill Harrison Aquatic Scientist, TCEQ Bob Harper President/Lone Star Forestry Bradley I. Raffle President /Conservation Capital John Bradley Owner, Bradley Contractors Bob Reeves Business owner/landowner/community leader James Runnels President - HGP County Forest Landowners J. David Bamberger Bamberger - Seila Ranch Preserve Bruce Walker Golden Triangle Sierra Club, Chair Burgess Jackson Attorney General of Texas Greg Abbott Gary Burns Burns Forestry Bryan Davis Hays County Agrilife Extension, Agent Ellen Caldwell Project Manager, EPA Carl Shattenberg Austin Energy, Utility Forester Carl Brockman Natural Texas Forest & Land Management Carrie Ross Raven Environmental Services Cathie Gail Executive Director, Keep Texas Beautiful Sylvia Wiggins Keep Montgomery County Beautiful Council Chris Barron Executive Director, State Firemen's and Fire Marshals' Association Charles Burditt President, Burditt Associates C.F Hazlewood TDCJ Director of Agriculture Chad Holton Larson & McGowin Chris Dolan City of Austin Watershed Protection and Environmental Review Department Jerry Walls Director Christmas Creek Nature Preserve Chuck Wemple Houston Galveston Area Council Vicky Rudy City Administrator, City of Rollingwood, TX George Henderson City Administrator - Leonard, TX Caroline Meredith City of Sunset Valley, Environmental Specialist Jennifer Ware Community Development Coor. - Longview Partnership Chris Connealy Chief of Cedar Park Chairman of TFCA Leg. Committee Charles Hart, Ph.D. Texas Agrilife Extension, Professor & Extension Range Specialist Celina Rivera Parks & Recreation, Assistant Director Chris Schneider Texas Agrilife Extension, County Extension Agent Colin Shackelford Stewardship Director, The Nature Conservancy Chris Turk Director of Planning, City of Boerne David Alders Landowner/Producer Dale Little Midland County Emergency Management Coordinator and Fire Marshal Danny Smith Fire Chief City of Sugar Land (Current President of the Texas Fire Chiefs Association, Co-Chair of the International Association of Fire Chiefs Intrastate/Interstate Mutual Aid Committee, Member of the TEEX Advisory Committee) Steve Darsey Greater Conroe Chamber David Behm Connemara Conservancy Foundation Dawn Bello Urban Outreach/Texas Parks and Wildlife David Bezanson NE TX Program Manager /The Nature Conservancy Daniel Bullock Director, Gulf Coast CHP Regional Applications Center /Houston Advanced Research Center Dennis Daniel Deputy Forest Supervisor /USDA Dean Coble Associate Professor - SFA


Appendix 67

David Creech Director of Mast Arboretum/Pineywoods Plant Center Debi Derrick Entergy Services, Inc. Don Fields American Electric Power, Utility Forester Daren Harmel USDA - ARS David Hayes President - Longview Community Pride Diana Foss Urban Biologist/Texas Parks & Wildlife David K. Langford Vice President Emeritus /Texas Wildlife Association Don Wilhelm State Coordinator, Partners for Fish & Wildlife / Don Stockton Superintendent/Conroe ISD Doug Long Regional Manager/Rayonier Douglas, Welsh, Ph.D. Texas Agrilife Extension, Professor & Extension Horticulturalist Dan Pacatte General Manager, Austin Tree Farm Dude Speed RLO-GDEM. Dr. Damon Waitt Ladybird Johnson Wildflower Center Earl Chilton Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Aquatic Habitat Enforcement Program Director Ed Dolphin Heartwood Chapter Texas Master Naturalists Emsud Horozovic Director of Forestry, City of Round Rock Eileen Karlsruher Chairman / El Paso Tree Board Eric Watson Forester - Champion Forest Management (Manages Rayonier Property) Ernie Gammage Urban Outdoor Programs, Texas Parks & Wildlife Jimmy Jackson Green Jay, Inc Carrie Jean Burns Urban Forester, City of Lakeway Jeff Hewitt Program Manager /Forest Landowners Insurance Program Charles Bryant President/ Bryant Forestry Fred Salinas Forest Supervisor /National Forests & Grasslands in Texas Gary Bryant Tanner Timber Products, Inc. Gary Woods President, Texas Urban Forestry Council Grant Ehlen Forestry Operations Supervisor, AEP Gene Gehring Urban Renewal, Inc. Glenn Beckendorff Waller County Commissioner Precinct 4 George Nash USDA APHIS/PPQ George Galloway Landowner Susan Ghertner HEB Grocery Company, Manager, Environmental Affairs Gay Ippolito National Forests & Grasslands in Texas Glenn Gilman City of Austin Wildland Conservation Division, Wildland Conservationist Glenn Hunter International Paper Company Gene Meyers President - Houston Co. Forest Landowners Assoc. Paul Stanley Gold Forests Greg Conley Pollution biologist, TPWD Gene Richardson Texas Farm Bureau Paul Hale Coordinator /Texas Logging Council Heather McBride Texas Historical Commission Hiram Arnold Retired Dr./landowner/community leader Charlie Howell EPA Hans Williams Associate Professor, SFA Laurie Thanheiser Fred Ellis Hill Country Conservancy Rosie Zamora Houston Wilderness Ann Kercheville President /Joshua Cr. Ranch and Resort Jennifer Lorenz Legacy Land Trust Janet Bauchman Natural Resource Specialist /Texas Army National Guard Johnny Arnold Port Arthur Kiwanis Club Jay Culver City Forester, City of Austin PARD Jay Peacock Deputy Fire Chief -Ft Worth FD Jane Baxter Landowner Joe Beard Metroplex Timber & Forestry Association President Josh Blanek Texas Agrilife Extension James Briggs Owner, Briggs Tree Service Jeffrey Reid Biologist /U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Donald Gibbs Walker County Timber Growers - President Jennifer Key Conservation Ecologist, TPWD Jody A. Ford TAMU Foundation John Foster Water Quality Team Leader, TSSWCB J.D. Gardner Fire Chief City of Killeen, Board Member, International Fire Chiefs Assoc. Jim Gaston Executive Director, Texas Fire Chiefs Association Joshua K. Harrell Program Coordinator /Forest Landowners Association, Inc. Jeff Haven Port Neches Lion's Club Joy Hester Houston Audubon Society James Houser James Houser, Consulting Foresters, LLC Jim Robertson Chairman /Cypress Creek Greenway Project


