Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping of the Southern Gulf

Transcription

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM
MAPPING OF THE
SOUTHERN GULF ISLANDS
FINAL
Submitted by
R.N. Green
B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd.
3057 Hoskins Road
North Vancouver, B.C.
V7J 3B5
to
Todd Golumbia
Gulf Islands National Park Reserve
Parks Canada
Sidney, B.C.
Oct 31, 2007
Gulf Islands 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.
STUDY AREA............................................................................................................1
3.
METHODS .................................................................................................................4
3.1
GENERAL APPROACH ............................................................................................4
3.2
PHOTO TYPING......................................................................................................4
3.3
FIELD SAMPLING ...................................................................................................5
3.3.1
Sampling strategy ........................................................................................5
3.3.2
Field inspection types ..................................................................................6
3.3.3
Sampling implementation ............................................................................9
3.3.4
Inspection locations ...................................................................................11
3.3.5
Data processing..........................................................................................11
3.4
DIGITIZING ..........................................................................................................12
3.5
ECOSYSTEM CLASSIFICATION .............................................................................14
3.6
BUILDING THE ATTRIBUTE DATABASE ...............................................................17
3.6.1
The attributing process...............................................................................17
3.6.2
Issues related to attributes..........................................................................20
3.6.3
Editing the attribute database.....................................................................23
4.
RESULTS .................................................................................................................25
4.1
SAMPLING ...........................................................................................................25
4.2
POLYGON DENSITY .............................................................................................28
4.3
BIOGEOCLIMATIC UNITS .....................................................................................30
4.4
AREA SUMMARIES OF KEY FEATURES ..................................................................32
4.5
ISSUES OF INTEREST ............................................................................................36
4.5.1
Salal ...........................................................................................................36
4.5.2
Disclimax grass dominated communities ..................................................38
4.5.3
Garry oak ...................................................................................................41
4.5.4
Western hemlock .......................................................................................42
5.
DATA MAINTENANCE.........................................................................................43
6.
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................44
7.
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................47
8. APPENDIX A: CDFMM PROVISIONAL SITE CLASSIFICATION FOR
SOUTHERN GULF ISLANDS.......................................................................................49
9.
APPENDIX B: DATABASE DICTIONARY FOR TEM DATA ........................79
12/15/08
Page ii
10.
APPENDIX C: DATABASE DICTIONARY FOR GIF GIS DATA ..............90
11.
APPENDIX D: DATABASE DICTIONARY FOR VISUALS GIS DATA....94
12.
APPENDIX E: FULL SPECIES LIST – LATIN NAME SORT.....................95
13.
APPENDIX F: FULL SPECIES LIST – COMMON NAME SORT ............101
14.
APPENDIX G: VEGETATION SUMMARY TABLES ................................107
12/15/08
Page ii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. CDFmm Provisional Site Classification for Southern Gulf Islands (italicized
site units are not recognized in BEC system) ..........................................................15
TABLE 2. Structural stage classes ..................................................................................22
TABLE 3. Distribution of inspections by type. ...............................................................25
TABLE 4. Comparision of Gulf Islands sampling with other coastal TEM projects
completed by B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd...................................................25
TABLE 5. Comparision of Gulf Islands polygon statistics with other coastal TEM
projects completed by B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd.....................................29
TABLE 6. Provisional differentiating features between the CDFmm and CWHxm
biogeoclimatic units.................................................................................................30
TABLE 7. Area summary (ha) for mapped site units......................................................32
TABLE 8. Ranked site units representing 95% of the study area ...................................33
TABLE 9. Ranked area summary of structural stage ......................................................33
TABLE 10. Ranked area summary of use .......................................................................34
TABLE 11. Ranked area summary of terrain groups. .....................................................35
TABLE 12. Ranked area summary of fuel type ..............................................................35
TABLE 13. Site units with the greatest probability of supporting Garry oak. ................41
12/15/08
Page iii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. Location of the study area. .............................................................................2
FIGURE 2. Park reserve lands within the study area. .......................................................3
FIGURE 3. Example of photo typing utilizing two ink colours to differentiate stable from
dynamic features. .......................................................................................................5
FIGURE 4. Ground inspection form (RIC). ......................................................................7
FIGURE 5. Ground inspection supplemental data form....................................................8
FIGURE 6. Visual inspection data form............................................................................9
FIGURE 7. Example from laptop-based navigation system showing potential sample
locations and private property with access approval. ..............................................10
FIGURE 8. Original typed photo (upper) and resulting GIS coverage of feature coded
lines (lower) showing how two ink colours were tracked .......................................13
FIGURE 9. Revised edatopic grid for the CDFmm showing principal forested site units.
Soil moisture regime along X-axis, soil nutrient regime along Y-axis. ..................17
FIGURE 10. Original mapped TEM polygons (same area as Figure 8)..........................19
FIGURE 11. Stable polygons displaying site units for above area .................................19
FIGURE 12. Dynamic polygons displaying structural stage for above area...................20
FIGURE 13. Example of structural stage changes that can occur on a CWHxm1/01 site
unit.. .........................................................................................................................22
FIGURE 14. Field inspection distribution – Mayne and Prevost Islands........................26
FIGURE 15. Field inspection distribution – Pender Islands ...........................................26
FIGURE 16. Field inspection distribution – Saturna Island............................................27
FIGURE 17. Field inspection distribution – Portland and Moresby Islands ...................27
FIGURE 18. Field inspection distribution – Sidney and D’Arcy Islands .......................28
FIGURE 19. Frequency distribution of polygon size. .....................................................29
FIGURE 20. Distribution of the CWHxm1 on Saturna Island. .......................................30
FIGURE 21. Vegetation pattern across a ridge on Tumbo Island. ..................................36
FIGURE 22. Mature stand lacking salal adjacent to Saturna Bluffs slope (plot R-VG7).37
FIGURE 23. Mature stand dominated by salal approximately 120m back from the
Saturna Bluffs slope break (plot 15-2F3). ...............................................................37
FIGURE 24. Grass dominated disclimax ecosystem on Saturna Bluffs (plot 15-1FS1). . 39
FIGURE 25. Old Forest 03 site unit adjacent to Saturna Bluffs (plot 15-2G7). .............39
FIGURE 26. Grass dominated ecosystem on former mature forest site cleared for radio
tower (plot R-VG6)..................................................................................................40
FIGURE 27. Grass dominated ecosystem established following clearcut logging (plot
A_VG14)..................................................................................................................40
FIGURE 28. Garry oak trees visible on air photo (within blue line) ..............................41
FIGURE 29. Example of structural stage changes associated with recent harvesting. The
hatched area is mapped as “mature forest” structural stage; the newly created
“shrub/herb” stage of the recent cutblock is visible below. Given sufficient time, this
will shift back to a mature forest stage. ...................................................................44
FIGURE 30. Deer exclosure on Sidney Island showing native vegetation within
exclosure on left and browsed vegetation outside exclosure on right. ....................45
12/15/08
Page iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was completed through the coordination and administration of Todd
Golumbia (Parks Canada, Sidney). Mr. Golumbia was also responsible for coordinating
and conducting boat access, and for providing extensive local knowledge on ecological
and historical information regarding the study area. Terry Lewis (Lewis Consulting,
Comox) supervised terrain mapping, including conducting field training and providing
guidance in developing the terrain attribute database. Harvey Janszen (Saturna Island)
provided initial field training on plant identification, as well as identification of collected
unknown plant specimens. McElhanney Consulting Services (Vancouver) completed
planimetric control of airphotos, while Chartwell Consultants (North Vancouver)
collected digital linework and generated final ArcInfo GIS polygon data. Field work for
the project was conducted by Bob Green and Ben Andrews, with assistance from Spencer
Green on the Mayne Island unit.
12/15/08
Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
The Gulf Islands National Park Reserve was established in 2003 to protect the ecological
integrity of a representative portion of the Strait of Georgia Lowlands region. One of the
first requirements for park management is to obtain comprehensive baseline information
on relevant features of the Park Reserve area. The principal objective of this project is to
complete a detailed inventory of terrestrial ecosystems using “enhanced” Terrestrial
Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) that is designed to support planning and management of the
Park Reserve. This baseline ecological data will be applied to a number of key
management issues, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
identification of, and subsequent protection of sensitive ecosystems and species at
risk
restoration of modified/degraded ecosystems
representation analysis of ecosystems encompassed within the Park Reserve,
relative to regional distribution of natural ecosystems in the Strait of Georgia
Lowlands.
management of invasive species
planning protected area networks designed to maximize ecological integrity
assessment and mitigation of hazards, in particular, wildfire.
planning visitor activities such as camping and trail networks, as well as public
education opportunities.
2. STUDY AREA
The study area encompasses the majority of the islands and islets lying between Galiano
Island, Saltspring Island, Saanich Peninsula, and the United States (Figure 1). The
notable exceptions include James Island and the islands directly adjacent to Sidney and
Swartz Bay. The total study area encompasses 12,136 ha. The Park Reserve comprises
2600 ha and forms the core of the total study area (Figure 2). The intent of the project is
to provide baseline data for the entire southern Gulf Islands area so that management of
the Park Reserve will take into consideration this broader context. This is particularly
important given the dispersed distribution of Park Reserve lands throughout the southern
Gulf Islands. This broader information base will also support future land acquisition
strategies for the Park Reserve. The majority of the land within the study area but outside
the Park Reserve is private property.
FIGURE 1. Location of the study area.
Page 2
FIGURE 2. Park reserve lands within the study area.
Page 3
Page 4
3. METHODS
3.1 General Approach
Mapping procedures followed the general methods outlined in Standard for Terrestrial
Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) in British Columbia (RIC, 1998) with some modifications to
meet project objectives. Areas encompassing similar ecosystems are delineated on aerial
photographs, data is collected in the field to characterize ecological properties, and a set
of attributes are then assigned to each delineation based on field data and interpretation of
air photos. All the data is compiled in a digital GIS (geographic information system)
database.
Site classification is based on the biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification (BEC) for
British Columbia (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). This was enhanced to reflect units
encountered in the study area which were not recognized in the BEC system. Attributes
captured in the GIS database represent two major types of features: i) stable site features
that include site series, site modifiers , and terrain; and ii) dynamic features that include
structural stage, use, disturbance type, disturbance date, stand characteristics, and fuel
types. Many of these represent enhancements to the core TEM standards and are
designed to meet park management objectives.
Project deliverables include the GIS database for TEM spatial polygon data and
associated attribute database, as well as support data and documentation. The latter
includes GIS point data for field inspections (including locations and summary data),
photographic documentation tied to field inspections, and the site classification system
with supporting Venus/VPro1 data.
3.2 Photo Typing
Photo typing was done on 1:10,000 scale colour air photos flown in 2004. Photos were
initially prepared by “boxing” the portion to be typed on alternate photos within each
flight line. The final set of boxed photos provided a non-overlapping coverage for
polygon delineation for the entire project area. Typing occurred within the boxed
portions, with all linework matched across adjacent photos. A total of 100 boxed photos
were used for typing.
Polygons were delineated using a 2-colour ink system to differentiate stable and dynamic
features. This was required to facilitate preparation of the attribute database. Black ink
was used to initially delineate “bioterrain” features using recognizable terrain and
landscape properties, ecological properties, and inferences related to changes in the
landscape. Resulting polygons are relatively uniform in “stable” landscape features of
site series, terrain, slope, and aspect. Dynamic features such as development, structural
stage, tree species composition, stand structure, etc. were subsequently delineated using
red coloured ink. Figure 3 shows an example of a “stable” landscape polygon that is
1
Venus; VPro: B.C. Ministry of Forests ecosystem data entry, and ecosystem classification tools,
respectively
Page 5
further subdivided based on cultivated fields, housing development, and stand
characteristics.
The boundary between the terrestrial ecosystems and the intertidal zone was considered
to be the upper high tide line, with the exception of salt-tolerant Glasswort communities
on Sidney Spit which were mapped as part of the terrestrial landbase. The airphotos were
flown during an extreme low tide so physical evidence of the high tide line was used to
guide line placement. This included stranded debris (logs, etc.), and the distinct black
colouration formed by Verrucaria maura (encrusting black sea tar lichen) that grows on
bedrock along the upper tide zone. Reference was also made to Canadian Hydrographic
charts to differentiate terrestrial ecosystems from drying rocks (Canadian Hydrographic
Service 1980).
FIGURE 3. Example of photo typing utilizing two ink colours to differentiate stable from
dynamic features.
3.3 Field Sampling
3.3.1 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 describing key ecosystem features of
representative locations which serve as ground control signatures for photo interpretation.
In addition, collected data was used to verify and adjust the ecosystem classification used
to identify sites. Sampling was aimed at a level 3 survey intensity. For the planned
1:10,000 scale survey, this represents a field inspection density of 8-14 ha per inspection
(RIC 1998), or 900-1500 inspections for the project area.
The distribution of samples was determined through a review of the airphotos and
available information on accessibility. A sampling plan was prepared prior to
Page 6
commencing field work. This involved reviewing each air photo with a stereoscope and
marking locations where field checking should be targeted. Potential inspections were:
• spread across the entire study area as much as possible to minimize data gaps
• located in representative ecosystems
• located in areas that appeared difficult to interpret
• located in areas that could be accessed with a reasonable amount of effort,
and for which access permission was granted.
Potential sample locations were transferred from the airphotos to a GIS database by
digitizing locations in ArcMap 8.1 based on a digital orthophoto coverage scanned from
the same 2004 1:10,000 scale colour airphotos.
