TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM MAPPING OF THE MISSION TREE...

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM

MAPPING OF THE MISSION TREE FARM

Submitted by

R.N. Green

B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd. 3057 Hoskins Road

North Vancouver, B.C. V7J 3B5

to

Kim Allan District of Mission

Mission, B.C.

March 31, 2003

Mission Tree Farm Ecosystem Mapping Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................i LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................... ii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................iv

1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1

2. PROJECT TEAM......................................................................................................1

3. STUDY AREA............................................................................................................1

4. METHODS .................................................................................................................2

4.1 GENERAL APPROACH................................................................................................2 4.2 PHOTO TYPING..........................................................................................................2 4.3 FIELD SAMPLING.......................................................................................................3

4.3.1 Sampling strategy ............................................................................................3 4.3.2 Field inspection types ......................................................................................3 4.3.3 Data processing................................................................................................6 4.3.4 Inspection locations .........................................................................................6

4.4 DIGITIZING................................................................................................................6 4.5 FINAL ATTRIBUTES ...................................................................................................6

4.5.1 Setup ................................................................................................................6 4.5.2 Building the attribute database ........................................................................6 4.5.3 Editing..............................................................................................................7 4.5.4 Data conversion ...............................................................................................7 4.5.5 RISC data verification .....................................................................................8 4.5.6 Structural stage ................................................................................................8

4.6 PRESENTATION MAPS ...............................................................................................9

5. RESULTS .................................................................................................................10

5.1 POLYGON DENSITY .................................................................................................10 5.2 SAMPLING...............................................................................................................11 5.3 BIOGEOCLIMATIC UNITS .........................................................................................12 5.4 NEW AND ATYPICAL SITE UNITS ..............................................................................13 5.5 SYNOPSIS OF MAPPED SITE UNITS ............................................................................15

6. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................19

7. REFERENCES.........................................................................................................20

8. APPENDIX 1: DATABASE DICTIONARY AND LEGEND FOR DOM DATABASE......................................................................................................................21

DATA FIELDS ..............................................................................................................21

B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd. 10/29/03

Mission Tree Farm Ecosystem Mapping Page ii

9. APPENDIX 2: DATABASE DICTIONARY AND LEGEND FOR RISC DATABASE......................................................................................................................25

10. APPENDIX 3: DATABASE DICTIONARY AND LEGEND FOR STRUCTURAL STAGE DATABASE...........................................................................29

11. APPENDIX 4: LIST OF DELIVERED FILES.....................................................30


Mission Tree Farm Ecosystem Mapping Page ii

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Structural Stage Description (from Standard for Terrestrial Ecosystem

Mapping in British Columbia 1998). .......................................................................... 9 TABLE 2. Comparison of polygon area statistics between Mission, and other coastal

mapping projects....................................................................................................... 11 TABLE 3. Distribution of inspections by type. ................................................................ 11 TABLE 4. Frequency of inspected polygons by information source. .............................. 11 TABLE 5. Area summary of biogeoclimatic units in the Mission Tree Farm. ................ 12 TABLE 6. New site units currently not recognized in the provincial site series

classification. ............................................................................................................ 13 TABLE 7. Synopsis of all site units mapped in the Mission Tree Farm. ......................... 15 TABLE 8. Area summary for all site units mapped in the Mission Tree Farm................ 17 TABLE 9. Proportion of Mission Tree Farm for all mapped site units............................ 18


Mission Tree Farm Ecosystem Mapping Page iii

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. General location of the Mission Tree Farm..................................................... 2 FIGURE 2. Data form used to collect ground inspection data. .......................................... 5 FIGURE 3. Frequency distribution of polygon size. ........................................................ 10 FIGURE 4. Overview of new BGC units in the Mission Tree Farm................................ 13


Mission Tree Farm Ecosystem Mapping Page iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was completed through the coordination and administration of Kim Allan (District of Mission). Funding was provided through the Forest Investment Account..


Mission Tree Farm Ecosystem Mapping Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION The results of this project will provide a detailed ecological framework that will be applied to strategic and land-use planning initiatives. These include forest-level yield analysis, biodiversity planning, silviculture, protection, as well as more specific operational planning initiatives.

2. PROJECT TEAM The project was conducted for Kim Allan, District of Mission, Mission, B.C. The ecosystem mapping team consisted of Bob Green, Jeff McWilliams, and John Davies (B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd.). Other project team members included Cherie Stutz (ChartwellConsultants Ltd. – digitizing, GIS processing and final ArcInfo processing), and Karel Klinka (University of British Columbia - quality assurance).

3. STUDY AREA The Mission Tree Farm comprises approximately 12,000 ha at the south end of Stave Lake, north of Mission B.C. (Figure 1).It is dominated by the Coast Mountains and to a lesser extent, the Georgia Depression physiographic regions (Holland 1964). The topography is generally rolling with local prominences, with the exception of the mountainous terrain in the northwest portion of the Tree Farm where elevations rise to 1200 meters.

Throughout the Tree Farm, the dominant surficial materials are rolling glacial moraines of varying depths, with physiographic prominences generally dominated by shallow veneers and exposed bedrock. Localized areas of subdued glaciofluvial deposits occur in the southern portion of the study area, where gravel extraction operations are located. Colluvial materials are relatively minor in extent and restricted to the steeper terrain. Organic deposits occur infrequently as small, localized wetlands throughout the study area.



FIGURE 1. General location of the Mission Tree Farm.

4. METHODS

4.1 General Approach The basic approach to mapping followed the Standard for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping in British Columbia (RISC Standard) (RIC 1998). Terrain attributes were not included in the attribute database, although terrain features were reflected in the polygon delineations. Structural stage was not included in the TEM polygon database but was generated as a separate GIS layer through analysis of available forest cover data. All other aspects of the mapping approach are consistent with the RISC Standard. Polygon delineation follows the bioterrain approach with a similar overall polygon density to other TEM projects. The included core attributes are to RISC standard. These include data source, ecosection, biogeoclimatic unit, site series, and relevant site modifiers.. Finally, the GIS database is to RISC Standards for the included attributes.

4.2 Photo Typing Photo typing followed the general approach outlined in Standard for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping in British Columbia (RIC 1998). Photo typing was done on alternate



boxed air photos which had been renumbered with an internal reference system to facilitate handling. Stratification of 1:15,000 colour air photos (2002 flight) involved delineation of “bioterrain” features using recognizable terrain and landscape properties, ecological properties, and inferences related to changes in the landscape. A total of 30 boxed photos were typed. Preliminary attributes were noted on the photos, and included site units and their approximate polygon proportions. The objective of recording these attributes during photo typing was to capture the initial thought process regarding polygon features, which would assist in subsequent final attributing.