68 Appendix

Jim Jeffers City Manager, Nacogdoches Julie Shackelford Director of Programs /The Conservation Fund Mike Bird Consultant Joe Medina Facility Manager, State Preservation Board Joey Miller City of Newton, Public Works Director John Chenowith City of Austin Wildland Conservation Division, Wildland Conservationist John Machol US Army Corps of Engineers John E. George, Ph.D. Director, USDA Knipling-Bushland Research Laboratories John Gurasich Owner, Oak RX, Inc. John Swonke Walker County Timber Growers - Past President John Bryan Landowner Jon Muncrief District Conservationist, USDA NRCS Jordy Hagen President, Texas Chapter Int'l Society of Arboriculture Joyce Stanley Program Specialist, Conservation Division /Texas Farm Service Agency Jim Rodgers Director of Parks, Williamson County Parks James Stewart Houston Audubon Jorge Sanchez Parks & Recreation Director Jeff Kessel Save Austin Oaks, Project Coordinator J.W., Thrasher, JR Pecos River Compact Commission, Texas Commissioner Joe Turner Harris County Precinct 4 Judy Knocke State Representative Rob Eissler Joe Will City of Orange, Parks & Fleet Manager Jim Wolf City of Orange, Public Works Director Carol Morton Executive Director - Keep Athens Beautiful Ken Addy, Jr. CF F&W Forestry Services, Inc. Karen Hoylman South Montgomery County Woodlands Chamber Karen Cullar Assistant Director /Houston Parks & Recreation Dept. Thom Karels Birch Creek Ranch - MGR Kathryn Nichols Rivers, Trails & Conservation Assistance Program Katharine Lord Exec. Director/Trees for Houston Kathryn Conant USFS Patrick Kelly USEPA, Region 6 Clay Kenley TX & S Western Cattle Raisers Assn. Kenny Shaw EMC, City of Dallas OEM Kenneth Hilbig South River City Citizen's Association (SRCCA) Kelly King Fire Chief - Keller Fire Rescue Keith Kraemer Angelina County Appraisal District Ken Kreger Fire Chief - Conroe FD Kevin Wagner Project Manager, TWRI Carrie Knox Pines and Prairies Linda Koenig Chevron Phillips Larry Butler State Conservationist /Natural Resources Conservation Service Larry Lester President /Realty Company Larry H. Bonner National Forests & Grasslands in Texas Laura Huffman Asst. City Manager, City of Austin Jeff Beshears Chief Appraiser - Leon County Lee Carroll Southwest Regional Mgr/Campbell Timberland Mgmt Lanney Dreesen Montgomery-Harris County Forest Landowners Assoc Leon Ray Cal-Tex Sawmill Lewis Hiltpold City of Beaumont, Parks Manager Linda Head Dean of Academic & Workforce Support/Montgomery College Linda Syler Consultant Lowell Kepp, M.D. Aransas First Larry McRae Fire Chief - City of Mount Pleasant/Titus County Lee Munz Project Manager, TSSWCB Lynne Nava Keep Laredo Beautiful, Exec. Director Ludessa Porter Silsbee Beautification Committee Luis Gonzalez Texas Dept. of Public Safety Kelvin Steely Steely Lumber Company Anne Sundquist President/Magnolia Area Chamber of Commerce Tim Mahoney City of Austin Urban Forestry Board, SRCCA Mark Peterson Project Coordinator, San Antonio Water System Mark Erb Forestry Associates Matt Macaw City of Austin Wildland Conservation Division Debra McCartt Mayor, City of Amarillo Miguel Pescador Parks & Recreation Director Mike Bradshaw Dallas Trees and Parks Foundation Matthew W McBroom Assistant Professor, SFA Melinda Adams Fort Worth City Forester Jane Laping Mothers for Clean Air