3.3.2 Field inspection types
Field inspections to support ecosystem mapping consisted of three main types: ground
inspections, visual inspections, and notes. Ground inspections (GIFs) were used to
describe ecological properties at specific points on the ground. Ground inspection data
was captured with two data forms; the Ground Inspection Form (Figure 4) provided
through the B.C. Resources Information Standards Committee (RIC), and the ground
inspection supplemental data form developed to capture additional features required to
meet project objectives (Figure 5). The Ground Inspection form data was enhanced to
include actual soil texture class, coarse fragment content, organic horizon thickness, and
humus form type. More comprehensive species lists were completed compared to typical
GIFs from TEM projects. The combined data collected was sufficient to meet
classification needs and precluded the use of more labour-intensive FS822 forms. Visual
inspections captured information on key features required for the attribute database
(Figure 6). These were generally ground observations, however air visual inspections
were also used where data was collected from a low flying helicopter in selected areas
that were inaccessible to ground crews. Notes are ground-based inspections consisting of
notations made directly on field maps, and are restricted to a few features such as site
series, terrain, structural stage, fuel type, etc.
FIGURE 4. Ground inspection form (RIC).
Page 7
FIGURE 5. Ground inspection supplemental data form.
Page 8
Page 9
FIGURE 6. Visual inspection data form.
3.3.3 Sampling implementation
The sampling program was facilitated by a set of 1:13,000 orientation maps which were
produced from ArcMap 8.1 using the digital orthophoto data as a base. The maps
included the potential inspection locations which were sequentially numbered, as well as
roads, creeks and the Park Reserve boundaries. These maps were laminated and used for
field orientation, and to locate all actual inspection locations as they were completed.
Access for field sampling was significantly constrained by property ownership.
Access was not limited on Park Reserve land or other crown land parks, recreational
sites, etc., however access to private land was limited to properties where permission had
been granted by owners. This information had been obtained by Parks Canada through an
ownership survey requesting sampling access for this project. A GIS database of
Page 10
cadastral data was provided by Parks Canada which showed property boundaries and a
code indicating whether access permission had been granted. Because of the complexity
of the property boundaries, a GPS-based navigation system was required to keep track of
sample locations in relation private property. This used a laptop computer running
ArcPad 7.0 interfaced with a Garmin GPS 76 handheld GPS unit. The cadastral database
showing properties for which access was granted, the potential sample location layer, and
the digital orthophoto coverage were loaded in the system and together with the GPStracked location of the vehicle, ensured samples were located in property where access
had been approved (Figure 7).
FIGURE 7. Example from laptop-based navigation system showing potential sample
locations and private property with access approval.
An initial reconnaissance sampling was conducted in September, 2005, with the
bulk of the main sampling program conducted from April to June 2006. During this
period, herbaceous plant species were well developed and generally flowering which
facilitated species identification. Plant species which could not be identified in the field
were collected, labeled, and preserved for later identification by a local botanist2. Field
sampling was conducted by a 2-person crew using truck access for Saturna, Mayne, and
North and South Pender Islands, and boat access for the remaining islands.
2
H. Janszen, Saturna Island, B.C.
Page 11
3.3.4 Inspection locations
All GIF and Visuals locations were registered as GPS waypoints in the field using
Garmin GPS 76 handheld units. Waypoint coordinates were subsequently translated into
a GIS database of inspection locations. Notes locations and comments were transferred
from the field orientation maps to a GIS database by digitizing data in ArcMap using the
orthophoto coverage as a base.
3.3.5 Data processing
Data from ground inspection forms was entered into a Microsoft Access-based database
using the B.C. Ministry of Environment’s VENUS 5.1 data capture application.
Vegetation data was validated as it was entered using the program’s validation tool. The
remaining data items were validated using exported Excel files. Data from the ground
inspection supplemental data form and the visual inspection forms was entered into
custom Excel databases. The notes data was entered directly into a GIS database.
The VENUS data was used in developing the final site classification for new
units, however it did not form a comprehensive enough summary of ground inspection
features that could be used to support mapping. For this purpose, project and site data
was first exported from VENUS to an Excel file. Data from the GIF supplemental
database was then appended to this data. This combined data was then linked to the GIS
spatial data for GIF plot locations using plot number as a link. The result was a GIS
database for GIF inspections containing the spatial reference and an associated attribute
database. A similar GIS database was also produced for the Visual inspections (see
Appendices C and D). A list of species sampled in the GIF plots is shown in Appendices
E (latin names) and F (common names)
Page 12
3.4 Digitizing
Digitizing linework from the airphotos was done using mono-restitution techniques and
involved three main steps; controlling typed photos to a planimetric map base, collecting
the linework off the photos into a digital format, and producing a closed polygon
topology. A new high resolution digital elevation model produced by McElhanney
Consulting Services Ltd. from 2005 1:16,000 scale airphotos was used as the planimetric
base. McElhanney generated control points from this base for all the typed airphotos.
Chartwell Consultants of North Vancouver collected all the linework from the typed
photos using Microstation, then converted these to a closed topology in ArcInfo. The two
different ink colours used on the photos were recorded as a feature while lines were
initially collected in Microstation. This data was also translated into ArcInfo shape files.
The final digitizing products were a GIS coverage of all mapped polygons and a separate
coverage of polygon lines feature coded according to ink colour. Figure 8 illustrates the
tracking of line colours from typed airphotos to GIS coverage.
Page 13
FIGURE 8. Original typed photo (upper) and resulting GIS coverage of feature coded
lines (lower) showing how two ink colours were tracked.
Page 14
3.5 Ecosystem Classification
The classification of ecosystems was based on the biogeoclimatic classification (BEC)
for British Columbia. An overview of the BEC system can be found in Meidinger and
Pojar (1991), and at the following website:
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/becweb/index.htm.
The BEC system groups similar segments of the landscape (ecosystems) into categories
of a classification system. For purposes of BEC, an ecosystem is defined as a particular
plant community and its associated topography, soil, and climate. From a practical
perspective, the BEC system focuses on two levels of ecosystem variation: climate and
site. Geographic areas influenced by similar regional climates are classified into
biogeoclimatic units in the climatic component of the BEC system. Within each
biogeoclimatic unit, a recurring pattern of sites reflects variation in soil and
physiographic properties. These site units have characteristic ecological properties, and
are classified based on their potential to produce similar vegetation communities.
A number of sites were encountered in the study area that are not recognized in
the provincial biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification system. This reflects the fact that
the BEC system was originally developed to support forest management activities and
was therefore focused only on forested ecosystems. These unclassified sites typically
include non or sparsely forested wetlands, bedrock, dunes, or islets where environmental
conditions are so limiting that forest establishment is precluded. In addition, the BEC
classification of forested sites in the CDFmm (Green and Klinka 1994) also showed some
limitations when applied in the southern Gulf Islands. This is due to the fact it was based
mainly on data from the Saanich Peninsula (Roemer 1972) and to a lesser extent, eastern
Vancouver Island between Nanaimo and Campbell River. This mainly reflects the
constraints within which the regional BEC sampling was undertaken.
Due to theses limitations, a provisional site classification was developed in order
to meet the needs of this project. (Table 1). The core of this was the existing BEC
classification, which was enhanced based on field data collected for this project, with
reference to some relevant existing classifications, including Wetlands of British
Columbia (MacKenzie and Moran 2004), the Provincial Site Series Mapping Codes and
Typical Environmental Conditions (2003), and the provisional classification of Garry
Oak sites under development by the B.C. Ministry of Forests (D. Meidinger, pers.
comm.).
Classification and characterization of site units was facilitated by the VPro
ecosystem classification tool3 which was used to generate vegetation and environment
tables. This utilized GIF plots from ecosystems featuring Young Forest to Old Forest
structural stages only. Classification emphasizing floristic features has to be used with a
great deal of caution given the disturbance factors that influence species composition in
the study area. These include but are not limited to:
3
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/becweb/resources/software/vpro/overview.html
Page 15
•
•
•
•
•
•
goat and sheep grazing
deer browse
historic First Nations burning and cultivation activities
localized Canada goose and river otter trampling
invasive non-native species
historic agriculture practices
As a result, different plant communities often reflect disturbance history rather than site
differences. Emphasis was thus placed on key site properties when forming initial
classification units, with subsequent refinements generally based on vegetation features.
In addition to the GIF plot data, the classification also drew upon the more than 600
visual plots and notes, as well as local knowledge gained while working in the area. A
description of site units in the provisional classification is contained in Appendix A.
Vegetation summary tables for the CDF site units are included in Appendix G. The
principal forested site units are displayed in Figure 9 in a edatopic grid format, modified
from Green and Klinka (1994).
TABLE 1. CDFmm Provisional Site Classification for Southern Gulf Islands (italicized site
units are not recognized in BEC system)
Forested Site Units
Code
02
50
Name
FdPl-Arbutus
Fd(Qg) – Saskatoon-Herbs
51
FdRa- Salal-Hairy honeysuckle
01
Fd-Salal
52
Fd - Snowberry
03
Fd-Oniongrass
04
FdBg-Oregon grape
53
Qg-Mixed grass
05
06
07
CwFd-Kindbergia
CwBg-Foamflower
Cw-Snowberry
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
Act-Red-osier dogwood
Act_Willow
Pl-Sphagnum
Cw -Skunk cabbage
Cw-Vanilla leaf
Cw - Indian plum
Cw-Slough sedge
4
Soil moisture regime/soil nutrient regime (Green and Klinka 1994)
Comments
0-1/BC4; Green and Klinka (1994)
Marine; 1-2/DE on small rocky islands;
typically surrounded by Juniper-Oak
1-2/BC; shallow rocky soils; drier than
01
3-4/BC; Green and Klinka (1994) with
modified SMR
3/D; dense snowberry-oceanspray with
mixed herbs; typically on small islands
1-2/DE; Green and Klinka (1994) with
modified SMR
modified SMR
3-4/D; oak with lush grass on deep soil;
seral community
Not sampled in southern GI
5-6/DE; Green and Klinka (1994)
High bench floodplain; Green and
Klinka (1994)
7/DE; Green and Klinka (1994)
6f/DE; Green and Klinka (1994)
6-7f/DE; Green and Klinka (1994)
Page 16
Non Forested Site Units
Code
Wetland sites
60
Name
Comments
Pond lily aquatic
61
62
Juncus marsh
Bulrush marsh
63
Reed canarygrass marsh
64
Cattail marsh
65
Sedge fen
66
Shrub swamp
67
Hardhack swamp
68
Seashore saltgrass tidal marsh
69
Glasswort tidal flat
Shallow water Nuphar dominated
(Mackenzie and Moran 2004)
Marsh; Juncus dominated
Marsh; Scirpus lacustris dominated
Marsh; Phalaris arundinacea dominated
(modified wetland); (Mackenzie and
Moran 2004)
Marsh; Typha latifolia dominated
Fen; mixed Carex spp. Dominated
Shrub swamp; willow, spiraea, Cornus,
alder dominated
Shrub swamp; Spiraea douglasii
dominated (Mackenzie and Moran
2004)
Tidal marsh; Distichlis spicata
2004)
Tidal flat; Salicornia virginica dominated
Non-wetland sites
70
Rock bluffs
71
Rock moss-Selaginalla
72
Dunegrass
73
Snowberry
74
Camas-Herbs
75
Juniper-Oak
76
Miner's-lettuce –Beach pea
Hypersteep rock with vegetation
pockets
Moss and patchy grass dominated
bedrock
Marine; European beachgrass and
dunegrass dominated eolian sand
dunes
Marine; 2-3/DE, snowberry dominated
sites, small islands
Marine; 0-1/DE; rocky islets, coastal
fringes of small islands; rich herb
dominated sites
Marine; 1/DE; rocky islets; scrub Garry
oak and juniper with rich herb cover
Marine; 5/E; small islets with imperfectly
drained soils
Page 17
FIGURE 9. Revised edatopic grid for the CDFmm showing principal forested site units.
soil nutrient regime along the X-axis, Soil moisture regime along the Y-axis.
3.6 Building the Attribute Database
3.6.1 The attributing process
This step involves building a database of all the required attributes that are linked to each
polygon in the GIS spatial data. The project objectives specified that stable and dynamic
attributes were to be delineated and tracked separately. This way, a database limited to
stable polygons and attributes could be generated which would serve as a long term
natural ecosystem framework that would not change with short term impacts such as
development, harvesting, etc. Short term changes in dynamic attributes can be tracked
and updated in a separate layer. This maximizes the utility and “shelf-life” of the product.
It also allows park planners to analyze the data more creatively in relation to
developmental impacts on natural ecosystems, ecosystem restoration opportunities,
potential park acquisitions, etc.
The colour-coded polygon linework was designed to assist in attributing by
enabling stable and dynamic polygon features to be visually differentiated. This was
required to ensure that attributes were assigned to the correct polygons. The attribute
process required two passes; the first to assign stable attributes (aspect, site series and site
modifiers, terrain), and the second to assign dynamic attributes (structural stage, use,
Page 18
disturbance history, stand features, fuel type and hazard). Two laptop computers were
utilized, with one running the Excel database in which attribute data were entered, and
the second running ArcMap GIS containing all the required spatial data including the
TEM polygon layer, the colour-coded polygon linework layer, the digital orthophotos,
field inspection data, and historic landcover classification data from 1950 and 1975
airphoto coverage5.
Attributing progressed on a photo-by-photo basis. In the first pass, polygons
contained within the boundaries of a stable unit, or unique stable polygons were selected
in the GIS data, filtered in the Excel database, and attributes assigned based on airphoto
interpretation and supporting information. The latter included the field inspection GIS
databases, as well as available soil survey data (van Vliet et al. 1987). Completed
polygons were tracked in the polygon database. In the second pass, groups or individual
polygons which appeared the share similar dynamic features (e.g. a group of polygons
featuring cultivated fields) were selected in the GIS data, filtered in the Excel database,
and attributes assigned based on airphoto interpretation and supporting information. The
latter included the field inspection GIS databases, historic (1950 and 1975) landcover
classification data, and any available historic data (e.g. Settlement and Land Use History
reports for the Gulf Islands Park Reserve provided by Parks Canada). Completed
polygons were tracked in the polygon database. Examples of original, stable, and
dynamic polygons generated from the database are shown in Figures 10-12.