4.3 Field Sampling

4.3.1 Sampling strategy The goal of the field sampling phase was to check as much ground as possible within the budget and time available. The focus was on characterizing site series composition of mapped polygons, checking polygon boundaries, particularly between biogeoclimatic units, and on characterizing site series features. Sampling was aimed at a level 4 survey intensity, with a target inspection density of 60 hectares per inspection. The sampling program was carried out using a combination of helicopter and truck access with 2 person crews. Field observations on site series composition was were obtained from an earlier fertilization planning project and were used to supplement the sampling.

A sampling plan was prepared prior to field work. This involved viewing each typed air photo with a stereoscope and marking locations where checking should be aimed. This generally focussed on sites which were representative of the area, or which appeared difficult to interpret from the photos. These pre-marked photos served as a guide to direct sampling in the field. The intent was to sample as many of these sites as possible, while allowing flexibility in checking additional sites as the need was determined by the field crews. The sampling program was facilitated by a set of 1:30,000 orientation maps which were generated from the District of Mission GIS database. These displayed features of broad age class, roads, water, and topography (100 m contours). Box lines from the typed air photos were also transferred to the maps to assist in photo handling and field orientation. These maps were also used to track sampling progress with all inspection locations marked on the maps on a daily basis as sampling advanced.

4.3.2 Field inspection types Field inspections consisted of three types: ground inspections, visual inspections, and air visual inspections. Ground inspections were used to gather key ecological properties at specific points on the ground, including information on site series composition in the polygon (smaller polygons) or area around the sample point (larger polygons). Figure 2 shows the data collected on the ground inspection form. This form was developed by B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd. for other ecosystem mapping



projects and is similar in content to the Ground Inspection Form (GIF) described in the TEM Standard.

Air visual inspections (air calls) were conducted from a low flying helicopter for areas that were inaccessible to ground crews. They were used for characterizing site series composition of polygons and for biogeoclimatic boundary confirmation. In most cases, sufficient features of dominant understory vegetation, tree species, physiography, and tree vigour are visible from hovering just above the canopy that site series composition can be reliably estimated. Information recorded for air calls included biogeoclimatic unit, site series composition, relevant site modifiers, terrain, structural stage, tree species composition, and comments relating to features that will aid in photo interpretation. Visual inspections consist of brief notes made while walking or driving through polygons. Sampling was conducted from October through December, 2002.



ECO-MAP CHECK FORM (1996b) Project_________ Date:_________

Photo # ______ Poly # _______ Stop # ______ Method: G A V

Elevation ___________ Aspect _______ Slope _______ Surveyor_____

Slope position: Ri Up Mi Lo Fl De Physio.: Ro Ev Gu Br Hu

Terrain class: _________________ [where Ab or Ab/Cd; and where A,C = surficial. mat.: C M F FG W L R O; Ab/Cd = layer 1/2 b,d = surface exp.: v (ven. < 1m), b (blan. > 1m), t (terr.), p (plain), f (fan)]

Geology: Li.__ Gra.__ Vol.__ Sed.__ For. floor depth: ______cm

Soil texture _________ Coarse fragments: ________%

Depth to (if present): watertable____ gleying _____ pan _____ rock _____

Humus form: Mor__ Moder __ Mull __ A horizon depth: Ae ___ Ah ___

Stand composition: ____________ [e.g.HwCw(Yc)] Understory ⇓

BGC Unit:_______ Site series _______ SMR/SNR ______ Str.Stg._____

Comments:__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

POLYGON SUMMARY: (component site series, SMR/SNR, %, and distribution),

Component 1 Component 2 Component3 Site series Poly ____ % Stop____ Site modif.

Terrain: Comp. 1 _____ % ____ Comp. 2 _____ % _____

Comments:___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FIGURE 2. Data form used to collect ground inspection data.



4.3.3 Data processing All data collected from ground inspections and air calls were summarized in an Excel database. This was sorted by air photo number so that data could be easily referenced while attributing air photos.

4.3.4 Inspection locations All field inspections were located on colour photocopies of the typed air photos, and labeled with their inspection numbers. Inspection locations were also collected as waypoints in the field using Garmin 76 GPS units. These labeled waypoints were downloaded and transferred to an ArcInfo plot location layer.. Supplemental fertilization planning observations were noted on copies of the typed airphotos but were not added to the GIS plot layer.

4.4 Digitizing Chartwell Consultants (North Vancouver, B.C.) undertook digitizing of polygon linework using mono-restitution techniques. A first draft of 1:20,000 check plots was produced for review. These were checked for errors in linework transfer then returned to Chartwell for revisions. A revised second draft of check plots was used for the final attributing phase.

4.5 Final Attributes

4.5.1 Setup The following items were assembled prior to commencing with the final ecosystem attributing phase: • basic polygon map. This contained just the polygon linework and numbers and was

used for tracking attributing progress and noting revisions. • contour/inspection/old BGC map. This was plotted on translucent paper and

contained polygon linework and numbers, inspection locations and numbers, 100 m contour intervals, and old (Regional) biogeoclimatic units. Inspection locations were colour coded manually according to the observed biogeoclimatic unit.

• field inspection database sorted by air photo and inspection number

4.5.2 Building the attribute database Attributing progressed on a photo-by-photo basis across each map sheet. The first step was to add the biogeoclimatic (BGC) unit boundaries to the polygon map. The following information was integrated to locate the BGC boundaries: observed BGC units from field inspections, 100 m contours, original MOF BGC unit boundaries, , and interpretation of air photo features. Based on this information, BGC lines were located on the map following existing polygon lines as much as possible. Where required, new lines were added, subdividing existing polygons to ensure correct location of BGC boundaries. In these cases, new reference numbers were added for the new polygons.



The next step was to create final attributes for polygons on each photo. The following information was reviewed prior to deciding on the appropriate attributes: relevant field inspection and supplemental data around each polygon, polygon features from air photo interpretation, final attributes of adjacent polygons, and any preliminary attributes for the polygon. Once decided, the attributes were recorded on an attribute data form, which was subsequently entered into an Excel database. Once the attributing was completed, the polygon map containing all the new revisions was passed on to Chartwell so the spatial and attribute databases could be updated accordingly.

