2006 GIS Conference Private Forest Breakout Minutes by bigmekahlo


									                    2006 GIS Conference Private Forest Breakout Minutes

                Wednesday, 12/6/06 1045 – 1200, Thursday, 12/7/06 0830 – 1000
                                 Seaside Convention Center

Present: Jim Cathcart, Ole Buch, Stu Otto, Keith Baldwin, Vince Pyle, Bernie Bochsler, Dave
Jacobs, Rick Rogers, Jennifer Weikel, Chris Bradberry, Daniel Stoelb, Jason Hinkle, Tod Haren,
Ed Keith, Rob Flowers, Andy Herstrom, Mike Simek, Eric Perkins, Mike McWilliams, Mike

Wednesday, 12/6/06

Private Forests GIS Coordination Committee

Jim shared the mission of the PF GIS Coordination Committee and gathered the names of the
members of the committee . The members of the committee are: Jim Cathcart, Ole Buch (Co-
Chairs); Bernie Bochsler, Keith Baldwin, Stu Otto, Ed Keith, Tod Haren, Mike Simek, and Chris
Bradberry. The purpose of the committee is to: 1) provide a forum for field and Salem staff to
communicate issues and priorities about data needs, data standards and GIS coordination, 2)
strengthen the GIS momentum with the field operation staff, and 3) take steps toward the vision
of a GIS enterprise that improves business functions. With respect to the vision, Jim referenced
a recent e-mail submitted by Jo Morgan (see Attachment 1).

Data Maintenance and Management – Fish Presence and Stream Classification Layer

Jim provided three documents; 1) Stream Classification GIS Data Maintenance Procedure, 2)
Data Standard – Streams (FP), and 3) Forest Practices Stream Classification GIS Stewardship

On behalf of Jerry Clinton (who is the data steward for the Fish Presence and Stream
Classification Layer), Jim presented some current ideas associated with the fish presence layer
update process. Based on some prior discussions, Jim proposed the data maintenance and
management procedure would clip the 5th field watersheds using a District boundary layer
created from dissolving the stewardship forester territories into an outer boundary for the District
(handout #3). The clipped portions of the 5th field watersheds would then be check and merged
into a single 5th field watershed in Salem as the updated layer. The group did not achieve
consensus on this approach. Issues raised were:

      Some stewards had issues with being responsible for updates outside their district.
      There may be technical difficulties associated with “merging & clipping” the 5th field
       HUCs. For example, clipping using the district boundary layer () may create inconsistent
       line work that may not be easy to merge back into a 5th field HUC.
      The 5th field HUCs may need to be “merged & clipped” for efficient use in FANS.

                         2006 GIS Conference Private Forest Breakout Minutes

      Updating layers using the “merge & clip” method may complicate things and create data
       management issues.

An alternative approach would be to assign each District GIS Coordinator the entire 5th Field
watershed including the portion falling outside the District boundary. The issue needs to be
resolved because updates will be needed based on new fish presence surveys and edits to
Salem’s line and attribute work. The district is the official keeper of the stream data within their
jurisdiction, but Salem is responsible for managing the layer at the statewide (i.e., Program) level
– so some procedure for systematically gathering local updates and incorporating into the
statewide layer is needed.

It was determined that the final decision on the two approaches needed to be made with full input
from all the District GIS Coordinators for the Private Forest and State Forest Programs. A
conference call with the District GIS Coordinators will be scheduled during the weeks of
December 11th or December 18th to discuss further.

Data Management Issues – FANS (Forest Activity Notification System)

Jim handed out a list of all the layers that are the default layers installed with FANS that also
identified what entity in the Department is responsible for data management (see Attachment 2).
The group identified that the layers lacking in the most confidence are the layers the Private
Forests program is responsible for – especially the bird layers.

The group shared some of the following bird layer issues:

      There are a number of ½ mile circles that don’t have points associated with them. This
       reduces confidence in the data knowing that points are needed to create the ½ circle.
      There appeared to be more marbled murrelet (MAMU) data than needed (i.e. false
      Our most current NSO layer provided by program staff is 2 years old. Some districts
       have made their own process to try and keep up with the NSO updates.

Jennifer Weikel, PF program fish and wildlife biologist, has agreed to be the data steward for the
various bird layers. She plans to visit field offices to see how bird updates are currently

Tod recommended that we try to develop a process to archive old data.

Ole shared a problem the Western Lane district had with moving a large number of files from the
FPA Polygons Current Layer to the FPA Polygons Historic Layer. When this was done last year
the shape id link was corrupted.