5
Provided by Parks Canada
FIGURE 10. Original mapped TEM polygons (same area as Figure 8).
FIGURE 11. Stable polygons displaying site units for above area
Page 19
Page 20
FIGURE 12. Dynamic polygons displaying structural stage for above area
3.6.2 Issues related to attributes
In developing the attribute database, a number of issues arose while trying to consistently
assign suitable data values and fields. The key issues are summarized in the following:
3.6.2.1 Disturbance
Estimating disturbance was the most challenging of all the attributes. This reflects the
complex disturbance impacts that have taken place over the study area, the limited
amount of readily available information, and the difficulty in interpreting visible features
in relation to disturbance history. In general, the reliability of the disturbance data
decreases with the number of years since disturbance, with disturbance since 1980 being
the most reliable, and that from pre 1950 being the least reliable. Disturbance was
estimated using field observation data, historic landcover mapping, in particular the 1950
data, available historic data, and photo interpretation. Disturbance dates were estimated
to the decade, which means the disturbance could have occurred any time during that
period, and in most cases such as logging, would have taken place over a number of
years. The following are several observations and assumptions related to the disturbance
data:
•
the majority of stands have experienced fire disturbance at some point due to a
combination of natural fires associated with warm, dry summers and managed
fires by First Nations groups. Mean fire return intervals in the CDF zone have
Page 21
been estimated to be between 100 and 300 years (Parminter 1992). As a result,
fire was considered a “default” disturbance for most forested sites and was only
recorded if other disturbances did not apply.
•
logging to varying degrees has taken place in the majority forests within the study
area. The earliest logging took place during the 1880’s and was most likely
selective6 logging or land clearing. Large scale industrial logging took place on
the large islands during the 1950’s to 1960’s. This is the origin of the majority of
young forests in the study area. Relatively extensive selective logging has taken
place on some islands (e.g. Mayne and North Pender) within the last 10 years.
Overall, the logging history of the study area is complex, with some degree of
clearcut or selective logging occurring in most areas, often with multiple entries.
The logging disturbance data should be considered generalized, with a limited
ability to capture complex, multiple entry disturbances.
•
grazing disturbance was only recorded where it was noted in the field or known to
have been a significant impact. It is not possible to detect grazing disturbance
through photo interpretation. This data can be adjusted later based on more
specific local knowledge.
•
disturbance associated with non-forested sites was generally recorded as
“unknown” as it was not possible to isolate a specific disturbance impact
associated with the current ecosystems.
3.6.2.2 Structural stage
The structural stage of forested ecosystems is a dynamic feature and continuously
changing. For example, the 01 (HwFd – Kindbergia) site unit in the CWHxm1
biogeoclimatic unit represents site conditions that result in a slightly dry to fresh soil
moisture regime and medium soil nutrient regime. The vegetation that develops on this
site varies depending on the time since the last disturbance (Figure 13). The structural
stage of non-forested ecosystems is relatively stable within the time frame relevant to the
applications of this data (e.g. Carex fens remain in a “herb” structural stage unless
something changes in the basic site properties). Structural stage in this project was
recognized using the provincially recognized classes (Table 2; RIC 1998).
6
Selective logging generically used to refer to any partial harvest system where not all trees are harvested.
Page 22
FIGURE 13. Example of structural stage changes that can occur on a CWHxm1/01 site
unit..
TABLE 2. Structural stage classes
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Description
Sparse/bryoid
Herb - herb dominated communities; <10% tree cover, < 20% shrub cover
Shrub/Herb - communities dominated by shrubby vegetation < 10m tall; regen may
be abundant; tree cover < 10%
Pole/Sapling - trees > 10m tall have overtopped shrub and herb layer; dense stands
usually less than 40 yrs since disturbance; includes stagnated older stands
Young Forest - self-thinning evident with canopy layers developed; more open than
PS; usually 40-80 yrs
Mature Forest - main canopy trees mature; well-developed understory often with
advance regen; usually 80-250 yrs
Old Forest - old structurally complex stands with snags and CWD; > 250 yrs
Attributing structural stage was relatively straightforward, with the exception of the Old
Forest class. It was generally not possible to differentiate Mature Forest from Old Forest
based on photo interpretation. Mature Forest was therefore conservatively used for most
older stands, based on the assumption that some logging or fire occurred over most areas,
with old forest remnants mainly occurring as scattered vets. Some areas of old forest
were recognized based on field observations, or photo interpreted features on habitats
where logging was unlikely to have occurred such as steep, inaccessible areas.
3.6.2.3 Fuels and fire hazard
Information on fuels was included in the database in anticipation of subsequent analyses
on wildfire risk and wildfire protection planning. A wildfire risk management system
(WRMS) is based on analysis of probability and consequence of fire, with fire behaviour
(the way a fire ignites and spreads) representing a key component of the probability
rating (B.A. Blackwell and Associates 2005a). Predicting fire behaviour requires
information on the types of forest fuels distributed across the landscape. The Canadian
Page 23
FBP System utilizes a fuel type classification that recognizes 16 national benchmark fuel
types, depending on attributes such as amount of forest cover, tree species composition,
forest age, and ground vegetation. We adopted this system with some modifications to
reflect local forest characteristics for this project. Additional information is included in
the database which is used in the estimation of fire spotting distance, a feature required
for community wildfire protection planning (B.A. Blackwell and Associates 2005b). The
fuel hazard information is used mainly in adjusting fuel types for fire behaviour analysis.
Fuel hazard is based on the estimated loading of surface and crown fuels, and their
connectivity. High hazard fuels are those with a high volume of flammable fuels which
extend from the surface through the crown, in which fire can quickly establish and spread
through the crown. These are generally rare in the study area.
3.6.2.4 Site units
Differentiating site units using photo interpretation was challenging in some cases. The
most difficult to distinguish were 01 and 51; 03 and 02, and 04 and 06. Site units 01 and
51 were sometimes difficult to distinguish because the smooth physiography associated
with shallow soils on sedimentary bedrock often has the appearance of deeper soils. This
combined with the generally limited range in productivity of forests in the Gulf Islands,
resulted in a very similar appearance between 01 and 51 sites under closed canopy
forests. Site units 02 and 03 both feature relatively open canopies and often occur on
similar topgraphic positions, although 03 sites typically occur on shallow weathered
colluvial soils on warm aspects while 02 sites occur on bedrock dominated areas with
pockets of weathered bedrock, on a ridges, as well as warm and cool aspects. Fine
textured glaciomarine soils in swales and valley bottoms support both 04 and 06 site
units. These sites typically featured a deciduous stand component and typically occured
in complexes. Differentiating them was sometimes difficult, and relied on field
observations and relatively subtle physiographic differences.
3.6.3 Editing the attribute database
Once completed, the attribute database was thoroughly reviewed to identify and correct
any errors. This was done by reviewing the database itself, and by reviewing the spatial
display of the database in ArcMap. The database review utilized a series of filtering and
sorting routines in Excel to highlight specific features requiring checking. This focused
on the following issues:
•
•
•
•
•
missing data
incorrect codes
component deciles sum to 10
errors identified by Parks Canada during review of initial draft data
consistency between fields, for example;
o structural stage consistent with site unit (e.g. non-forested sites do not
have forested structural stage)
o stand attributes present for forested structural stages
o crown closure consistent with structural stage
o use consistent with disturbance type and structural stage
Page 24
o terrain consistent with site units
o fuel types, consistent with stand attributes, and fuel hazard
A spatial review of the data was done by displaying selecting themes in ArcMap to
identify any obvious spatial anomalies. The key features assessed included
biogeoclimatic unit, terrain, site units, and structural stage. Themes were also checked
against the digital orthophoto background to look for obvious inconsistencies. A database
dictionary for the TEM attribute database is included in Appendix B.
Page 25
4. RESULTS
4.1 Sampling
A total of 1003 inspections were completed for this project, comprised of 31% ground
inspections, 38% visual inspections, and 31% notes (Table 3). The achieved inspection
density was 12 ha/inspection, which met the target sample density for the level 3 survey
intensity. Table 4 compares sampling intensity of this project to other coastal TEM
projects to put the Gulf Islands in perspective. The Whistler and Capilano projects both
used detailed mapping where site units and structural stage were delineated. The
Strathcona project was designed for slightly broader landscape-level planning and
delineated site units only. The level of sampling used in the Gulf Islands project is
considerably higher than most existing mid-scale ecosystem mapping projects.
Figures 14 to 18 show the spatial distribution of field inspections across the study area.
TABLE 3. Distribution of inspections by type.
Inspection Type
GIF
Visual
Air visual
Note
Total inspections
Mapped area (ha)
Inspection density
(ha/inspection)
Number
Completed
309
335
54
305
1003
12,135
12.1
Proportion
of total (%)
31
33
5
31
100
TABLE 4. Comparison of Gulf Islands sampling with other coastal TEM projects
completed by B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd.
Statistic
Area
Mapping scale
Sample intensity
Inspection
density
(ha/inspection)
Gulf
Islands
12,135
1:10,000
level 3
12
Whistler
Capilano
18,890
1:15,000
level 3
41
19,818
1:15,000
level 3
25
Strathcona
TSA
449,946
1:15,000
level 4
75
FIGURE 14. Field inspection distribution – Mayne and Prevost Islands
FIGURE 15. Field inspection distribution – Pender Islands
Page 26
FIGURE 16. Field inspection distribution – Saturna Island
FIGURE 17. Field inspection distribution – Portland and Moresby Islands
Page 27
Page 28
FIGURE 18. Field inspection distribution – Sidney and D’Arcy Islands
4.2 Polygon Density
A total of 8,292 polygons were mapped in the study area, with an average and median
area of 1.5 ha and 0.7 ha, respectively. Figure 19 shows the frequency distribution of
polygon size, where more than 90% of polygons were less than 3 ha. Table 5 compares
selected polygon statistics of the Gulf Islands project with the other coastal TEM projects
included in Table 3. While the variation in polygon size is similar to other projects (based
on CV), the Gulf Islands is much more detailed as reflected in polygon size. This is a
function of several factors, including the larger scale photography, the high degree of
variation in dynamic features due to development and disturbance history, and the
mapping objectives which emphasized capturing detail in polygon delineations. An
interesting comparison is the original mapped polygons with stable polygons derived
from a GIS dissolve using stable features only. This would be similar to the type of
mapping used in the Strathcona TSA. The number of stable feature polygons is nearly
25% of the number of original mapped polygons, with an average polygon size over three
times the original mapping. Clearly the dynamic features contribute to a significant
amount of mapping detail. The polygon density of the stable Gulf Islands units is still
more than double that of the Strathcona TSA, which is a reflection of the different
mapping scales and objectives.
Page 29
Frequency
6000
120%
5000
100%
4000
80%
3000
60%
2000
40%
1000
20%
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0%
0
0
Polygon area (ha)
Frequency
Cumulative %
FIGURE 19. Frequency distribution of polygon size.
TABLE 5. Comparison of Gulf Islands polygon statistics with other coastal TEM projects
completed by B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd.
7
Whistler
Capilano
Strathcona
TSA
1:10,000
1.5
0.7
Gulf
Islands
stable
units
1:10,000
5.4
2.4
1:15,000
6.1
3.0
1:15,000
7.1
4.7
1:15,000
13.4
8.4
2.6
173
12,135
8,292
683
11.7
216
12,135
2265
187
11.0
180
18,890
3,091
163
10.7
150
19,818
2,777
140
22.4
167
449,946
33,675
75
Statistic
Gulf
Islands
Photo scale
Mean polygon area (ha)
Median polygon area
(ha)
Standard deviation (ha)
CV7 (%)
Mapped area (ha)
Total polygons
Polygon density
(polys/1000 ha)
Coefficient of variation
Page 30
4.3 Biogeoclimatic Units
The southern Gulf Islands is dominated by the CDFmm biogeoclimatic unit, comprising
98% of the study area (Figure 20). The CWHxm1 occurred only on Saturna Island where
it was limited to upper elevations around Mount Warburton Pike. Differentiating the CDF
from the CWH was difficult due to the distribution of sites, disturbance history, and
general lack of distinct diagnostic features. Based on field work in the southern Gulf
Islands and elsewhere on Vancouver Island, we identified a suite of characteristics that
have been found to differentiate these biogeoclimatic units (Table 6).
FIGURE 20. Distribution of the CWHxm1 on Saturna Island.
TABLE 6. Provisional differentiating features between the CDFmm and CWHxm
biogeoclimatic units
8
CDFmm8
Predominant humus form is Moder,
Mullmoder, or Mull
Granular Ah horizon common, even on 01
Salal sites
Mors rare, and <5cm thick
CWHxm
Predominant humus form is Mor
(Hemimor) ~5-10 cm thick
Granular Ah restricted to Vermimull on 0507 sites with silty soil.
Mulls rare
Fd shade tolerant everywhere. Densely
overstocked Fd can occur which is similar to
IDF Fd regen
Growth stagnation in overstocked areas
Fd moderately shade tolerant in CWHxm1
and shade intolerant in CWHxm2, except on
dry sites.
2nd growth stands have narrower range in
based on observations from the southern Gulf Islands
CDFmm8
occurs, wide range in diameters in 2nd
growth stands due to varying crown
positions
Bg occurs on 01 and moister sites
(relatively common). Occasionally present
in B layer on drier sites
Hw very rare or absent. It can occur as a
codominant spp. on cool aspects where a
local seed source exists.