4.5.3 Editing Two main editing phases were conducted; a) editing the final attribute database prior to linking it with the spatial polygon data, and b) editing the linked spatial and attribute data. In the first phase, the Excel database of final attributes was thoroughly reviewed using a series of filters and sorts. The following issues were checked and corrected where required: • inconsistencies and errors in the field codes • polygon components not summing to 100% Once the database was correct, all extra fields used for internal editing (e.g. air photo number) were stripped from the file, and the resulting data was exported as a dBase file for linking to the spatial data. Editing of the linked GIS data was done using ArcView GIS. Shape files for the ecosystem data were obtained from Chartwell. A series of themes were created from the data which included BGC unit, Ecosection, and site series. These were used to conduct the edit of the GIS data. The BGC and Ecosection themes were initially checked for obvious anomalies, then compared against the original maps containing the BGC unit boundaries.. Polygons with missing attributes were also highlighted on the BGC unit theme and were corrected directly in ArcView. The results of the above editing were fully incorporated into the GIS database then a final quality check was conducted to identify any outstanding issues. These were corrected to produce the final clean GIS database.

4.5.4 Data conversion Two separate attribute databases were generated for the project. The District if Mission (DOM) version was designed for maximum utility by District forestry staff. This file utilized conventional numeric codes for site series, an expanded list of two-letter alphabetic codes for the site modifiers, a field for combined biogeoclimatic zone, subzone, and variant, and a “site group” field (see Sec. 4.6).



The second version of the attribute database utilized fields and codes specified in the RISC standard for TEM. The attribute database from the clean GIS data was exported to an Access file for conversion to RISC Standard field codes. These two versions of the GIS databases were delivered to Chartwell Consultants Ltd. who prepared the final ArcInfo files meeting the specifications outlined in the Standard for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) – Digital Data Capture in British Columbia (2000).

4.5.5 RISC data verification The ArcInfo spatial data was verified using the QA AML’s available from the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM). The non-spatial attribute databases were validated using the TEM Data Capture and Validation (TEM DC) tool available from the MSRM. The only errors reported from the validation program were: • terrain attributes not recorded – these were not collected as specified in the standards

agreement for this project. • structural stage not recorded – structural stage was generated from forest cover data

as a separate GIS layer, as specified in the standards agreement for this project. • site series FS, HG, and SA are not valid for the CWHvm1, vm2, and MHmm1 – these

codes are all now in the 2003 version of the provincial “mapcodes” database.

4.5.6 Structural stage Structural stage describes the developmental stage of plant communities at a given point in time. It is a dynamic feature of ecosystems, changing with disturbance and as stands age. This causes a problem if structural stage is incorporated into the basic ecosystem polygon delineation. The resulting map reflects conditions at the date of the photography. In essence, the map is dated as it is being produced. Updating the map over time to keep the information current requires significant effort and is not without difficulties (e.g. advancing structural stage as stands grow, changing structural stage as stands are disturbed). An alternative approach is to separate the dynamic and static ecosystem components. This means maintaining separate GIS layers for site series and structural stage derived from the most current forest classification data. These layers can be merged for subsequent landscape-level interpretative applications. This alternative approach offers several significant advantages. The basic site series linework reflects the more-or-less stable part of the ecosystem. It doesn’t change significantly over time, and thus remains valid over a long time frame. The separate structural stage layer can be updated as changes take place in the forest. The information therefore remains current. These modifications would not affect the site series framework which resides in a separate layer. Basically this approach produces a flexible product that can be readily adapted to changing conditions and standards and still remain current. As the forest attribute information improves, so does the derived structural stage coverage. The following steps were taken to generate the structural stage theme: • obtain available forest cover data (FIP/FC1) and associated data dictionaries for the

Mission Tree Farm. The most current data available at the time of analysis was from 1996, with ages and heights projected to 2003. Thus, the resulting structural stages will reflect conditions at those dates. More recent cutblock boundaries were not



available in an updated database at the time this analysis was undertaken. However, the algorithm can be re-processed on more current data as it becomes available in the future.

• analyse available attributes and identify the most suitable data fields. The following fields were selected: • NFD – non-forest descriptor • NPD – non-productive forest codes • SPCS1 – first major tree species • PCT1 - % composition of first tree species • HTPROJ – stand height projected to 2003. • AGEPROJ – stand age projected to 2003. • CROWN_CL - crown closure percent.

• develop an algorithm for generating structural stage classes based on selected forest cover attributes

• process GIS data using the algorithm to generate structural stage theme. The structural stages recognized are shown in Table 1. TABLE 1. Structural Stage Description (from Standard for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping in British Columbia 1998). Code Name

Criteria

0 Not applicable water, glacier, railway, road, urban, rural 1 Sparse non/sparsely vegetated 2 Herb herb dominated (<=20% shrub cover; <=10% tree cover1) 3 Shrub/Herb > 20% shrub cover; <=10% tree cover; <= 10 m tall 4 Pole/Sapling > 10 m tall and <= 40 years (conifer) or <=30 years (decid.) 5 Young Forest >10 m tall and 40-80 years (conifer) or

30-60 years (decid.) 6 Mature Forest >10 m tall and 81-249 years (conifer) or

>60 years (decid.) 7 Old Forest > 10 m tall and >= 250 years

4.6 Presentation Maps Presentation plots of the site unit data were produced for displaying the principal ecological features of the study area in hard copy format. The intent was to display information in a way which readily conveyed the general ecological features, while providing polygon-specific attributes for more detailed review. The approach taken was based on the system developed by Dr. K. Klinka for displaying ecosystems of the U.B.C. Research Forest (Klinka and Skoda 1976). The key feature is the use of a relatively simple colour scheme to clearly convey ecological properties. Rather than assigning a unique colour to individual site units, we amalgamated site units into more generalized “site groups”. Each group contained site units which shared similarities in their key properties. A colour scheme was applied to each of these



groups that was designed to convey some properties of the group where possible. (for example, blue shade for moist, productive sites; yellow for dry sites, dark green for zonal sites, etc.). These colours were applied to the ecosystem polygons on the map according to the dominant (component 1) site series. Biogeoclimatic unit boundaries and labels are displayed on the map so that knowledge of an area’s site group colour and BGC unit identifies the specific site series. In addition to the site group information, specific ecosystem attributes for each polygon on the map sheet are displayed in a polygon list in the map surround. These attributes were taken from the DOM database and use the conventional numeric site series codes and enhanced site modifiers. Additional information displayed in the map surround includes the site series, site group, and BGC unit legends, the mapping approach, and the mapping credits and data sources.

5. RESULTS

5.1 Polygon Density A total of 873 polygons were mapped in the study area, with an average and median area of 14.7 ha and 9.4 ha, respectively. Figure 3 shows the frequency distribution of polygon size.