Appendix 69

Michael Fountain College of Forestry Marty Harris Land Use Manager /Campbell Timberland Management, LLC Micheal Embesi Watershed Protection and Development Review Department Michael Lange U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mike Harbordt Consultant Mike Christy Conservationist, Lower Colorado River Authority Mike Corley TDCJ Land Manager Mike Montgomery Fire Marshal Harris County Jerry Payne Retired lawyer/community leader/landowner Mary Sanger Environmental Defense Marty Vahlenkamp Texas Agrilife Extension Nesliham Bilir Tesno Senior Manager- TWA /Community Associations of the Woodlands Nathaniel Chapin Save Austin Oaks Neil Lebsock US Army Corps of Engineers Nolan Alders The Carbon Group Neal Wilkins Director /Institute of Renewable Natural Resources Katherine Palafox Ex. Director Keep El Paso Beautiful Corliss O'Shaughnessy Montgomery County., Parks Director Larry Offerdahl City of Amarillo, Director of Parks Paula and Dirk Johnston Owners, Oak Wilt Specialists of Texas, Inc. Kelly Ritch Economic Development Director / Polk County COC Pepper Morris Hill Country Alliance Parker Forestry Consultants Parker Forestry Consultants Harold Pitchford Fort Worth Parks & Community Services Pat Mc Auliff Director of Fire Science Collin County College Serves on Curriculum Committee for the Texas Commission on Fire Protection Presley Hatcher US Army Corps of Engineers Patrick Roques TCEQ Paul Scallon Lower Colorado River Authority Prisilla Weeks Environmental Anthropologist /Houston Advanced Research Center Ralph Day Day Forest Management & Appraisal, Inc. Robert M. Higginbotham Owner /AG Wild Consulting Curt Randa Director of Parks & Recreation, City of Cedar Park Ray Henning Superintendent, Utility Forestry, Austin Energy Ray Stoner State Staff Forester /Natural Resources Conservation Service Robert Collins Montgomery County. Attorney's Office, Asst. County. Atty. Robert Collins Montgomery County Attorney's Office, Asst. County Atty. Russ Conley Fire Chief - Midland Fire Department Rhea Cooper Fire Chief - Lubbock FD Roger Deeds Hood County Fire Marshall Ron Hufford Executive Director, Texas Forestry Association Rick Deel Lubrizol, Corp. Rick Frost Louisiana Pacific Lumber Sylvia Ritzky EPA Rick Jacob The Nature Conservancy Robert Hachtel Chair, Texas Chapter /Assoc. of Consulting Foresters Reginald Lepley Texas Agrilife Extension Matt Taylor The Community Assoc. Of The Woodlands, Texas Randy Prewitt FMO - Sam Houston National Forest Rusty Ray Community Services Manager, Lower Colorado River Authority Randy Renois Tarrant Co Fire Marshall Richard "Skip" Richter Travis Co. Agrilife Extension, Program Director Randy Rush EPA Rusty Wood Forest Stewardship Biologist /Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Sammy Orange Retired /Texas Farm Service Agency Steve Ortega El Paso City Rep Dist.7 Scott Beasley, Ph.D. Dean, Arthur Temple School of Forestry Stephen F. Austin State University Stanton C. Calvert Texas A&M University, Vice Chancellor for Governmental Relations Scott Harris Executive Director, TreeFolks of Austin Stephanie Glenn (Lisa Gonzales) Research Scientist, Houston Advance Research Ctr. Susan Henson Cross Timbers Urban Forestry Council President Sid Puder USFWS Danny Pierce Walker County Judge Steve Thompson SHSU Assistant Director Recreational Sports Stennie Meadours President /Houston Audubon Society Steve Pollock Fire Chief / Cedar Hill Fire Department Steve Bonner U. S. Depart. of the Interior, National Park Service Susan Baggett State Resource Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service Steve Windhager, Ph.D. Director of Landscape Restoration, Ladybird Johnson Wildflower Center C. Tattersall Smith Dean /Faculty of Forestry -University of Toronto


70 Appendix

Andy Jones The Conservation Fund Tim Culp Crockett Economic Industrial & Development Corp Tom Dureka Pines & Prairies Land Trust Ted Hollingsworth Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. Terri Seigenthaler Conservationist, Shield Ranch Preserve Terry Scull Logger/landowner/community leader Terry Austin Texas Audubon Society Tom Grisham Chief - Huntsville Fire Department TJ Helton TSSWCB Tom Crater Crater & Associates Consulting Tim Paulsel Walker County Commissioner Larry Schaavpeld Urban Forestry Consultant Tim Soderquist Ducks Unlimited Victor Cordova Assistant Director/City Forester HPARD Wayne Pfluger Pfluger Forestry William (Bill) Carter Watershed Management Team, TCEQ Brenda Weiser University of Houston Horrace Whittington SETFLA (southeast Texas Forest Landowners Association) Willie Conrad Division Manager, Wildland Conservation Division Wendy Ledbetter The Nature Conservancy of Texas Bill Kuhn Georgia Pacific

the texas approach - texas a&m forest service · 9/28/2008 · assessment (sfla) and the...

Documents