Arbutus common as a minor species on 01
and drier sites, particularly on warm aspects
Fd(RaQg) – Mixed Grass communities
relatively common on warm aspects
Salal generally absent on high-insolation
sites, except in shaded microsites (open
stands on hot aspects)
Undertory veg
Lonicera hispidula common
L. ciliosa common on 01 and drier sites
Garry oak scattered on warm, dry, rich
sites
Rhytidiadelphus triquetris common on 01
sites
Vaccinium parvifolium very rare
Oplopanax horridus absent
Page 31
CWHxm
diameters as less suppression and more
natural thinning
densely overstocked Fd patches rare and
mainly restricted to dry sites
Bg occasionally present on 01 and better
sites in CWHxm1, but relatively rare and
restricted to 05-07 sites in CWHxm2
Hw common as codominant tree on most
sites; can even occur as minor spp. on dry
sites
Arbutus very rare in CWHxm2 and
restricted to dry, warm aspects. It is
relatively uncommon in CWHxm1 and
mainly grows on dry, warm aspect sites
Fd(RaQg) – Mixed Grass communities
absent in xm2 and relatively uncommon in
xm1
Salal presence less limited by high
insolation and present on warm aspects
Lonicera hispidula rare or lacking
L. coliosa restricted to dry sites in xm2;
occasionally on 01 and drier in xm1
Garry oak absent
Rhyt. triquestris restricted to dry sites
Vacc. parvifolium common
Oplopanax occasionally present on moist
rich (riparian) sites
Page 32
4.4 Area summaries of key features
An area summary of mapped site units is shown in Table 7.
TABLE 7. Area summary (ha) for mapped site units.
Site unit
CDFmm
CWHxm1
Total
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
11
13
14
50
51
52
53
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
BE
BK
CB
DM
ES
GP
LA
OW
PD
RO
RZ
TA
Total
3705.1
620.2
391.4
1694.3
3.8
786.8
1.8
24.7
566.8
168.6
7.1
3388.8
31.4
1.4
1.0
2.0
0.2
1.1
15.0
11.7
6.4
4.2
4.4
12.9
133.6
131.8
21.0
3.3
26.5
7.1
0.2
15.1
1.9
14.1
0.5
2.0
1.1
46.9
0.1
11.0
31.4
1.9
0.5
11900.9
141.3
2.6
62.9
23.7
1.7
1.5
3979.5
557.4
510.4
1640.1
5.2
848.3
1.8
10.8
647.8
74.3
6.8
3409.7
30.1
1.4
0.9
2.0
0.4
1.1
15.3
8.0
6.7
5.1
5.0
12.6
90.8
90.7
21.8
3.3
29.8
7.2
0.2
14.6
1.8
14.2
0.5
0.8
1.1
46.9
0.1
9.4
26.0
1.9
0.3
12134.9
0.4
234.0
Page 33
A ranking of the dominant (comprising 95% of mapped area) site units is shown in Table
8. The area encompassed by the CWHxm1 is primarily represented by the 01 site unit,
with the second most significant site being the 03 occurring on shallow, bedrock
controlled terrain. The majority of the study area is encompassed by the CDFmm and is
dominated by “zonal” (01) sites, dry sites on shallow, rocky soils (51, 02, 03), and rich
sites on marine sediments (04, 06, 13). All of these are forested site units. The remaining
5% of the study area is primarily represented by various non or sparsely forested site
units.
TABLE 8. Ranked site units representing 95% of the study area
Site unit
01
51
04
06
02
13
03
14
% mapped
area
31.1%
28.5%
14.2%
6.6%
5.2%
4.8%
3.3%
1.4%
Cumulative %
mapped area
31.1%
59.6%
73.8%
80.5%
85.7%
90.4%
93.7%
95.1%
An area summary of structural stage is shown in Table 9. Young forests are the
most common structural stage, reflecting the extensive logging that took place during the
1950’s and 1960’s. Mature forests are the next most extensive structural stage, and when
combined with young forests, account for nearly 80% of the study area. Herbaceous
cover represents the remaining dominant structural stage. This is associated
predominantly with developed fields and housing and non-forest ecosystems. The
remaining structural stages account for a relatively minor portion of the study area.
TABLE 9. Ranked area summary of structural stage
Structural
stage
5
6
2
4
3
0
1
2x
7
Total
Area (ha)
% mapped area
6495.7
2694.8
1921.1
436.6
258.8
106.0
78.5
78.1
65.3
12134.92
53.5%
22.2%
15.8%
3.6%
2.1%
0.9%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
100.0%
An area summary of use categories is shown in Table 10. Although the southern
Gulf islands are considered to be relatively heavily developed, polygons in which distinct
Page 34
development is evident only comprise 16% of the study area. It is important to recognize
that although an entire private lot may be considered developed in some assessments, this
project only delineated and identified as developed that portion that includes housing,
yards, etc. This is an important consideration when analyzing development trends using
mixed data sources. The categories of use must be defined in the same way to avoid bias
in the results. Of the developed areas mapped, the majority represent agricultural
development, as well as residential buildings and rural areas. Commercial development
only comprised 0.2 % of the study area.
TABLE 10. Ranked area summary of use
Use category
Area (ha)
Undeveloped
Cultivated field
Buildings-residential
Rural
Old field
Cultivated vineyard
Landscaped
Buildings-commercial
Road
Barren land
Airfield
Parking lot
Powerline
Dam, breakwater
Sports facility
Cultivated orchard
Total
10187.5
784.2
642.1
297.6
88.9
31.5
29.5
28.7
20.6
12.3
3.7
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.8
0.4
12134.9
% mapped
area
84.0%
6.5%
5.3%
2.5%
0.7%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
An area summary of terrain groups is shown in Table 11. This is a simplified
portrayal of terrain features, emphasizing the main surficial materials present over the
study area. The dominant surficial deposits include shallow morainal, colluvial, and
residual materials with sedimentary bedrock occurring relatively close to the surface.
This typically grades abruptly into marine deposits which dominate valley bottom and
swale topography, up to about 100m elevation. This reflects isostatic rebound9 which
occurred after retreat of the last glaciers about 12,000 years ago. The shallow soils on
bedrock controlled terrain, and marine deposits in swale topography represents the
dominant terrain pattern, accounting for over 90% of the mapped area. The remaining
area is mainly comprised of exposed bedrock and deep morainal and colluvial deposits. A
detailed description of the soils of the Gulf Islands can be found in van Vliet et al.
(1987).
9
Sea level was much higher relative to land during and after glacial retreat; since then, the land rose (rebounded)
relative to sea level.
Page 35
TABLE 11. Ranked area summary of terrain groups.
Code
Area (ha)
shallow morainal, colluvial, or residual
marine – fine textured
marine - coarse textured
marine - veneer
bedrock
deep morainal or colluvial
organic
water
fluvial or glaciofluvial
anthropogenic
Total
7282.8
2049.2
992.4
803.0
487.6
371.5
59.0
56.1
26.0
7.3
12134.9
% mapped
area
60.0%
16.9%
8.2%
6.6%
4.0%
3.1%
0.5%
0.5%
0.2%
0.1%
100.0%
An area summary of fuel types is shown in Table 12. The distribution of fuel
types follows that of structural stage as the two are closely related. The most common
fuel type is C3 which occurs mainly in young forest structural stages. The 01b fuel type
is also relatively extensive as it is associated with herbaceous and shrub vegetation cover.
The C5 fuel type occurs in association with older forests and comprises 16% of the
mapped area. The C7 fuel type is associated with open-canopy stands with herbaceous or
shrubby understories and is common on dry sites or selectively logged stands where the
overstory cover has been substantially reduced. The C4 and C2 are the most flammable
fuel types, and occur in only 4% of the mapped area.
TABLE 12. Ranked area summary of fuel type
Fuel type
C3
01b
C5
M2
C7
C4
D1
NF
C2
01a
M2R
Total
Area (ha)
4616.9
2349.2
1906.2
1164.9
1074.8
437.4
302.7
182.3
51.0
36.7
12.8
12134.9
% mapped area
38.0%
19.4%
15.7%
9.6%
8.9%
3.6%
2.5%
1.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.1%
100.0%
Page 36
4.5 Issues of Interest
During the field sampling program, a number of issues arose which were felt to have
ecological significance in the study area. These are summarized in the following:
4.5.1 Salal
The distribution of salal varied significantly across the study area and several patterns
emerged in relation to ecological factors.
4.5.1.1 Salal , temperature, and disturbance
Salal appears to exhibit a temperature threshold, limiting its occurrence on warm, high
insolation slopes under open canopy stands. On these sites, salal is typically replaced
with grass dominated vegetation. If present on such sites, salal is restricted to shaded
microsites. Another potential interacting factor of these conditions is the impact of low
intensity surface fires which would have historically occurred on these sites prior to
modern fire suppression. These fires would have typically burned quickly up the slope
and then died out fairly shortly once past the upper slope break. Figure 21 shows a cross
section across a ridge on Tumbo Island. Grass dominated vegetation occurs on the warm
aspect on the left side, grading into a salal dominated understory just past the ridge crest
on the right side of the photo. This pattern was encountered relatively commonly in the
study area.
FIGURE 21. Vegetation pattern across a ridge on Tumbo Island.
A more pronounced example occurs along the top of the steep, grass dominated
“Saturna Bluffs” slopes located on the southern slopes below Mount Warburton Pike.
Mature stands of Douglas-fir along the top of the ridge lack salal in the understory and
are characterized by low cover of grasses and other herbaceous species. Approximately
100m past the slope break, this abruptly changes into a typical salal dominated
community. In addition to the repeated surface fires which likely ran up the grass
dominated slope and over the crest, the exposed physiography of this ridge created a
significant amount of historic windthrow in stands. This is evident in the pronounced
Page 37
mounding in soils along the ridge. Turbation associated with repeated windthrow would
also impact the pattern of vegetation, particularly salal which is generally not favoured on
dynamic soils such as this. Figure 22 illustrates herbaceous vegetation and evidence of
windthrow in mature Douglas-fir stands adjacent to the Saturna Bluff slopes. Figure 23
shows a mature Douglas-fir stand with a dominant salal understory located approximately
120m back from the slope break near the site in Figure 22.
FIGURE 22. Mature stand lacking salal adjacent to Saturna Bluffs slope (plot R-VG7).
FIGURE 23. Mature stand dominated by salal approximately 120m back from the
Saturna Bluffs slope break (plot 15-2F3).
Page 38
4.5.1.2 Salal and humus forms
Salal is a ubiquitous species in the CWH zone of coastal B.C. where it typically favours
acidic, high C/N ratio, organic forest floor substrates, in particular Mor humus forms. On
nutrient rich ecosystems it is generally lacking, or restricted to locally acidic microsites
such as rotten wood. An unusual departure from this occurred in the southern Gulf
Islands. In many 01 sites featuring dominant salal understories, salal was found to be
aggressively rooting in Moder and Mull humus forms, often featuring well developed (510cm thick) granular Ah horizons. Either salal has adapted to different nutritional
conditions in this environment, or nutrient quality of these humus forms is not as rich as
suggested by the biological activity expressed in the upper soil.
4.5.2 Disclimax grass dominated communities
Extensive grass dominated communities are a distinct features of the steep, warm aspect
slopes below Mount Warburton Pike on Saturna Island. We believe these are disclimax
ecosystems which were initially maintained by historic First Nations burning for food
crop management (Boyd 1999, Gedalof et al. 2006), and subsequently by intensive
grazing by feral goats (Golumbia 2006). Repeated surface fires, extensive dominance by
grasses, particularly introduced species, and intensive grazing has precluded tree
establishment on sites that would otherwise support forest growth. Similar sites
elsewhere in the study area typically support dry, relatively open forest ecosystems, often
complexes of 03, 02, 70, and 71 site units. Figure 25 shows an example of an old forest
03 ecosystem located adjacent to the west edge of the main Saturna Bluffs grass
disclimax unit. This likely represents what much of the bluffs area would have looked
like in the absence of historic burning and grazing impacts.
Evidence of logs or stumps from historic forest cover is likely lacking in the
disclimax ecosystems due to the intense decomposition that takes place on these sites.
Because of warm temperatures and extensive grass swards throughout the upper soil,
weathering is very strong, as evidenced by the complete decomposition of sandstone
coarse fragments in the shallow colluvial parent materials.
Grass-dominated ecosystems are still being created through recent clearing of
forest cover adjacent to the existing disclimax ecosystems. Extensive cover of introduced
grass species quickly becomes established after tree removal. Dense grass swards create
high evapotranspiration demand, creating droughty surface soils that make regeneration
of trees difficult. Aggressive grazing by feral goats further precludes successful tree
regeneration. Figure 26 shows a grass dominated ecosystem where trees were removed
for the Mount Warburton Pike radio tower. Rapidly decomposing stumps, and severely
grazed Douglas-fir regeneration are evident. Figure 27 shows a relatively recent clearcut
block adjacent to the eastern end of the Saturna Bluffs, where a dominant grass cover has
established, limiting regeneration of Douglas-fir.
Page 39
FIGURE 24. Grass dominated disclimax ecosystem on Saturna Bluffs (plot 15-1FS1).
FIGURE 25. Old Forest 03 site unit adjacent to Saturna Bluffs (plot 15-2G7).
Page 40
FIGURE 26. Grass dominated ecosystem on former mature forest site cleared for radio
tower (plot R-VG6).
FIGURE 27. Grass dominated ecosystem established following clearcut logging (plot
A_VG14).