1

10

100

1000

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Mor

e

Polygon area (ha)

Freq

uenc

y

-10%

10%

30%

50%

70%

90%

110%

Frequency Cumulative %

NB. logarithmic scale of the Y axis; the number displayed for polygon area is the upper class boundary FIGURE 3. Frequency distribution of polygon size. The majority of polygons (>90%) are less than 30 ha in size. There is a fairly broad distribution of polygon size across this range, indicating there wasn’t a predominance of small polygons. These is characteristic of the kind of undulating terrain that occurred



over most of the study area. These results are comparable to other ecosystem mapping projects completed by B.A. Blackwell & Associates (Table 2). TABLE 2. Comparison of polygon area statistics between Mission, and other coastal mapping projects.

Statistic Mission Tree Farm

Artlish/ Tahsish LU’s

Sayward LU

Hope IFPA

TFL 45 Knight Inlet

TFL 38 Squamish

TFL 37 Nimpkish

TFL 47 Beaver Cove/John. St.

Mean polygon area (ha)

14.7 10.7 15.4 19.5 13.6 14.9 8.6 11.9

Median polygon area (ha)

9.4 6.7 8.5 12.7 8.3 9.8 4.7 6.5

Standard deviation (ha)

19.7 13.7 37.5 23.5 17.3 21.2 27.5 20.4

Mapped area (ha) 12,791 47,077 97,200 146,3230 68,028 79,612 190,730 142,046 Polygon density (polys/1000 ha)

68 93 65 51 73 67 117 84

5.2 Sampling A total of 245 inspections were completed for this project, comprised of 47% ground inspections, 42% visual inspections, and 11% air calls. Table 3 summarizes the distribution of inspections by type. TABLE 3. Distribution of inspections by type. Inspection Type Number

Completed Proportion of total (%)

Ground inspections 114 47 Visual inspections 104 42 Air visual inspections 28 11 Total inspections 245 100 Mapped area 12,791 ha Inspection density 52 ha per

inspection

The achieved inspection density of 52 ha/inspections exceeded the target density for a level 4 survey intensity. Another measure of survey intensity is the proportion of polygons inspected. Table 4 summarizes polygon inspection frequency by information source. TABLE 4. Frequency of inspected polygons by information source.

Source

Number of polygons



Air call 28 Ground inspection 110 Visual inspection 50 Total 188

The total number of inspected polygons is less than the total number of inspections because of multiple observations within some larger polygons. The inspected polygons represent 23% of the total eligible polygons in the mapped area. This figure excludes polygons which are clearly interpreted because of their distinct features (e.g. lakes, rivers, gravel pits, rock, avalanche tracks, etc.). This inspection frequency meets a level 4 survey intensity according to the RISC Standard, which is consistent with the survey intensity met based on sampling density.

5.3 Biogeoclimatic Units The study area is dominated by the CWHdm subzone (60% of the study area) with the CWHvm and MH representing 16% and 4% of the study area, respectively (Table 5). The distribution of biogeoclimatic units in the study area was generally consistent with the original 1:250,000 Vancouver Region mapping. Differences were generally restricted to boundary shifts which are consistent with differences in mapping scale and intensity of field verification between the two levels of inventory .The consistency between the old and new mapping likely reflects the good access in this area at the time the original mapping was completed. An overview of the distribution of biogeoclimatic units mapped in the Mission Tree Farm is shown in Figure 4. TABLE 5. Area summary of biogeoclimatic units in the Mission Tree Farm. BGC Unit

Area (ha)

%

CWHdm 7562.556 59.12% CWHvm1 3510.326 27.44% CWHvm2 1163.513 9.10% MHmm1 510.5391 3.99% MHmmp1 44.02048 0.34% Total 12790.95 100.00%



FIGURE 4. Overview of new BGC units in the Mission Tree Farm.

5.4 New and atypical site units In the Mission project, a number of site units1 not recognized in the provincial site series classification were encountered. This reflects the focus of the original BEC program, which was predominantly forested ecosystems. The new units recognized in the study area were reviewed and approved by the project quality assurance specialist, and are summarized in Table 6. The descriptions of these units is based on data and observations collected during field sampling in other coastal mapping projects conducted by B.A. Blackwell and Associates, as well as information contained in Klinka et al. (1997). TABLE 6. New site units currently not recognized in the provincial site series classification. BGC unit

Name Description

All Tufted clubrush – Sphagnum bog

Bogs and transition bogs featuring Sphagnum spp., Carex spp., Ledum groenlandicum and other ericaceous shrubs; in MH it includes Fauria crista-galli, Phyllodoce empetriformis and other subalpine spp.; typically a complex pattern of plant communities of the Carex - Sphagnum order (Klinka et al.

1 referred to as “site units” as they are not formally recognized site series in the BEC classification.



BGC unit

Name Description

1997). All Carex fen

Non-forested fen/marsh dominated by Carex species; typically a complex pattern of plant communities of the Carex - Sphagnum order (Klinka et al. 1997)

CWH Hardhack – Sweet gale wetland

Fens and transition fens featuring Carex spp., Myrica gale, Spiraea douglasii. and associated herbs; typically a complex pattern of plant communities of the Spiraea douglasii. - Carex sitchensis order (Klinka et al. 1997).

CWH Ninebark – Skunk cabbage swamp (N)

Shrub-dominated swamp featuring Physocarpus capitatus, Lysichitum americanum, Athyrium filix-femina, Spiraea douglasii, Carex spp., Equisetum spp., with varying amounts of Salix spp. and poor vigour Alnus rubra; typically a complex pattern of plant communities of the Alnus rubra – Salix lasiandra – Carex obnupta order (Klinka et al. 1997).

CWH Cw –Fern bluffs

Precipitous bluffs and cliffs; extreme microsite variation due to crevices, ledges and other irregularities, combined with intermittent surface seepage; irregularly stocked stands rooted in crevices, and very thin organic and colluvial parent material; typically includes Adiantum aleuticum, Polystichum munitum, and/or Polypodium glycyrrhiza.

MH Yc – Rhacomitrium bluffs

Precipitous bluffs, cliffs, and extremely steep (>100%) rocky slopes featuring scrubby conifers rooted in crevices and very thin organic and colluvial parent material.

MH HmYc – Blueberry – Mountain-heather

Fresh/poor late snow-lie sites with open canopies; generally on subdued topography; late snow melt associated with this topography results in open canopy stands; generally hummocky microtopography with common moist to wet depressions; often complexed with 07 and 09

All Sitka alder – Salmonberry avalanche tracks

Frequently disturbed avalanche tracks dominated by Alnus sinuata; may include patches of Hm and Yc; typically a complex pattern of plant communities of the Alnus sinuata order. (Klinka et al. 1997).