The GIS Unit will incorporate the district protection map road updates into the statewide roads

                        2006 GIS Conference Private Forest Breakout Minutes

Thursday, 12/7/06

The breakout summarized Wednesday’s round-robin discussion. Most of the time was spent on
data layer management and the identification of layers that can be addressed now and layers that
need policy direction.
                                       “Can Do Now”
    Layer Name                                          Comments
Fish Presence          Currently has data standard and a staff level data steward. We hope to
                       apply the success of this layer’s data standard to other layers.
Spotted Owl            Infrequent updates, no clear data standard, fairly high occurrence of false
                       positives. Need to resolve Forest Practices Act requirements for site
                       abandonment with how historic or abandoned sites are tracked in the GIS
                       data provided by the various sources (State Forests, USDA Forest Service
                       Pacific Northwest Research Station, Bureau of Land Management).
MAMU                   There are actually two layers, marbled murrelet points and marbled
                       murrelet management areas. These layers fits in both “Can do Now” and
                       “Needs Policy Direction”. Data provided in FANS shows all detection
                       points. High occurrence of false positives. No clear direction on what a
                       “site” is. The layer can be edited now to hone in on those sites that the
                       Stewardship Forester should call Jennifer on if triggered by the ½ mile
                       proximity circle.
BTP-GE-GBH-OSP         This is the specified resource site layer for band tailed pigion springs,
                       golden eagle, great blue heron rookeries, and osprey nest sites.
                       Develop/clarify data standard and update process.
Peregrine Falcons      Layer is managed by ODFW and provided to us annually.
Bald Eagle             Layer is managed by ODFW and provided to us annually.
Roads                  Develop/clarify data standard and update process. Assign data steward.
Stewardship Plans      Develop/clarify data standard and update process. Assign data steward.
Surface water rights   Develop/clarify data standard and update process. Assign data steward.

                                 “Needs Policy Direction”
 Layer Name                                          Comments
Wetlands          Some districts have layer, some don’t. Provided to us by National Wetlands
                  Inventory. Fairly inaccurate. Program needs clear direction on what is
                  considered wetland and what type of protection is needed.
Tax Lots          Explore getting a statewide layer from Mark Kinslow at the Dept. of Revenue
MAMU              What do we consider a site? How do we protect that site?
Cultural          Clarify policy of digitizing discovered sites and expectation for reviewing
Resource Sites    known sites.

Group identified the following layers as a priority for Jennifer: northern spotted owl, BTP-GE-
GBH-OSP, MAMU, and 1/2 mile circles triggering need to think about resource protection.

                        2006 GIS Conference Private Forest Breakout Minutes

Jim asked what editable layers each district uses. It appeared that mostly all districts use the
FPA Polygons Current and the FPA Polygons Historic layers. However, districts are using those
layers in different ways. For example, some districts are digitizing all harvest units and roads,
whereas other districts are only digitizing units that would require a reforestation check.

Jim asked if there is any data that we are not digitizing that we felt should be digitized. There
was some interest in trying to capture wildlife tree locations and spotted owl core areas. There
has been a reluctance to digitize the spotted owl core areas in the past because they change over
time and are not static. Some felt that digitized core areas would be misinterpreted as “no touch
reserves”. The decision to digitize core areas was left up to the districts. The group thought
there were potential opportunities to capture the wildlife tree locations using FANS. The group
decided to review the policy and explore options in the future.

Action Items:

   Jim Cathcart & Ole Buch
    o Work with Jerry Clinton and district GIS stewards to finalize the process for updating
      fish presence / stream classification layer. (Jim)
    o Meet with Lanny to discuss cultural resources status. Determine if we need a data
      layer to help with our cultural resource protection responsibility. (Jim)
    o Explore what is needed and expected for the road layer. (Jim and Ole)
    o Talk to Mike Schuft about an update process for tax lot layers. Is there a way to for
      the program to obtain tax lot layers periodically from each county, or Department of
      Revenue? Need to resolve pressing need for the Forest Grove District (Jim)
    o Meet with Chris Bradberry to discuss the source and status of the surface water rights
      layer. (Jim and Ole)
    o Coordinate the next meeting time, location and agenda. (Tentatively set for either
      March 13, 14 or 15th – location likely to be Salem) (Jim)
    o Work with Jennifer Weikel to review wildlife tree study and explore tracking options
      including those already in FANS editable FPA Polygon layer. (Wait until Wildlife
      Leave Tree and Down Wood compliance monitoring study is completed and further
      guidance arises from that work). (Jim and Ole)
    o Work with Chris Bradberry to develop data catalogue on FANS website that shows
      available layers, links to data standards and data management plans (if developed),
      the currency of the data and the assigned program and data steward.

   Jennifer Weikel
    o Develop data standards and date management plans for spotted owl, BTP-GE-GBH-OSP,
      MAMU and ½ mile circle layers.
    o Visit field offices to review the bird update process.

                           2006 GIS Conference Private Forest Breakout Minutes

   GIS Unit
    o Coordinate with Jim and Ole to update the statewide road layer with the latest district
      protection map road edits.
    o Work with Jim to establish a web page that clarifies data extent and currency, to improve
      users understanding of data strength and limitations.