Page 41
4.5.3 Garry oak
Garry oak is considered an important feature of the coastal Mediterranean-like climate
characteristic of the CDFmm biogeoclimatic unit. Garry oak ecosystems are restricted
mainly to the southeast coast of Vancouver Island and the southern Gulf Islands, and are
considered an at-risk ecosystem. Within the area encompassed by this study, Garry oak
was relatively rare, occurring mainly as scattered individuals on some warm aspect sites,
and on rocky islets. It was only encountered once on cool aspects where it occurred as an
isolated individual on an 02 site. Stands of Garry oak were rare, and occurred most
commonly as shrub-sized communities on the Juniper-Oak site unit distributed mainly on
rocky islets. Garry oak was observed in 28 (4%) of the 644 ground and visual
inspections. It was observed (through air photo interpretation and field observation) in
184 mapped polygons representing 248 ha. Figure 29 shows example of Garry oak trees
that are relatively easy to identify on air photos. This was generally the case where trees
were large and growing in the open. Smaller trees or stands with more closely spaced
canopies were difficult to identify. In these cases, oak presence could only be confirmed
through ground verification data. Although this was not a comprehensive survey
targeting Garry oak distribution, it is a reasonable sample which indicates it does not
occur commonly in the southern Gulf Islands. A more accurate inventory of the
distribution of Garry oak stands could be achieved through a comprehensive helicopter
based survey. Site units which have the greatest probability of supporting Garry oak are
shown in Table 13.
FIGURE 28. Garry oak trees visible on air photo (within blue line)
TABLE 13. Site units with the greatest probability of supporting Garry oak.
Site unit
Fd-Oniongrass
Qg-Mixed Grass
Code
50
03
53
Page 42
Juniper-Oak
75
4.5.4 Western hemlock
Western hemlock occurs rarely in the CDF because of the relatively dry , warm climate.
It was generally absent or rare in most of the study area, with the exception of Saturna
and Tumbo Islands. On these islands, healthy codominant hemlock were present in some
01 sites on cool aspects across all elevations. It is believed this anomaly reflects an
abundant seed source originating from the common hemlock present in the CWHxm1 on
Saturna Island. Westerly to southerly winds would distribute seeds across Saturna and
Tumbo Islands where regeneration was able to survive on cooler aspects.
Page 43
5. Data Maintenance
In any inventory database such as this, changes will be required over time which reflect:
i) errors identified in the data as it is applied, and ii) changes to dynamic attributes. In
developing a strategy for data maintenance, the first step is to create a “lockdown”
version of the original delivered data which will serve as the backup reference. Any
subsequent revisions are then made to dated copies. This data should also then be split
into two layers: one representing stable units and one representing dynamic units. This
will make it significantly easier to make and track revisions. Corrections made to errors
also require additional database fields which include the revision author, the revision
date, and a brief explanation of the revision. Revisions to reflect changes in dynamic
attributes should be done at periodic intervals appropriate for planning schedules. The
current data should be suitable for developing the “State of the Park” report and Park
Management Plan underway. The timing for data updates will depend on the significance
of changes in relation to park planning needs. Updating dynamic attributes will focus
mainly on significant changes that take place to forested ecosystems. This can include
development, harvesting, disturbance (fire, windthrow), or disease (root rot). Changes
can be captured through several methods. For small or very localized areas, boundaries
can be surveyed using handheld GPS units and merged into the TEM data, with
appropriate attributes added. Note that for changes in dynamic features, the stable
attributes remain the same as the “parent” polygon. Larger or more frequently occurring
changes in dynamic features can be digitized from new digital orthophotos. This is a
simple process where changes such as clearing, development, etc are readily visible and
easily captured directly on the orthophotos. Satellite imagery may also be used for this
purpose, provided the resolution is sufficiently high to be able to identify changed
features and delineate boundaries with appropriate accuracy. It is important to recognize
that the resolution of the original inventory was based on 1:10,000 scale photographs.
The thickness of the polygon boundaries drawn on the photographs represents 3-4m on
the ground. Therefore, attempting to capture changes with precision below 3-4 m is
inconsistent with the inventory. Figure 29 illustrates an example of change to structural
stage associated with harvesting a mature stand.
Page 44
FIGURE 29. Example of structural stage changes associated with recent harvesting. The
hatched area is mapped as “mature forest” structural stage; the newly created
“shrub/herb” stage of the recent cutblock is visible below. Given sufficient time, this will
shift back to a mature forest stage.
6. Conclusion
The data generated from this study provides a detailed inventory of ecosystems of the
Gulf Islands Park Reserve and the surrounding southern Gulf Islands. Mapping was
undertaken at a 1:10,000 scale, and was supported with a thorough field sampling
program that generated 1000 observations over the 12,000 ha study area. It employed
innovative terrestrial ecosystem mapping methods in which natural “stable” features
representing site units and terrain properties were mapped and tracked separately from
dynamic features such as structural stage, development, stand composition, etc. This
resulted in a flexible ecological database which will have long term viability.
Differentiating the stable from dynamic ecosystem components allows for efficient
updating of changes that will occur over time. This differs from many traditional
terrestrial ecosystem mapping databases where dynamic features are incorporated in the
basic polygon delineations, essentially dating the inventory to the year of photography
and precluding efficient data updating. In addition to ecosystem attributes, this inventory
captured data on type of use for developed areas (a dynamic feature), as well as
disturbance history. Since these features were tracked separately from the stable site
properties, it allows for powerful database analyses of the types of uses and major
disturbance types which have occurred on the range of sites found in the southern Gulf
Islands. As these features were mapped irrespective of administrative or property
boundaries, it provides a real picture of the pattern of disturbance and uses in relation to
the natural distribution of ecosystems. A simple example is the observation that about
Page 45
2% of 01 site units are cultivated for agriculture compared to 21% of fresh, rich site units
(04, 06, 13). This reflects the better agricultural suitability of fine textured marine soils
occurring in valley bottoms that support fresh, rich sites. This type of information has
implications for park management in planning ecosystem restoration priorities for old
fields.
One of the more significant challenges faced during the mapping process was the
extensive impact of disturbance on vegetation composition. The major disturbance factor
which historically and currently impacts ecosystems is grazing by feral goats, sheep, and
deer. This varies with location, with the most dramatic impacts occurring on Sidney
Island where high population densities of fallow deer have decimated native vegetation
over much of the island (Figure 30).
FIGURE 30. Deer exclosure on Sidney Island showing native vegetation within
exclosure on left and browsed vegetation outside exclosure on right.
Impacts are significant but less severe on Saturna Island, while the Pender Islands appear
to show generally lower impacts among the large islands. In addition to grazing,
vegetation has also been influenced by historic First Nations burning and cultivation
practices, historic agricultural development, logging, and the spread of invasive species,
particularly grasses. In addition, fire suppression practices since the 1950’s have limited
a significant ecosystem process which has had an impact on current stand and vegetation
development on some sites. The overall affect of these impacts is that vegetation present
on many ecosystems reflects factors other than site conditions, making it less reliable for
site classification. It is important that classification and identification of sites emphasize
soil, physiography, and other site properties, with vegetation used cautiously to ensure
Page 46
units represent different sites, not disturbance histories. The provisional site classification
for this project was developed with this in mind.
The relative impacts of historic disturbances on ecosystem development is
probably the single most important subject for future research. This is a very complex
issue which not only influences site classification and identification, but also park
management. Ecosystem restoration projects aim to move existing modified ecosystems
to more natural conditions. A key requirement is understanding the natural conditions to
work towards so appropriate processes and treatments can be prescribed. Differentiating
effects of “non natural” disturbance from natural processes is critical to correctly
implementing ecosystem restoration.
Page 47
7. REFERENCES
B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd. 2005a. Resort Municipality of Whistler wildfire risk
management system. Contract report to the Resort Municipality of Whistler.
(http://www.whistler.ca/images/stories/PDF/Fire/RMOW_Wildfire_Risk_Manage
ment_System_FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf)
B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd. 2005b. Resort Municipality of Whistler community
wildfire protection planning – considerations for wildland, urban interface
management. Contract report to the Resort Municipality of Whistler.
(http://www.whistler.ca/images/stories/PDF/Fire/RMOW_Wildfire_Community_
Protection_Plan_final%5B1%5D.pdf)
Boyd, R. (ed.). 1999. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State
University Press, Corvallis, OR.
Canadian Hydrographics Service. 1980. Gulf Islands: Victoria Harbour to Nanaimo
Harbour. Strait of Georgia small-craft chart. Government of Canada. Fisheries
and Oceans, Hydrographic Service. Ottawa.
Gedalof, G., M. Pellatt, and D.J. Smith. 2006. From Prairie to Forest: Three Centuries of
Environmental Change at Rocky Point, Vancouver Island, British Columbia.
Northwest Science 80:34-46.
Golumbia, T. 2006. A history of species introductions in Gwaii Haanas and Gulf Islands
National Park Reserves in British Columbia, Canada: Implications for park
management. Trans. W. Sect. Wildl. Soc. 42: 20-34.
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.
Howes, D.E. and E. Kenk. 1997. Terrain classification system for British Columbia,
Version 2. MOE Manual 10. B.C. Min. Environment, Lands and parks and
Ministry of Crown Lands, Victoria, B.C.
MacKenzie, W.H. and J.R. Moran. 2004. Wetlands of British Columbia: a guide to
identification. Res. Br., B.C. Min. For., Victoria, B.C. Land Manage. Handb. No.
52.
Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar (eds.), 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. B.C. Min. For.,
Special Report Series 6. Victoria, B.C.
Parminter, J. 1992. Typical historic pattern of wWildfire disturbance by biogeoclimatic
zone. B.C. Ministry of Forests. Victoria, B.C.
Page 48
Resources Inventory Committee (RIC). 1998. Standard for terrestrial ecosystem mapping
in British Columbia. B.C. Min. Env., Resources Inventory Committee, Victoria,
B.C.
Roemer, H. 1972. Forest vegetation and environments on the Saanich Peninsula,
Vancouver Island. University of Victoria. Victoria, B.C.
van Vliet, L.J.P, A.J. Green, and E.A. Kenney. 1987. Soils of the Gulf Islands of British
Columbia. Report No. 43 British Columbia Soil Survey. Land Resource Research
Centre, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada.
Page 49
8. APPENDIX A: CDFmm Provisional Site Classification for Southern
Gulf Islands
Classification Outline
Non Forested Site Units
Code
Wetland sites
60
Name
Comments
Pond lily aquatic
61
62
Juncus marsh
Bulrush marsh
63
64
Cattail marsh
65
Sedge fen
66
Shrub swamp
67
Hardhack swamp
68
Seashore saltgrass tidal marsh
69
Marsh; Phalaris arundinacea dominated
(modified wetland); (Mackenzie and
Moran 2004)
Fen; mixed Carex spp. Dominated
Shrub swamp; willow, spiraea, Cornus,
alder dominated
Shrub swamp; Spiraea douglasii
2004)
Tidal marsh; Distichlis spicata
2004)
Non-wetland sites
70
Rock bluffs
71
72
Dunegrass
73
Snowberry
74
Camas-Herbs
75
Juniper-Oak
76
Miner's-lettuce –Beach pea
Hypersteep rock with vegetation
pockets
Moss and patchy grass dominated
bedrock
Marine; European beachgrass and
dunegrass dominated eolian sand
dunes
Marine; 2-3/DE, snowberry dominated
sites, small islands
Marine; 0-1/DE; rocky islets, coastal
fringes of small islands; rich herb
dominated sites
Marine; 1/DE; rocky islets; scrub Garry
oak and juniper with rich herb cover
Marine; 5/E; small islets with imperfectly
drained soils
Page 50
Forested Site Units
Code
02
50
Name
FdPl-Arbutus
51
FdRa- Salal-Hairy honeysuckle
01
Fd-Salal
52
Fd - Snowberry
03
Fd-Oniongrass
04
FdBg-Oregon grape
53
Qg-Mixed grass
05
06
07
CwFd-Kindbergia
CwBg-Foamflower
Cw-Snowberry
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
Act_Willow
Pl-Sphagnum
Cw -Skunk cabbage
Cw-Vanilla leaf
Cw - Indian plum
Cw-Slough sedge
10
Soil moisture regime/soil nutrient regime (Green and Klinka 1994)
Comments
0-1/BC10; Green and Klinka (1994)
Marine; 1-2/DE on small rocky islands;
typically surrounded by Juniper-Oak
1-2/BC; shallow rocky soils; drier than
01
3-4/BC; Green and Klinka (1994) with
modified SMR
3/D; dense snowberry-oceanspray with
mixed herbs; typically on small islands
modified SMR
modified SMR
3-4/D; oak with lush grass on deep soil;
seral community
High bench floodplain; Green and
Klinka (1994)
7/DE; Green and Klinka (1994)
Page 51
Description of Units (based on Young, Mature, and Old Forest stands)
Code: 02
Name: CDFmm/FdPl-Arbutus
Samples: GIF-28, VIS-13
Synopsis. Very dry, nutrient poor to medium sites commonly distributed on bedrock
ridges,and slopes; soils primarily weathered bedrock with trees rooting in very thin
veneers and fractured rock; soil depth highly variable with occasional deeper pockets;
bedrock outcrops frequent which limits tree cover; forests are typically open and feature
Douglas-fir and arbutus with occasional lodgepole pine; gnarly Garry oak occur rarely;
understory vegetation characterized by a well developed moss layer featuring
Racomitrium, Dicranum, Rhtidiadelphus triquestris, and varying lichen (Cladina) cover;
accompanied by hairy honeysuckle, patchy salal and mixed grasses.