MHmmp Hm – Mountain heather parkland (T)

A mosaic of islands of conifers separated by heath communities; tree islands include Yc, Hm, Phyllodoce empetriformis, Empetrum nigrum, Vaccinium deliciosum; heath communities dominated by Cassiope mertensiana and Phyllodoce empetriformis; includes wet depressions of Carex - Sphagnum communities in subdued topography; highly complex due to impacts of varying snow patterns; consists of communities of the Cassiope - Phyllodoce order, and Phyllodoce - Abies association, with inclusions of the Carex - Sphagnum and Carex nigricans orders (Klinka et al. 1997).

MHmmp Lichen – Hm parkland (N)

A mosaic of exposed bedrock outcrops, rocky ridges, fragmental talus, and cliffs, with moist depressions interspersed among the rock; irregular clumps of conifers generally on elevated sites where snow melts earliest; highly complex due to impacts of varying snow patterns and irregular terrain; may include patches of Hm – Mountain heather parkland; consists of communities of the Rhizocarpon geographicum order, with inclusions of the Cassiope - Phyllodoce and Carex - Sphagnum orders (Klinka et al. 1997).



5.5 Synopsis of mapped site units Table 7 provides a synopsis of all site units mapped in the Mission Tree Farm, including the codes used for the MOF and RISC attribute databases. Two-letter codes for the RISC database were derived from the Provincial Site Series Mapping Codes and Typical Environmental Conditions (2003) database except for unrecognized units. In these cases, suggested unique codes were assigned following conventions used in the provincial mapping codes list. Non-vegetated sites use the two-letter codes from the TEM Standard. Codes not recognized in the RISC database have been used in previous ecosystem mapping projects completed for TimberWest Forest Ltd, International Forest Products Ltd., Canadian Forest Products Ltd., and the Ministry of Forests. These codes are listed in the “User Defined” database included with the non-spatial databases for RISC deliverables.

Numeric codes (DOM database) for recognized site series follow the existing BEC coding format (Green and Klinka 1994). Newly recognized site units are not formally classified site series, and are noted with numeric codes of 20 or higher. These codes were based on recognized numeric codes from the original provincial mapping code list, as well as codes developed for previous ecosystem mapping projects. Non-vegetated sites use the two-letter codes from the RISC standard. TABLE 7. Synopsis of all site units mapped in the Mission Tree Farm. DOM Code

RISC Code

Name Comments

CWHdm 01 HM Hw – Flat moss slightly dry/poor to medium sites (zonal) 02 DC FdPl – Cladina very dry/poor sites on bedrock or very thin

soils 03 DS FdHw – Salal moderately dry/poor to medium sites on

shallow and/or very coarse soils 04 DF Fd – Sword fern moderately dry/rich sites 05 RS Cw – Swordfern slightly dry to fresh/rich sites 06 HD HwCw – Deer fern moist to very moist/poor to medium sites 07 RF Cw – Foamflower moist to very moist/rich sites 10 CW Act – Willow low bench floodplain sites 11 LS Pl – Sphagnum wet/poor sparsely forested bog 12 RC CwSs – Skunk cabbage wet/medium to rich sites on poorly

drained soils 20 RM Cw – Fern bluffs dry to moist/poor to medium sites on

forested bluffs and cliffs (extreme microsite variation)

CWHvm1 01 AB HwBa - Blueberry fresh/ poor to medium sites (zonal) 03 HS HwCw - Salal slightly dry/poor to medium sites on

shallow and/or very coarse soils 04 RS CwHw - Sword fern slightly dry/poor to medium sites 05 AF BaCw - Foamflower fresh/rich sites 06 HD HwBa - Deer fern moist to very moist/poor to medium sites 07 AS BaCw - Salmonberry moist to very moist/rich sites 13 LS Pl – Sphagnum wet/poor sparsely forested bog 14 RC CwSs – Skunk cabbage wet/medium to rich sites on poorly



DOM Code

RISC Code

Name Comments



CWHvm2 01 AP HwBa - Blueberry fresh/ poor to medium sites (zonal) 03 HS HwCw - Salal slightly dry/poor to medium sites on

shallow and/or very coarse soils 05 AF BaCw - Foamflower fresh/rich sites 06 HD HwBa – Deer fern moist to very moist/poor to medium sites 07 AS BaCw - Salmonberry moist to very moist/rich sites 10 LS Pl – Sphagnum wet/poor sparsely forested bog 11 RC CwSs – Skunk cabbage wet/medium to rich sites on poorly



MHmm1 01 MB HmBa - Blueberry fresh/poor to medium sites (zonal) 02 MM HmBa - Mountain-heather slightly dry/poor to medium sites on

bedrock or very shallow soils 05 MT BaHm - Twisted stalk moist/rich sites 06 MD HmYc – Deer cabbage very moist/poor to medium sites with open

canopy forests 07 YH YcHm - Hellebore very moist/medium to rich sites with open

canopy forests 08 YS HmYc - Sphagnum wet/poor sparsely forested bog 09 YC YcHm - Skunk cabbage wet/medium to rich sites on poorly

drained soils with open canopy forests 21 YR Yc – Rhacomitrium bluffs scrubby forested bluffs, cliffs, and

extremely steep (>100%) rocky slopes 27 YB HmYc – Blueberry –

Mountain heather fresh/poor to medium, late snow-lie sites with open canopy forests

MHmmp1 22 MH Hm – Mountain heather

parkland mosaic of heather and tree islands

23 LM Lichen - Hm parkland mosaic of rocky sites with tree islands Non-Forested Units in all BGC Units DOM Code

RISC Code

31 TS Tufted clubrush – Sphagnum bog

non-forested Sphagnum-dominated bog

32 FS Carex fen non-forested Carex-dominated fen 33 HG Hardhack - Sweet gale

wetland non-forested shrub-dominated fen

34 NS Ninebark – Skunk cabbage swamp

non-forested shrub-dominated swamp

51 SA Sitka alder – Salmonberry shrub dominated avalanche tracks CF CF Cultivated fields ES ES Exposed soil from recent disturbance; usually slope



Non-Forested Units in all BGC Units

failures GP GB Gravel pit GB GP Gravel bars LA LA Lake PD PD Pond PZ PZ Powerline RI RI River RO RO Bedrock RZ RW Road surface TA TA Talus UR UR Urban/suburban An area summary of all site units mapped in the study area is provided in Table 8. These areas represent totals for the component one site unit only. A summary of the proportion of the whole study area represented by mapped site units is shown in Table 9. The area comprising 01 site series represents 63 % of the total mapped area. This is higher than other ecosystem mapping projects completed by B.A. Blackwell and Associates in coastal landbases (38% in TFL 45 , 38% in TFL 47; 41% in TFL 37, 44% in the Capilano watershed), and reflects the predominantly subdued topography. TABLE 8. Area summary for all site units mapped in the Mission Tree Farm. Site unit CWHdm CWHvm1 CWHvm2 MHmm1 MHmmp1 Grand