Minutes compiled by O. Buck, K. Baldwin and J. Cathcart, 12/14/06

                        2006 GIS Conference Private Forest Breakout Minutes


Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 8:32 AM
Cc: CAFFERATA Mike J; YOUNG Robert; 'P. J. Daugherty'; QUACKENBUSH Lanny; DEGENHARDT Dave A;
Subject: RE: Private Forests Breakout Sessions - ODF GIS Conference - Seaside

Jim & Ole: I am unable to attend the GIS conference, so I appreciate your asking if
anything should be added to the Private Forests Program break out discussion.

I have a dream...

that one day a stewardship forester, sitting on the tailgate of an ODF pick-up with a
landowner & a laptop can...
      consult with the landowner about their management objectives; and

      by being asked a series of questions, the program routes the landowner to

           o   ideas on how to achieve their management objectives

           o   matches to the best incentive programs & funding sets

           o   provides Oregon Plan volunteer opportunities geared to the landowner's
               overall management objectives & what we know is needed from conservation

           o   spits out the management plan (...almost an automatic stewardship plan),
               notices of operation, written plans, Oregon Plan OWEB report (futured &
               sent in once accomplished), and any other permits the landowner might need to
               get the job done;

           o   the program will have cued the landowner to monitoring they could contribute &
               have links as to how to do that...

           o   the landowner can also access the Field Handbook or FPA Guidance cues
               as to how to comply with the rules while conducting their operation (kind of like
               the Help function in Microsoft Windows) You could have a Paul Bunyan

                                2006 GIS Conference Private Forest Breakout Minutes

                     tutor pop up asking if help is needed to comply with harvesting rules, or how to
                     place logs in the stream, etc.

         The policy analyst (or lobbyist) in Salem can consult the GIS, real time, and tell
          others how we're doing without the stewardship forester or landowner having to spend
          any more time than they did on the tailgate.
That's about it, Santa. Please convey my wishes to the GIS elves.

P.S. The Department of State Lands is working on a program that will route landowners
through various state permits/written plans/etc. We have been told we can 'cabbage' onto
this effort. I am hoping we are able to take advantage of this opportunity. Dave
Degenhardt & I will be meeting with DSL on December 11 to discuss further.


Jo Morgan
Aquatic Policy Analyst
Oregon Department of Forestry

                                2006 GIS Conference Private Forest Breakout Minutes
                                                 ATTACHMENT 2
                                             Default Layers for FANS
                                       (Forest Activity Notification System)
     Corporate Layers Managed by ODF                                 Layers Managed by Other Programs
Statewide in FANS Install / Updates                          Administrative
Administrative                                                    Forest Officer Blocks (Protection from Fire)
                                                                  Regulated Use (Protection from Fire)
   County Boundaries
   Fire Offset Agreement                                    Resource
   Stewardship Forester Areas
   Highways                                                      Marbled Murrelet Points (State Forests)
   Landmarks                                                     Marbled Murrelet Management Areas (State Forests)
   Magnetic Declination                                          RAWS (weather stations) (Protection from Fire)
   Mileposts
   ODF Offices                                                          Private Forest Program Layers
   Public Ownership
   Railroads                                                Statewide in FANS Install / Updates
   Sections (Public Land Survey)                            Resource
   Sections (TownshipRange 100k)
                                                                  Aerial Insect and Disease Surveys (2002 - 2005)
   Towns (Points)
                                                                  Bald Eagle
   Towns (Text)
                                                                  Bird Review ½ Mile
   Vicinity
                                                                  BTP-GE-GBH-OSP (Specified Resource Sites – Birds)
   ODFW Offices
                                                                  Peregrine Falcon
   Urban Growth Boundary
                                                                  Spotted Owl Sites
Resource                                                          Stewardship Plans
                                                                  Wetlands
   1995 Black and White Ortho Photos
   2000 Black and White Ortho Photos                        Localized in FANS Install / Updates
   Elevation                                                Resource
   Historic Fires
   Water Bodies (100k)                                           Fish Presence / Stream Classification (24k)
   Waters (?)
   Quad Index                                                               Layers Managed by Districts
   Roads                                                    Administrative
   Road Names (100k)
   Shaded Relief                                                 Taxlots
   Digital Quads (drgs)
   Peak Flow                                                    Editable Layers to Capture Operational Data
   Rainfall (250K)                                          Administrative
   Scenic Highway
   Scenic Stream                                                 Gates
   Slope (10 DEM)                                                Complaints
   Surface Water Rights                                          Site Visits
   Tree Ordinance
   Watersheds (6th field basins ?)
   Willamette Greenway                                           Bird Point Updates
                                                                  FPA Polygons – Current
Localized in FANS Install / Updates                               FPA Polygons – Historic
                                                                  FPA Roads – Current
                                                                  Incentive Polygons
   Soils

    Prepared by J. Cathcart, 12/5/06

To top