Sample summary
Frequency of samples
Aspect:
Gentle(40%),
cool(16%), warm(44%)
SMR
0-1(45%), 1(40%), 1-2
(15%)
SNR
B(45%), BC(15%),
C(40%)
Humus form
Mor(15%), Mormoder
(10%), Moder(60%),
Mull(15%)
Drainage
Rapid (100%)
Parent material Dv(50%), Cv(30%),
R(20%)
Texture
LS-S(60%), SL (40%),
Means of samples
Slope
27% (0-85%)
Forest floor depth
3cm (1-8cm)
Coarse fragments
36% (10-75%)
Root restriction
25cm(10-50cm) to
rock; highly variable
Tree cover
Shrub cover
40% (5-80%)
22% (2-60%)
Herb cover
Moss cover
28% (3-70%)
50% (10-90%)
Other Classifications
As per Green and Klinka (1994) site series 02 (less Holodiscus, more Racomitrium,
lichens)
Page 52
Code:50
Name: CDFmm/FdQg-Saskatoon-Herb
Synopsis. Dry, nutrient rich forested ecosystems on shallow rocky soils with moderate
“marine”influence; typically found on small to medium sized rocky islets, typically
distributed away from the coastal fringes; moderate saltspray/wind influence, as well as
possible historic bird guano accumulations and other nutrient inputs; forests are very
open and feature gnarly Douglas-fir with minor Garry oak and arbutus; understory
vegetation features a moderately well developed shrub layer with Saskatoon,
oceanspray, snowberry, and Nootka rose; the diverse herbaceous cover typically
features seablush, camas, stonecrop, and a variety of herbs such as white fawn lily,
sanicle, etc.
Sample summary (sample size too small for summary)
Aspect:
Gentle
SMR
1
SNR
D
Humus form
Mull-moder
Drainage
Well
Parent material Dv
Texture
LS-SL
Not recognized in Green and Klinka (1994)
Means of samples
Slope
Forest floor depth
Coarse fragments
Root restriction
Tree cover
Shrub cover
Herb cover
Moss cover
5%
9cm
30%
35cm to rock
24%
45%
65%
25%
Page 53
Code:03
Name: CDFmm/Fd-Oniongrass
Synopsis Dry, nutrient rich sites commonly distributed on shallow soils on warm slopes
and adjacent ridges; often complexed with rock bluffs on accumulations of shallow
colluvium; a key feature is high insolation due to physiography and characteristic open
canopies, forests are typically open and feature Douglas-fir, arbutus, and varying
amounts of Garry oak; the shrub layer includes primarily hairy honeysuckle, with salal
rare due to high surface temperatures; mixed grass cover is a characteristic feature, with
a variety of herbs such as cleavers, sanicle, woodland tarweed, dovefoot geranium, and
hairy cat's-ear; species composition is highly variable due to disturbance history such as
grazing, Garry oak has the highest probability of occurring as a seral tree species on
these sites although its presence is variable and relatively uncommon
Sample summary
Aspect:
Warm(65%), cool
(17%), gentle(18%)
SMR
0-1(19%), 1(23%), 12(27%), 2(27%), 23(4%)
SNR
CD(30%), D(70%),
Humus form
Moder(14%), Mullmoder
(18%), Mull(69%)
Drainage
Rapid (73%), well(27%)
Parent material Cv(64%), Dv(27%),
Mv(5%), WG(5%)
Texture
SL(60%), LS-S(30%),
SiL-L(10%)
Means of samples
Slope
43% (0-100%)
Forest floor depth
1cm (1-8cm)
Coarse fragments
Root restriction
Tree cover
Shrub cover
33% (3-70%)
38cm(12-70cm) to
rock;
33% (2-60%)
13% (0-60%)
Herb cover
66% (30-100%)
Moss cover
19% (0-70%)
As per Green and Klinka (1994) site series 03 (less Garry oak, Rhytidiadelphus
triquestris, more Lonicera hispidula
MOF Garry oak classification: similar to Quercus-Fescue where oak present
Page 54
Code:51
Name: CDFmm/FdRa-Salal-Hairy
honeysuckle
Synopsis Dry, nutrient poor to medium sites on shallow well drained soils; SMR 1-2,
SNR B-C; commonly distributed on shallow bedrock controlled ridges, benches, and
slopes where trees root in shallow soils and fractured bedrock; forests are moderately
dense and feature Douglas-fir and arbutus with varying amounts of redcedar; understory
vegetation typically features moderate salal and hairy honeysuckle cover with varying
Oregon grape, orange honeysuckle, and baldhip rose in the shrub layer; herbs and
mosses typically include varying cover of mixed grasses with Eurynchium oreganum,
Rhytidiadelphus triquestris, and occasional Hylocomium splendens in the moss layer.
Sample summary
Aspect:
Gentle(40%),
cool(27%), warm(33%)
SMR
1(27%), 1-2(23%),
2(43%), 2-3(7%)
SNR
B(27%), C(67%),
CD(6%)
Humus form
Mor(17%), Mormoder
(13%), Moder(53%),
Mullmoder(17%)
Drainage
Parent material Dv(40%), Mv(30%),
Cv(19%), WGv(11%)
Texture
SL(36%), LS (52%),
SiL-L(12%)
Means of samples
Slope
20% (0-55%)
Forest floor depth
3cm (1-8cm)
Coarse fragments
44% (15-70%)
Root restriction
53cm(20-70cm) to
rock;
Tree cover
Shrub cover
60% (40-75%)
40% (2-90%)
Herb cover
17% (0-60%)
Moss cover
43% 0-90%)
Not recognized in Green and Klinka (1994); straddles current 02 and 01 site series
Page 55
Code:01
Name: CDFmm/Fd-Salal
Synopsis:”zonal”site unit for CDFmm; well-moderately well drained soils; SMR 3-4, SNR
B-C; widely distributed on a range of parent materials, slopes and aspects; forests
dominated by Douglas-fir with varying amounts of redcedar, arbutus, and occasionally,
grand fir; understory typically features salal, Oregon grape, with varying amounts of
oceanspray, honeysuckle (hairy and orange), and dominant Eurynchium oreganum
moss cover
Sample summary
Aspect:
Cool(27%), warm(21%),
gentle(52%)
SMR
2-3(20%), 3(60%),
4(20%)
SNR
BC(6%), C(87%),
CD(3%)
Humus form
Mor(11%), Mormoder
(10%), Moder(42%),
Mullmoder(23%),
Mull(15%)
Drainage
Rapid(13%), well(73%),
mod.well (13%),
Parent material Cw(12%), Dw(10%),
FG(10%), Mw(30%),
WG(38%)
Texture
LS-S(53%), SiL-SiCL
(15%), SL(28%)
Means of samples
Slope
19% (0-80%)
Forest floor depth
3cm (1-8cm)
Coarse fragments
33% (0-90%)
90=talus
90cm, rock in 16%
of plots
Root restriction
Tree cover
68% (30-86%)
Shrub cover
43% (0-100%)
Herb cover
9% (0-60%)
Moss cover
19% (0-90%)
As per Green and Klinka (1994) site series 01 (less Mahonia, grand fir; more Lonicera)
Page 56
Code:52
Name: CDFmm/Fd-Snowberry
Synopsis Moderately dry, nutrient (medium) rich sites on well drained marine soils;
SMR 3, SNR (C)D; commonly distributed on small islands with limited “marine”influence;
forests are typically open and feature Douglas-fir and varying arbutus; understory
vegetation is characterized by a dense cover of snowberry and oceanspray, with varying
amounts of honeysuckle (hairy and orange), falsebox, and rose species; herbaceous
species can include mixed grasses, trailing blackberry, twinflower, peavine, sanicle, etc.;
mosses are mainly limited to Eurhnchium oreganum.
Sample summary
Aspect:
Gentle(100%)
SMR
3(100%)
SNR
D(50%), CD(50%)
Humus form
Moder (50%),
Mullmoder(30%), Mull
(20%)
Drainage
Rapid(43%),well(43%),
mod. well(43%)
Parent material WG(83%), Mv(17%)
Texture
LS(57%), SL(43%)
Means of samples
Slope
Forest floor depth
Coarse fragments
Root restriction
Tree cover
45% (30-60%)
Shrub cover
Herb cover
Moss cover
88% (80-90%)
35% (20-60%)
24% (0-40%)
Mapcodes11: similar to “Qg-Oceanspray” but lacks Garry oak.
11
Provincial Site Series & Map Code List, 2006
1% (0-4%)
5cm (2-10cm)
37% (5-65%)
50cm to rock in 1
plot
Page 57
Code:04
Name: CDFmm/FdBg-Oregon grape
Synopsis Moderately dry, nutrient rich sites commonly distributed on glaciomarine and
marine soils in valley bottoms and swale topography at higher elevations; less frequently
on colluvial slopes; typically complexed with moist/rich sites (site series 06, 13, 14) on
marine soils; forests are moderately dense and feature Douglas-fir, red alder, redcedar,
and varying amounts of bigleaf maple and grand fir; deciduous stands dominated by red
alder are common; understory vegetation is characterized by a well developed herb
layer featuring swordfern and a variety of species such as cleavers, vanilla leaf, wall
lettuce, and stinging nettle; these sites have commonly been developed for agriculture
due to favourable soils and physiography.
Sample summary
Aspect:
Gentle(50%), cool
(32%), warm(18%)
SMR
3(11%), 4(83%), 5 (8%)
SNR
D(100%),
Means of samples
Slope
Humus form
Root restriction
Drainage
Parent material
Texture
(15%), Mull(73%)
Well (65%), mod. well
(32%), imperfect(3%)
WG(64%), Dv(27%),
Mv(5%), Cv(5%)
SL(40%), LS-S(40%),
SiL-CL(20%)
Tree cover
17% (0-70%)
steep slopes on Cv
2cm (1-10cm)
25% (0-70%)
high CF on Cv
50cm(30-70cm) to
pan in 18% of plots;
66% (50-85%)
Shrub cover
16% (0-80%)
Herb cover
52% (1-90%)
Moss cover
19% 0-75%)
Forest floor depth
Coarse fragments
As per Green and Klinka (1994) site series 04 (significantly less Holodiscus, Mahonia,
salal, more Polystichum munitum)
Page 58
Code:53
Name: CDFmm/Qg-Grass
Synopsis..Moderately dry, nutrient rich sites on relatively deep, sandy glaciomarine
soils; this represents the Garry oak woodland community on deep soils more commonly
found in the southern Vancouver Island area; these ecosystems are very rare on the
southern Gulf Islands, with the best example found on Tumbo Island; vegetation is
characterized by open Garry oak forests with a lush cover of mixed grasses and a
variety of herbs such as cleavers, sanicle, vetch, hairy cat’s ear, etc.; species
composition is highly variable, depending on disturbance history; although classified as
a site series due to their conservation significance, these are more likely seral
ecosystems shifting over time to Douglas-fir dominated 04 sites in the absence of fire
disturbance (Gedalof et al 2006, Franklin and Dyrness 1973).
Aspect:
Gentle
SMR
3-4
SNR
D
Humus form
Mull
Drainage
Well
Parent material WG
Texture
S
Means of samples
Slope
Forest floor depth
Coarse fragments
Root restriction
Tree cover
Shrub cover
Herb cover
Moss cover
Mapcodes: similar to “QB-Quercus-Brome”
MOF Garry oak classification: similar to Quercus-Camassia-Elymus
2%
1cm
5%
35%
2%
75%
0%
Page 59
Code:06
Name: CDFmm/CwBg-Foamflower
Synopsis. Fresh to moist, nutrient rich sites commonly distributed on glaciomarine and
marine soils in valley bottoms and swale topography at higher elevations; typically
complexed with site series 04, 13, and 14; soils typically feature a dense layer that
impedes soil drainage; gleying (mottles) is a common indicator of additional soil
moisture; forests are moderately dense and feature red alder, bigleaf maple, redcedar,
Douglas-fir and varying amounts of grand fir; deciduous stands dominated by red alder
are common; understory vegetation is characterized by a well developed herb layer
featuring swordfern and a variety of species such as stinging nettle, cleavers, vanilla
leaf, and stinging nettle; varying cover of Eurhynchium praelongum, Plagiomnium
insigne, and Rhytidiadelphus triquestris typically comprise the moss layer; these sites
have commonly been developed for agriculture due to favourable soils and
physiography.
Sample summary
Aspect:
Gentle(80%), cool
(20%)
SMR
5(35%), 5-6(10%), 6
(55%)
SNR
D(95%), E(5%)
Humus form
(5%), Mull(85%)
Means of samples
Slope
4% (0-25%)
Forest floor depth
2cm (1-25cm)
Coarse fragments
Root restriction
Drainage
Tree cover
10% (0-40%)
45cm (24-70cm) to
gleying/pan in 70%
of plots
63% (40-85%)
Shrub cover
Herb cover
12% (0-70%)
62% (0-90%)
Moss cover
23% 0-60%)
Parent material
Texture
Imperfect (84%), poor
(16%)
WG(100%)
Fine (SiCL,SiL,SCL)
(50%), S(30%), SL
(20%)
As per Green and Klinka (1994) site series 06 (significantly less Mahonia, hemlock,
more Urtica dioca)
Page 60
Code:13
Name: CDFmm/Cw-Indian plum
Name: CDFmm/13 Cw-Indian plum
Synopsis.. strongly fluctuating watertable site featuring fresh summer moisture and wet
winter moisture; distributed on poorly drained glaciomarine and marine soils in flat
swales and valley bottoms; all sites have dense subsoils that restrict drainage; gleying
(mottles) is a characteristic indicator of additional soil moisture; often complexed with
site series 14 or 06; these sites have commonly been developed for agriculture due to
favourable soils and physiography, with some current forest stands having developed on
abandoned old fields; .vegetation is highly variable due to disturbance history; forests
are relatively open and feature Douglas-fir, redcedar, grand fir, and red alder, trembling
aspen and cottonwood may be present on some sites; a variable shrub layer may
include red-osier dogwood, salmonberry, and salal; varying amounts of swordfern,
slough sedge, horsetail, etc. comprise the herb layer; cleared fields on these sites often
include Juncus effusus which indicates seasonally wet soils.