Total Area (ha) 01 4583.95 2339.08 815.07 339.70 8077.80 02 56.75 56.75 03 954.29 269.66 80.39 1304.33 04 5.39 5.39 05 983.63 49.89 16.03 26.33 1075.87 06 82.61 94.40 11.93 4.44 193.37 07 529.51 121.52 168.93 2.13 822.08 09 12.74 12.74 11 2.63 2.63 12 16.33 16.33 13 4.89 12.56 17.45 14 20.41 20.41 20 18.74 8.92 13.15 40.80 21 6.80 6.80 22 36.00 36.00 23 5.83 5.83 27 29.25 29.25 31 14.00 11.59 2.65 28.23 32 8.15 5.92 14.07 33 14.49 15.92 30.41 34 9.96 9.96 51 0.94 52.29 7.58 60.81 CF 15.33 15.33



ES 6.45 4.56 11.01 GB 24.66 24.66 GP 55.44 55.44 LA 162.34 34.69 1.82 198.85 PD 10.53 5.34 15.87 PZ 38.17 24.42 62.59 RO 0.83 16.81 17.63 RW 36.71 465.23 501.95 TA 4.56 2.26 6.19 2.19 15.20 UR 5.11 5.11 Grand Total

7562.56 3510.33 1163.51 510.54 44.02 12790.95

TABLE 9. Proportion of Mission Tree Farm for all mapped site units. Site unit CWHdm CWHvm1 CWHvm2 MHmm1 MHmmp1 Grand

Total % of total mapped area 01 35.84 18.29 6.37 2.66 0.00 63.15 02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.44 03 7.46 2.11 0.63 0.00 0.00 10.20 04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 05 7.69 0.39 0.13 0.21 0.00 8.41 06 0.65 0.74 0.09 0.03 0.00 1.51 07 4.14 0.95 1.32 0.02 0.00 6.43 09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 11 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 12 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 13 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 14 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 20 0.15 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.32 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 31 0.11 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.22 32 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 33 0.11 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 34 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 51 0.00 0.01 0.41 0.06 0.00 0.48 CF 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 ES 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 GB 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 GP 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 LA 1.27 0.27 0.00 0.01 0.00 1.55 PD 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 PZ 0.30 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 RO 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.14



RW 0.29 3.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.92 TA 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.12 UR 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Grand Total

59.12 27.44 9.10 3.99 0.34 100.00

6. Conclusion The data generated from this study provide an inventory of biogeoclimatic site units for the Mission Tree Farm, which will serve as a suitable framework for forest management. In addition to growth and yield application, the ecological database from this project can also be applied to other planning needs. Because the data relates to the stable ecological components of the landbase, it should serve planning requirements for some time into the future. Some examples include:

• biodiversity planning. Key information includes site series, slope/aspect and

structural stage (can be derived subsequently through GIS processing of forest cover), and accurate biogeoclimatic unit boundaries.

• analysis and identification of potential treatment opportunities for silvicultural practices such as fertilization, spacing, and pruning

• identification of hazard ratings for significant forest health agents, which can be supplemented with observed incidence to produce hazard and risk assessments for the LU.

• identification of stocking hazard ratings showing areas were site-related problems in meeting minimum stocking standards can be anticipated.

• identification of free-to-grow classes where regeneration growth rates can be estimated based on site series and tree species. This can be used to identify green-up and adjacency issues for development planning.

• landscape-level tree species suitability.



7. REFERENCES Green, R.N. and K. Klinka. 1994. A field guide for site identification and interpretation

for the Vancouver Forest Region. B.C. Min. For. Land Mgmt. Hnbk. No. 28, Victoria, B.C.

Holland, S.S. 1964. Landforms of British Columbia. A physiographic outline. B.C. Dept.

of Mines and Petro. Res. Bulletin No. 48. Victoria, B.C.



8. APPENDIX 1: Database Dictionary and Legend for DOM2 Database DATA FIELDS Code Description Poly_nbr Polygon number SRC Data source Ecosec Ecosection Zone Biogeoclimatic zone Subz_var Biogeoclimatic subzone/variant BGC_unit Combined BGC zone/subzone/variant/ Asp Aspect Eco1_dec 1st ecosystem component - % decile Eco1_SS 1st ecosystem component - site series Eco1_SM1 1st ecosystem component - 1st site modifier Eco1_SM2 1st ecosystem component - 2nd site modifier Eco1_SM3 1st ecosystem component - 3rd site modifier Eco2_dec 2nd ecosystem component - % decile Eco2_SS 2nd ecosystem component - site series Eco2_SM1 2nd ecosystem component - 1st site modifier Eco2_SM2 2nd ecosystem component - 2nd site modifier Eco2_SM3 2nd ecosystem component - 3rd site modifier Eco3_dec 3rd ecosystem component - % decile Eco3_SS 3rd ecosystem component - site series Eco3_SM1 3rd ecosystem component - 1st site modifier Eco3_SM2 3rd ecosystem component - 2nd site modifier Eco3_SM3 3rd ecosystem component - 3rd site modifier FIELD DESCRIPTION Data Source Code Description A Air call G Ground inspection plot P Photo interpretation V Visual inspection Ecosection Code Description SOG Strait of Georgia SPR Southern Pacific Ranges

2 District of Mission



Biogeoclimatic Unit (Zone/Subzone/Variant) Code Description CWHdm Dry Maritime CWH Subzone CWHvm1 Submontane Very Wet Maritime CWH Variant CWHvm2 Montane Very Wet Maritime CWH Variant MHmm1 Windward Moist Maritime MH Variant MHmmp1 Windward Parkland Moist Maritime MH Variant Aspect Code Description G Gentle; slopes < 35% C Cool; slopes > 35% with aspect 2850-1350 W Warm; slopes > 35% with aspect 1350-2850 Site Units Code Name Comments CWHdm 01 Hw – Flat moss slightly dry/poor to medium sites (zonal) 02 FdPl – Cladina very dry/poor sites on bedrock or very thin soils 03 FdHw – Salal moderately dry/poor to medium sites on shallow and/or

very coarse soils 04 Fd – Sword fern moderately dry/rich sites 05 Cw – Swordfern slightly dry to fresh/rich sites 06 HwCw – Deer fern moist to very moist/poor to medium sites 07 Cw – Foamflower moist to very moist/rich sites 10 Act – Willow low bench floodplain sites 11 Pl – Sphagnum wet/poor sparsely forested bog 12 CwSs – Skunk cabbage wet/medium to rich sites on poorly drained soils 20 Cw – Fern bluffs dry to moist/poor to medium sites on forested bluffs

and cliffs (extreme microsite variation) CWHvm1 01 HwBa - Blueberry fresh/ poor to medium sites (zonal) 03 HwCw - Salal slightly dry/poor to medium sites on shallow and/or

very coarse soils 04 CwHw - Sword fern slightly dry/poor to medium sites 05 BaCw - Foamflower fresh/rich sites 06 HwBa - Deer fern moist to very moist/poor to medium sites 07 BaCw - Salmonberry moist to very moist/rich sites 13 Pl – Sphagnum wet/poor sparsely forested bog 14 CwSs – Skunk cabbage wet/medium to rich sites on poorly drained soils 20 Cw – Fern bluffs dry to moist/poor to medium sites on forested bluffs

and cliffs (extreme microsite variation) CWHvm2 01 HwBa - Blueberry fresh/ poor to medium sites (zonal) 03 HwCw - Salal slightly dry/poor to medium sites on shallow and/or

very coarse soils 05 BaCw - Foamflower fresh/rich sites 06 HwBa – Deer fern moist to very moist/poor to medium sites



Code Name Comments 07 BaCw - Salmonberry moist to very moist/rich sites 10 Pl – Sphagnum wet/poor sparsely forested bog 11 CwSs – Skunk cabbage wet/medium to rich sites on poorly drained soils 20 Cw – Fern bluffs dry to moist/poor to medium sites on forested bluffs

and cliffs (extreme microsite variation) MHmm1 01 HmBa - Blueberry fresh/poor to medium sites (zonal) 02 HmBa - Mountain-heather slightly dry/poor to medium sites on bedrock or very

shallow soils 05 BaHm - Twisted stalk moist/rich sites 06 HmYc – Deer cabbage very moist/poor to medium sites with open canopy

forests 07 YcHm - Hellebore very moist/medium to rich sites with open canopy

forests 08 HmYc - Sphagnum wet/poor sparsely forested bog 09 YcHm - Skunk cabbage wet/medium to rich sites on poorly drained soils with

open canopy forests 21 Yc – Rhacomitrium bluffs scrubby forested bluffs, cliffs, and extremely steep

(>100%) rocky slopes 27 HmYc – Blueberry –


MHmmp1 22 Hm – Mountain heather


23 Lichen - Hm parkland mosaic of rocky sites with tree islands Non-Forested Units in all BGC Units 31 Tufted clubrush – Sphagnum

bog non-forested Sphagnum-dominated bog

32 Carex fen non-forested Carex-dominated fen 33 Hardhack - Sweet gale


34 Ninebark – Skunk cabbage swamp


51 Sitka alder – Salmonberry shrub dominated avalanche tracks CF Cultivated fields ES Exposed soil from recent disturbance; usually slope failures GP Gravel pit GB Gravel bars LA Lake PD Pond PZ Powerline RI River RO Bedrock RZ Road surface TA Talus UR Urban/suburban



Site Modifiers

Code Name Comments fa fan sites on active fluvial fan gu gullied sites with frequent gullies hs hypersteep slope sites with slopes >100% hu hummocky sites on hummocky terrain lo local climate sites strongly influenced by local climate (e.g. cool,

moist bowls) po poor productivity sites with poorer than normal productivity for site unit ri ridge sites on pronounced ridge crests rv ravine sites with steep slopes bordering streams sh shallow sites with predominantly shallow (<1m) soils sl slope sites with slopes 35-70% ss steep slope sites with slopes 70-100% ta blocky talus sites on rubbly (blocky) colluvial deposits



9. APPENDIX 2: Database Dictionary and Legend for RISC Database DATA FIELDS (excludes unfilled fields)

RISC field Description Ecp_tag Unique polygon reference; concatenation of mapsheet and polygon number Mapsh_nbr Mapsheet number Poly_nbr Polygon number Source Data source Eco_Sec Ecosection Bgc_Zone Biogeoclimatic zone Bgc_Subzon Biogeoclimatic subzone Bgc_Vrt Biogeoclimatic variant Sdec_1 1st ecosystem component - % decile Site_S1 1st ecosystem component – site series number from MOF field guide for site ID Sitemc_S1 1st ecosystem component – site series mapcode from TEM standards Site_M1a 1st ecosystem component – 1st site modifier Site_M1b 1st ecosystem component – 2nd site modifier Sdec_2 2nd ecosystem component - % decile Site_S2 2nd ecosystem component – site series number from MOF field guide for site ID Sitemc_S2 2nd ecosystem component – site series mapcode from TEM standards Site_M2a 2nd ecosystem component – 1st site modifier Site_M2b 2nd ecosystem component – 2nd site modifier Sdec_3 3rd ecosystem component - % decile Site_S3 3rd ecosystem component – site series number from MOF field guide for site ID Sitemc_S3 3rd ecosystem component – site series mapcode from TEM standards Site_M3a 3rd ecosystem component – 1st site modifier Site_M3b 3rd ecosystem component – 2nd site modifier FIELD DESCRIPTION Data Source Code Description A Air call G Ground inspection plot P Photo interpretation V Visual inspection Ecosection Code Description SOG Strait of Georgia SPR Southern Pacific Ranges



Biogeoclimatic Unit (Zone/Subzone/Variant) Code Description CWHdm Dry Maritime CWH Subzone CWHvm1 Submontane Very Wet Maritime CWH Variant CWHvm2 Montane Very Wet Maritime CWH Variant MHmm1 Windward Moist Maritime MH Variant MHmmp1 Windward Parkland Moist Maritime MH Variant Site Units Site series mapcode

Site series number

Name Comments

CWHdm HM 01 Hw – Flat moss slightly dry/poor to medium sites (zonal) DC 02 FdPl – Cladina very dry/poor sites on bedrock or very thin

soils DS 03 FdHw – Salal moderately dry/poor to medium sites on

shallow and/or very coarse soils DF 04 Fd – Sword fern moderately dry/rich sites RS 05 Cw – Swordfern slightly dry to fresh/rich sites HD 06 HwCw – Deer fern moist to very moist/poor to medium sites RF 07 Cw – Foamflower moist to very moist/rich sites CW 10 Act – Willow low bench floodplain sites LS 11 Pl – Sphagnum wet/poor sparsely forested bog RC 12 CwSs – Skunk cabbage wet/medium to rich sites on poorly drained

soils RM n/a Cw – Fern bluffs dry to moist/poor to medium sites on forested

bluffs and cliffs (extreme microsite variation) CWHvm1 AB 01 HwBa - Blueberry fresh/ poor to medium sites (zonal) HS 03 HwCw - Salal slightly dry/poor to medium sites on shallow