Sample summary
Aspect:
Gentle(100%)
SMR
6f(70%), 5-6f(30%)
SNR
D(70%), E(30%)
Humus form
Mull(100%)
Means of samples
Slope
Forest floor depth
Coarse fragments
Root restriction
Drainage
Tree cover
0%
1cm (1-2cm)
8% (0-15%)
35cm (20-60cm) to
gleying/pan in 100%
of plots
54% (35-70%)
Shrub cover
Herb cover
39% (2-100%)
42% (4-80%)
Moss cover
16% 0-40%)
Parent material
Texture
Poor(70%), imperfect
(30%)
WG(100%)
Fine (CL,SiC)(70%),
S(30%)
As per Green and Klinka (1994) site series 13 (significant floristic dissimilarity due to
effects of disturbance history, and the location of Green and Klinka (1994) data from
central coastal Vancouver Island)
Page 61
Code:14
Name: CDFmm/ Cw-Slough sedge
Synopsis strongly fluctuating watertable site featuring moist summer moisture and very
wet winter moisture, often with standing water; distributed on poorly drained
glaciomarine and marine soils in flat swales and valley bottoms; all sites have dense
subsoils that restrict drainage; gleying (mottles) is a characteristic indicator of additional
soil moisture, although watertables are often present during the summer; often
complexed with site series 13; forests are relatively open and feature red alder and
varying amounts of trembling aspen; understory vegetation is distinctive with a lush
cover of slough sedge, and only minor amounts of other species such as Pacific crab
apple, red-osier dogwood, etc.
Sample summary
Aspect:
Gentle(100%)
SMR
6f(50%), 7(50%)
SNR
D(100%)
Humus form
Mull(30%), Moder
(70%)
Means of samples
Slope
Forest floor depth
Coarse fragments
Root restriction
Drainage
Parent material
Texture
Tree cover
Shrub cover
Herb cover
0%
23cm (5-35cm)
10% (0-45%)
30cm (20-50cm) to
gleying/pan in 100%
of plots
55% (40-65%)
10% (0-25%)
90% (85-100%)
Moss cover
0% (0-2%)
Poor(100%)
WG(100%)
Fine (CL,SiC)(50%),
S(50%)
As per Green and Klinka (1994) site series 14
Page 62
Code:60
Name: CDFmm/Pond lily aquatic
Synopsis. Shallow water wetland type dominated by Nuphar lutea
Summary 12
Wetland class
Aspect:
SMR
Shallow-water
Gentle
n/a
SNR
pH
Hydro index
Wetlands of B.C.: Yellow pond lily shallow water ecosystem
12
based on MacKenzie and Moran. 2004.
n/a
MA-SA
n/a
Page 63
Code:61
Name: CDFmm/ Juncus marsh
Synopsis. Marsh wetland type dominated by Juncus species (common rush, spike rush)
with varying amounts of Carex, water parsely and other wetland species
Summary
Wetland class
Aspect:
SMR
Marsh wetland
Gentle
Wet
SNR
pH
Hydro index
Wetlands of B.C.: weakly related to Wm04 Common spike rush
Rich
SA-N
Dy
Page 64
Code:62
Name: CDFmm Bulrush marsh
Synopsis. Marsh wetland type dominated by Scirpus lacustris; only found on Sidney
Island
Summary
Wetland class
Aspect:
SMR
Marsh wetland
Gentle
Very wet
SNR
pH
Hydro index
Wetlands of B.C.: similar to Wm06 Great bulrush
Rich
N
Dy-VD
Page 65
Code:63
Name: CDFmm/Reed canarygrass marsh Samples: GIF-1, VIS-0
Synopsis. Marsh wetland type dominated by Phalaris arundinacea; modified wetland
from drainage and historic agriculture; only found on South Pender Island
Summary
Wetland class
Aspect:
SMR
Marsh wetland
Gentle
Very moist
Wetlands of B.C.: Reed canarygrass marsh
SNR
pH
Hydro index
Rich
SA
Dy
Page 66
Code:64
Name: CDFmm/Cattail marsh
Synopsis. Marsh wetland type dominated by Typha latifolia; most common wetland
found in southern Gulf Islands
Summary
Wetland class
Aspect:
SMR
Marsh wetland
Gentle
Very wet
Wetlands of B.C.: Wm05 Cattail
SNR
pH
Hydro index
Very rich
N
Mo-Dy
Page 67
Code:65
Name: CDFmm/Sedge fen
Synopsis. Fen wetland type dominated by mixed Carex species (e.g. Carex sitchensis,
Carex sylvatica, Carex obnupta)
Summary
Wetland class
Aspect:
SMR
Fen wetland
Gentle
Wet-very moist
SNR
pH
Hydro index
Wetlands of B.C.: similar to Wf51 Sitka sedge-Peat moss
Rich
SA
Sl
Page 68
Code:66
Name: CDFmm/Shrub swamp
Synopsis. Swamp wetland type dominated by shrub species including willows,
hardhack, red-osier dogwood, and shrub-sized red alder.
Summary
Wetland class
Aspect:
SMR
Swamp wetland
Gentle
Wet-very moist
Not recognized
NO PHOTOS
SNR
pH
Hydro index
Rich
SA
Mo-Dy
Page 69
Code:67
Name: CDFmm/Hardhack swamp
Synopsis. Swamp wetland type dominated by Spiraea douglasii
Summary
Wetland class
Aspect:
SMR
Swamp wetland
Gentle
Wet
SNR
pH
Hydro index
Wetlands of B.C.: Ws50 Pink spirea-Sitka sedge
Medium-rich
SA
Mo
Page 70
Code:68
Name: CDFmm/Seashore saltgrass tidal Samples: GIF-1, VIS-0
marsh
Synopsis. Brackish water marsh type dominated by Distichlis spicata
Summary
Wetland class
Aspect:
Estuarine wetland
Gentle
Wetlands of B.C.: Em03 Seashore saltgrass
Tidal zone
Salinity
Middle
Polysalinehypersaline
Page 71
Code:69
Name: CDFmm/Glasswort tidal flat
Synopsis. Intertidal flat dominated by Salicornia virginica; only found on Sidney Spit
Summary
Wetland class
Aspect:
Estuarine wetland
Gentle
Tidal zone
Salinity
Wetlands of B.C.: Em02 Glasswort-Sea-milkwort
Middle
Polysalinehypersaline
Page 72
Code:70
Name: CDFmm/Rock bluffs
Name: CDFmm/Rock bluffs
Synopsis highly complex sites featuring near vertical rock bluffs with pockets of
vegetation restricted to crevices and narrow shelves; vegetation patches typically include
stonecrop, Selaginella, mixed grasses, hairy honeysuckle, with varying amounts of
gumweed, cleavers, seablush, etc.; scattered trees are rooted in crevices and includes
arbutus, Douglas-fir, bigleaf maple, and occasional shrub-sized Garry oak; rock bluff
ecosystems are often complexed with 03 Fd-Oniongrass on accumulations of shallow
colluvial soil.
Sample summary
Aspect:
Warm (100%)
SMR
0 (100%)
SNR
B(25%), C(75%)
Humus form
Drainage
Very Rapid (100%)
Parent material Rs (100%)
Texture
Means of samples
Slope
Forest floor depth
Coarse fragments
Root restriction
Tree cover
Shrub cover
Herb cover
Moss cover
155% (110-180%)
7% (0-20%)
7% (2-20%)
17% (4-40)
18% (2-60)
Page 73
Code:71
Name: CDFmm/Rock moss-Selaginella
Synopsis. Non-forested ecosystems on bedrock outcrops; soil limited to thin organic
veneer over bedrock or very thin weathered rock; very limited rooting substrate and
severely limited moisture precludes tree growth; vegetation characterized by a well
developed moss cover featuring Racomitrium canescens, Selaginella wallacei, Dicranum
scoparium, and Cladina lichen species; patchy mixed grasses, typically including
hairgrass (Aira praecox), with scattered amounts of small-flowered birds-foot trefoil, hairy
cat’s ear, etc. comprising the herb layer; occasional Douglas-fir and arbutus may be
rooted in crevices; rocky mountain juniper and Garry oak are rarely present.
Aspect:
Warm
SMR
0
SNR
B
Humus form
Moder
Drainage
Rapid
Parent material Rm, Dx
Texture
Means of samples
Slope
Forest floor depth
Coarse fragments
Root restriction
Tree cover
Shrub cover
Herb cover
Moss cover
Mapcodes: similar to SC Cladina-Wallace’s selaginella
2%
2cm
8cm
0%
0%
50%
80%
Page 74
Code:72
Name: CDFmm/Dunegrass
Synopsis Non-forested ecosystems on dry, nutrient poor sandy beach dunes; strong
“marine”influence; generally restricted to Sidney Spit; vegetation dominated by dune
wildrye (Leymus mollis) and European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria); Scotch broom
typically occurs as a minor to dominant shrub species.
Sample summary
Aspect:
Gentle (100%)
SMR
2 (100%)
SNR
D (100%)
Humus form
Moder (100%)
Drainage
Rapid (100%)
Parent material E (100%)
Texture
S (100%)
Means of samples
Slope
Forest floor depth
Coarse fragments
Root restriction
Tree cover
Shrub cover
Herb cover
Moss cover
Mapcodes: similar to LM:Dunegress-Beachpea
0%
1cm
0%
0%
20% (0-50%)
75% (60-90)
2% (0-5)
Page 75
Code:73
Name: CDFmm/Snowberry
Synopsis.. Non-forested ecosystems on relatively shallow soils with strong
“marine”influence; typically found on small islets where shallow soil veneers have
accumulated; strong saltspray/wind influence precludes tree establishment; moderately
dry but rich site, partly reflecting historic bird guano accumulations and other nutrient
inputs; vegetation characterized by a well developed shrub layer featuring snowberry
and Nootka rose with varying Himalayan blackberry, oceanspray, and saskatoon; the
herbaceous cover typically features camas, white fawn lily, beach pea, etc.; scrubby
Garry oak, arbutus, and Rocky Mountain juniper occasionally present.
Sample summary
Aspect:
Gentle(100%)
SMR
1(25%), 2-3(25%), 3
(50%)
SNR
D(75%), E(25%)
Humus form
Mull(75%), Mullmoder
(25%)
Drainage
Well(75%), Rapid(25%)
Parent material WGv(50%), Dv(50
Texture
SL(75%), L(25%)
Mapcodes: similar to OR Oceanspray-Rose
Means of samples
Slope
Forest floor depth
Coarse fragments
Root restriction
Tree cover
Shrub cover
Herb cover
Moss cover
0%
1cm (1-2cm)
20% (5-30%)
60cm(20-100cm) to
rock
3% (0-10%)
90% (80-90%)
30% (5-50%)
0%
Page 76
Code:74
Name: CDFmm/Camas-Herbs
Synopsis Non-forested ecosystems on very shallow rocky soils with strong
“marine”influence; typically found on small to medium sized rocky islets (dominant on
small and fringes of medium); strong saltspray/wind influence, as well as very shallow
dry soils precludes tree establishment; very dry but rich site, partly reflecting historic bird
guano accumulations and other nutrient inputs, as well as possible First Nations
cultivation; vegetation dominated by lush herbaceous cover featuring camas, mixed
grasses, and a variety of herbs such as yarrow, gumweed, seablush, sanicle, chocolate
lily, etc.
Sample summary
Aspect:
Gentle(80%), warm
(13%), cool(7%)
SMR
0(50%), 0-1(25%),
1(25%)
SNR
CD(30%), D(70%)
Means of samples
Slope
Humus form
Mull(81%), Moder(19%)
Root restriction
Drainage
Parent material
Dv(63%), Rm(31%),
WGv(6%)
SL(58%), LS-S(42%)
Where soil present
Tree cover
Shrub cover
4cm (0-15cm)
mainly <2
13% (0-45%)
Where soil present
25cm(9-40cm) to
0%
9% (0-40%)
Herb cover
74% (40-100%)
Moss cover
7% (0-40%)
Texture
Mapcodes: similar to “FC-Fescue-Camas”
Forest floor depth
Coarse fragments
5% (0-40%)
Page 77
Code:75
Name: CDFmm/Juniper-Oak
Synopsis Sparsely forested ecosystems on very shallow rocky soils with strong
“marine”influence; typically found on small to medium sized rocky islets (dominant on
small and fringes of medium); strong saltspray/wind influence, as well as very shallow
dry soils precludes tree establishment; very dry but rich site, partly reflecting historic bird
guano accumulations and other nutrient inputs; vegetation characterized by a well
developed shrub layer featuring scrubby rocky mountain juniper, Garry oak, snowberry,
and Nootka rose; the diverse herbaceous cover typically features camas, mixed
grasses, and a variety of herbs such as cleavers, miner’s-lettuce, seablush, sanicle,
chocolate lily, etc; scattered scrubby Douglas-fir trees occasionally present.