and/or very coarse soils RS 04 CwHw - Sword fern slightly dry/poor to medium sites AF 05 BaCw - Foamflower fresh/rich sites HD 06 HwBa - Deer fern moist to very moist/poor to medium sites AS 07 BaCw - Salmonberry moist to very moist/rich sites LS 13 Pl – Sphagnum wet/poor sparsely forested bog RC 14 CwSs – Skunk cabbage wet/medium to rich sites on poorly drained


bluffs and cliffs (extreme microsite variation) CWHvm2 AP 01 HwBa - Blueberry fresh/ poor to medium sites (zonal) HS 03 HwCw - Salal slightly dry/poor to medium sites on shallow

and/or very coarse soils AF 05 BaCw - Foamflower fresh/rich sites HD 06 HwBa – Deer fern moist to very moist/poor to medium sites AS 07 BaCw - Salmonberry moist to very moist/rich sites LS 10 Pl – Sphagnum wet/poor sparsely forested bog RC 11 CwSs – Skunk cabbage wet/medium to rich sites on poorly drained



Site series mapcode

Site series number

Name Comments


bluffs and cliffs (extreme microsite variation) MHmm1 MB 01 HmBa - Blueberry fresh/poor to medium sites (zonal) MM 02 HmBa - Mountain-heather slightly dry/poor to medium sites on bedrock or

very shallow soils MT 05 BaHm - Twisted stalk moist/rich sites MD 06 HmYc – Deer cabbage very moist/poor to medium sites with open

canopy forests YH 07 YcHm - Hellebore very moist/medium to rich sites with open

canopy forests YS 08 HmYc - Sphagnum wet/poor sparsely forested bog YC 09 YcHm - Skunk cabbage wet/medium to rich sites on poorly drained

soils with open canopy forests YR n/a Yc – Rhacomitrium bluffs scrubby forested bluffs, cliffs, and extremely

steep (>100%) rocky slopes YB n/a HmYc – Blueberry –


MHmmp1 MH n/a Hm – Mountain heather


LM n/a Lichen - Hm parkland mosaic of rocky sites with tree islands Non-Forested Units in all BGC Units TS n/a Tufted clubrush – Sphagnum

bog non-forested Sphagnum-dominated bog

FS n/a Carex fen non-forested Carex-dominated fen HG n/a Hardhack - Sweet gale


NS n/a Ninebark – Skunk cabbage swamp


SA n/a Sitka alder – Salmonberry shrub dominated avalanche tracks CF n/a Cultivated fields ES n/a Exposed soil from recent disturbance; usually slope failures GB n/a Gravel bars GP n/a Gravel pit LA n/a Lake PD n/a Pond PZ n/a Powerline RI n/a River RO n/a Bedrock RW n/a Rural TA n/a Talus UR n/a Urban/suburban



Site Modifiers

Code Name Comments g gullied sites with frequent gullies h hummocky sites on hummocky terrain j gentle slope sites on slopes < 35% k cool aspect sites on slopes 35%-100% with aspect 2850-

1350 n fan sites on active fluvial fan q very steep cool aspect sites on slopes > 100% with aspect 2850-1350 r ridge sites on pronounced ridge crests s shallow sites with predominantly shallow (<1m) soils w warm aspect sites on slopes 35%-100% with aspect 1350-

2850 z very steep warm aspect sites on slopes > 100% with aspect 1350-2850



10. APPENDIX 3: Database Dictionary and Legend for Structural Stage Database

DATA FIELDS Field Description AREA Polygon area (m2) PERIMETER Polygon perimeter (m) FORCOV_ Polygon reference FORCOV_ID Polygon reference P_LABEL Polygon reference POLY Polygon reference POLY2 Polygon reference MAPNO Polygon reference RANK Rank LAYER Layer NFD Non-forest descriptor SPCS1 First major species PCT1 First major species % DECIDUOUS Stands with >=70% deciduous species AGEPROJ Stand age projected to 2003 HTPROJ Stand height projected to 2003 CROWN_CL Crown closure (%) NPD non-productive forest codes DATEPROJ Date of projection SS Structural stage FIELD DESCRIPTION Structural Stage

Code Name

Criteria

0 Not applicable water, glacier, railway, road, urban, rural 1 Sparse non/sparsely vegetated 2 Herb herb dominated (<=20% shrub cover; <=10% tree cover1) 3 Shrub/Herb > 20% shrub cover; <=10% tree cover; <= 10 m tall 4 Pole/Sapling > 10 m tall and <= 40 years (conifer) or <=30 years (decid.) 5 Young Forest >10 m tall and 40-80 years (conifer) or

30-60 years (decid.) 6 Mature Forest >10 m tall and 81-249 years (conifer) or

>60 years (decid.) 7 Old Forest > 10 m tall and >= 250 years




11. APPENDIX 4: List of Delivered Files The following describes all files delivered with this project Category Filename

Description

RISC files Mission_project.csv project meta data Mission_userdefined.csv user defined database for non-standard codes MissionTEM_Mar31_RIC.csv TEM polygon attribute database MissionTEM_Mar31_ecp.e00 TEM polygon spatial database (ArcInfo export

format) MissionTEM_Mar31_eci.e00 plot location spatial database (ArcInfo export format) Mission_RISC_legend.doc database dictionary for RISC polygon attribute

database District of MissionTEM_Mar25_DOM.dbf TEM polygon attribute database (ArcInfo shape files) Mission MissionTEM_Mar25_DOM.shp TEM polygon spatial database 1 (ArcInfo shape files) files MissionTEM_Mar25_DOM.shx TEM polygon spatial database 2 (ArcInfo shape files) MissionTEM_Mar25_DOM.e00 TEM polygon spatial and linked attribute database

(ArcInfo export format) Mission FC with SS.dbf Structural stage polygon attribute database (ArcInfo

shape files) Mission FC with SS.shx Structural stage polygon spatial database1 (ArcInfo

shape files) Mission FC with SS.shp Structural stage polygon spatial database2 (ArcInfo

shape files) Mission_SS_dissolve.dbf Structural stage dissolved3 polygon attribute database

(ArcInfo shape files) Mission_SS_dissolve.shp Structural stage dissolved polygon spatial database1

(ArcInfo shape files) Mission_SS_dissolve.shx Structural stage dissolved polygon spatial database2

(ArcInfo shape files) Mission_DOM_legend.doc database dictionary for DOM polygon attribute

database General Mission_report.doc Project report Mission field inspection data.xls Summary of field inspection data

3 polygon lines between forest cover polygons with the same structural stage are removed.

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM MAPPING OF THE MISSION TREE...

Documents

Transcript of TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM MAPPING OF THE MISSION TREE...