Sample summary
Aspect:
Gentle(100%)
SMR
0-1(41%), 1(42%),
2(17%)
SNR
CD(16%), D(60%),
E(24%)
Humus form
Mull(33%), Mullmoder
(19%), Moder(25%)
Drainage
Parent material Dv(58%), Rm(17%),
Ov(25%)
Texture
SL(56%), LS-S(44%)
Where soil present
Means of samples
Slope
Forest floor depth
Coarse fragments
0% (0-4%)
8cm (1-15cm)
Tree cover
Shrub cover
14% (2-35%)
Where soil present
28cm(12-40cm) to
5% (0-20%)
50% (5-90%)
Herb cover
65% (10-100%)
Moss cover
4% (0-40%)
Root restriction
Mapcodes: slight similarity to “GO-Qg-Oceanspray”
MOF Garry oak classification: similar to Quercus-Racomitrium and Quercus-Dicranum
Page 78
Code:76
Name: CDFmm/Miners-lettuce – Beach
pea
Synopsis.. Non-forested ecosystems on relatively shallow soils with strong
“marine”influence; typically found on small islets where shallow soil veneers have
accumulated; strong saltspray/wind influence precludes tree establishment; fresh to
moist, very rich site, partly reflecting historic bird guano accumulations and other nutrient
inputs; flat to slightly concave topography together with impermeable bedrock results in
excess soil moisture; vegetation characterized by a dominant herb layer featuring
miner's-lettuce, beach pea, dune wildrye, mixed grasses (mainly velvet-grass), and
scattered chocolate lily
Aspect:
Gentle
SMR
5
SNR
E
Humus form
Mull
Means of samples
Slope
Forest floor depth
Coarse fragments
Root restriction
Drainage
Parent material
Texture
Tree cover
Shrub cover
Herb cover
Moss cover
Imperfect
WGv
SL
0%
1cm
22%
50cm to rock and
gleying
0%
0%
100%
0%
Page 79
9. APPENDIX B: Database Dictionary for TEM Data
Database structure
Code
SUBUNIT
INDEX
POLY_NBR
POLY_NEW
AREA
SRC_STA13
SRC_ORI
BGCUNIT
ASP
ECO1_DEC
ECO1_SS
ECO1_SM1
ECO1_SM2
ECO1_SM3
ECO1_STR
ECO1_USE
ECO2_DEC
ECO2_SS
ECO2_SM1
ECO2_SM2
ECO2_SM3
ECO2_STR
ECO2_USE
ECO3_DEC
ECO3_SS
ECO3_SM1
ECO3_SM2
ECO3_SM3
ECO3_STR
ECO3_USE
13
14
Description
original stratification of study
area for digitizing/attributing
original polygon sequence
for subunit databases
original polygon number for
subunit databases
new polygon number for
final merged database
polygon area (ha)
data source – for “stable”
polygons
data source – for original
polygons
biogeoclimatic unit
aspect
ecosystem component
1:decile
ecosystem component 1:site
unit
modifier1
modifier2
modifier3
ecosystem component
1:structural stage
ecosystem component 1:use
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
Notes
used when data dissolved into “stable”
polygons14
applicable for original mapped polygons
reflecting stable and dynamic features
dominant use expressed for component
Shaded fields are used to dissolve polygons into “stable feature” polygons
See explanation of source coding on page 63
Page 80
Code
DIST1_TYP
Description
disturbance type
DIST1_DAT
disturbance date
DIST2_TYP
disturbance type
DIST2_DAT
disturbance date
SPP_LAB
tree species label
SPP1_CD
SPP1_DEC
COMMENT
TERGRP
1st tree species code
1st tree species decile
proportion
2nd tree species code
2nd tree species decile
proportion
3rd tree species code
3rd tree species decile
proportion
crown closure (%)
stand structure
fuel hazard
fuel type
Garry oak presence
broom presence
CDC Element Occurrence
potential
general comments
terrain group
TER1_DEC
TER1_LAB
terrain component 1: decile
terrain component 1: label
TER1_SHORT
terrain component 1: short
label
terrain component 1:
geomorphological process
terrain component 1:
bedrock
as above; component 2
SPP2_CD
SPP2_DEC
SPP3_CD
SPP3_DEC
CC
STDSTR
FUELHAZ
FUELTYP
OAK
BROOM
EOPOT
TER1_GEOP
TER1_ROCK
TER2_DEC
TER2_LAB
TER2_SHORT
TER2_ GEOP
TER2_ROCK
Notes
applies to most recent disturbance that
significantly related to current ecosystem
development (dominant for polygon);
approximate time of disturbance where it can
be estimated and where relevant; to nearest
decade
applies to a second disturbance significantly
related to current ecosystem development
approximate time of disturbance where it can
be estimated and where relevant; to nearest
decade
up to 3 species, with species and decile
proportion
observed in the field or on airphotos
observed in the field or on airphotos
generalized terrain groups based on first
component
as originally entered in database. Label
components separated - comma for textures;
semi colon between texture and surficial
material, period between surf. material and
surf. express., slash between surface and
subsurface labels
simplified label emphasizing surficial
materials
as per RIC standards
applies only to R types; as per RIC standards
Page 81
Code
TER3_DEC
TER3_LAB
TER3_SHORT
TER3_GEOP
TER3_ROCK
Description
Notes
TTEX_1A
terrain texture 1, component
1
1
1
surficial material, component
1
surficial material qualifier,
component 1
surface expression 1,
component 1
surface expression 2,
component 1
subterrain texture 1,
component 1
component 1
component 1
subsurficial material,
component 1
subsurficial material
qualifier, component 1
subsurface expression 1,
component 1
subsurface expression 2,
component 1
TTEX_1B
TTEX_1C
SURFM_1
SURFM_Q1
SURF_E1A
SURF_E1B
STTEX_1A
STTEX_1B
STTEX_1C
SSURFM_1
SSURFM_Q1
SSURF_E1A
SSURF_E1B
TTEX_2A
TTEX_2B
TTEX_2C
SURFM_2
SURFM_Q2
SURF_E2A
SURF_E2B
STTEX_2A
STTEX_2B
STTEX_2C
SSURFM_2
SSURFM_Q2
SSURF_E2A
SSURF_E2B
TTEX_3A
TTEX_3B
TTEX_3C
Page 82
Code
SURFM_3
SURFM_Q3
SURF_E3A
SURF_E3B
STTEX_3A
STTEX_3B
STTEX_3C
SSURFM_3
SSURFM_Q3
SSURF_E3A
SSURF_E3B
Description
Notes
Explanation of data source assignment
SRC_STA: “V” (visual) would be entered for all 9 polygons contained within the stable polygon
denoted with the black boundary. When these polygons are dissolved to yield stable polygons,
the relevant data source will remain.
SRC_ORI: “V” (visual) would be entered for polygon 1935 only
Page 83
Field Descriptions
Source
Code
G
P
V
N
Description
Ground inspection plot – data recorded on plot cards from the ground
Photo interpretation – data interpreted from air photo
Visual inspection – abridged data recorded on plot card or recorded from helicopter
Notes – brief notes recorded on the basemap
Biogeoclimatic Unit (Zone/Subzone/Variant)
Code
CDFmm
CWHxm1
Description
Moist Maritime Coastal Douglas-fir Subzone
Eastern Very Dry Maritime Coastal Western Hemlock Variant
Aspect
Code
W
C
G
Name
Warm
Cool
Gentle
Description
slopes >35% and between 1350 to 2850
slopes >35% and between 2850 to 1350
slopes < 35%
Site Units
[01-14 = recognized in Green and Klinka (1994); 50’s = new forested units; 60’s = new non-forested wetland units;
70’s = new non-forested non-wetland units]
Forested sites
Code
Name
CDFmm
02
FdPl-Arbutus
50
Fd(Qg) – SaskatoonHerbs
51
FdRa- Salal-Hairy
honeysuckle
01
Fd-Salal
52
Fd - Snowberry
03
Fd-Oniongrass
04
FdBg-Oregon grape
53
Qg-Mixed grass
05
CwFd-Kindbergia
06
CwBg-Foamflower
07
Cw-Snowberry
08
09
Act_Willow
10
Pl-Sphagnum
11
Cw -Skunk cabbage
12
Cw-Vanilla leaf
13
Cw - Indian plum
14
Cw-Slough sedge
CWHxm1
02
FdPl - Cladina
03
FdHw - Salal
Description
0-1/BC; Green and Klinka (1994)
Marine; 1-2/DE on small rocky islands; typically
surrounded by Juniper-Oak
1-2/BC; shallow rocky soils; drier than 01
3-4/BC; Green and Klinka (1994) with modified SMR
3/D; dense snowberry-oceanspray with mixed herbs;
typically on small islands
1-2/DE; Green and Klinka (1994) with modified SMR
3-4/DE; Green and Klinka (1994) with modified SMR
3-4/D; oak with lush grass on deep soil; seral community
High bench floodplain; 1 plot on very small occurrence
Med. Bench; not sampled in southern GI
Low Bench; not sampled in southern GI
7/DE; Green and Klinka (1994); 1 plot only
very dry/nutrient poor to medium sites on bedrock or very
thin soils
moderately dry/nutrient poor to medium sites on shallow
Page 84
Code
Name
01
04
05
06
HwFd - Kindbergia
Fd – Swordfern
Cw - Swordfern
HwCw – Deer fern
Non-Sparsely Forested sites
Code
Name
Wetland Sites
60
Pond lily aquatic
61
Juncus marsh
62
Bulrush marsh
63
64
65
66
67
68
Cattail marsh
Sedge fen
Shrub swamp
Hardhack swamp
Seashore saltgrass tidal
marsh
69
Non-Wetland Sites
70
Rock bluffs
71
72
Dunegrass
73
74
Snowberry
Camas-Herbs
75
Juniper-Oak
76
Miner's-lettuce –Beach
pea
Non vegetated site units
Code
Name
BE
Beach
BK
Breakwater
CB
Cutbank
CL
Cliff
DM
Dam
DR
Drainage canal
ES
Exposed soil
GB
Gravel Bar
GP
Gravel pit
LA
Lake or reservoir
LG
Lagoon
MU
Mudflat sediments
OW
Shallow Open Water
PD
Pond
Description
and/or very coarse soils
slightly dry to fresh/nutrient (poor to) medium sites (zonal)
moderately dry/nutrient rich sites
slightly dry to fresh/nutrient rich sites
moist to very moist/nutrient (poor to) medium sites
Description
Marsh; Phalaris arundinacea dominated (modified
wetland)
Fen; mixed Carex spp. dominated
Shrub swamp; willow, spiraea, Cornus, alder dominated
Shrub swamp; Spiraea douglasii dominated
Tidal marsh; Distichlis spicata dominated
Hypersteep rock with vegetation pockets
Moss and patchy grass dominated bedrock
Marine; European beachgrass and dunegrass dominated
eolian sand dunes
Marine; 2-3/DE, snowberry dominated sites, small islands
Marine; 0-1/DE; rocky islets, coastal fringes of small
islands; rich herb dominated sites
Marine; 1/DE; rocky islets; scrub Garry oak and juniper
with rich herb cover
Marine; 5/E; small islets with imperfectly drained soils
Description
a wetland composed of permanent shallow open water less
than 2 m deep and lacking extensive emergent plant cover
(may occasionally dry up)
a small body of water greater than 2 m deep, but not large
Page 85
enough to be classified as a lake
RE
RI
RO
RZ
TA
Reservoir
River
Bedrock
Road and right-of-way
Talus
Site Modifiers
Code
an
dn
gu
hs
hu
po
rp
rv
Name
anthropogenic
drained
gullied
hypersteep slope
hummocky
poor productivity
riparian
ravine
sh
sl
ss
ta
shallow
slope
steep slope
blocky talus
Description
sites on extensively human disturbed soils.
sites influenced by drainage ditches
sites with frequent gullies
sites with slopes >100%
sites on hummocky terrain
sites with poorer than normal productivity for site unit
sites in a riparian environment
sites with steep slopes bordering streams (also inherently
riparian)
sites with predominantly shallow (<1m) soils
sites with slopes 35-70%
sites with slopes 70-100%
sites on rubbly (blocky) colluvial deposits
Structural Stage (RIC 1998)
Code
1
21
3
4
5
6
7
1
Description
Sparse/bryoid
Herb - herb dominated communities; <10% tree cover, < 20% shrub cover
(use 2x for disclimax ecosystems)
Shrub/Herb - communities dominated by shrubby vegetation < 10m tall; regen may
be abundant; tree cover < 10%
Pole/Sapling - trees > 10m tall have overtopped shrub and herb layer; dense stands
usually less than 40 yrs since disturbance; includes stagnated older stands
Young Forest - self-thinning evident with canopy layers developed; more open than
PS; usually 40-80 yrs
Mature Forest - main canopy trees mature; well-developed understory often with
advance regen; usually 80-250 yrs
Old Forest - old structurally complex stands with snags and CWD; > 250 yrs
2x denotes disclimax communities
Use
Code
AF
BC
BL
BR
CF
CO
CV
DB
Name
Air field
Buildings, parking,
landscaping, etc.; commercial
Barren land
Buildings, parking,
landscaping, etc.; residential
Cultivated field (active)
Cultivated orchard
Cultivated vineyard
Dam, breakwater
Description
commercial development; includes buildings, lawns,
trees, etc.(includes public facilities)
recently disturbed land (unspecified disturbance), may
have pioneer vegetation
residential development; includes buildings, lawns,
cleared yards, trees, etc. (includes farm residences)
active agricultural field
active agricultural orchard
active agricultural vineyard
Page 86
GC
GD
LD
OF
PA
PL
RR
RZ
SF
Golf course
Garbage dump
Landscaped grass and
shrubs
Old field
Parking lots
Powerline
Rural
Road/trail right-of-way
Sports facilities
includes non-agricultural fields, picnic sites, etc.
not actively cultivated agricultural field/orchard
mixture of housing, yards, and trees (>10% tree cover)
Disturbance Type (x entered for Date if unknown or not applicable)
Code
BIR
CAC
CAH
CUC
CUH
DCC
DCH
DFC
DHC
DHH
DRC
DUC
DUH
FIR
GRZ
LGC
LGS
ROT
UNK
UNS
WIN
Description
Bird trampling
Cleared – agriculture - current
Cleared – agriculture – historic (stand established on old field; date relates to
approximate stand establishment)
Cleared – undeveloped – current (cleared but no apparent development)
Cleared – undeveloped - historic
Developed – commercial - current
Developed – commercial - historic
Developed – fields – current (fields, parks, landscaping)
Developed – housing – current (includes farm buildings, lawns, cleared areas)
Developed – housing – historic
Developed – rural - current
Developed – utility corridor – current; includes road right-of-way, dam, breakwater,
gravel pit, airstrip, etc)
Developed – utility corridor - historic
Fire – natural or prescribed
Grazing by animals (including domestic and wild)
Logging - clearcut
Logging - selective
Root rot
Unknown
Unstable soil (slumps, slides, eroding scarps, etc.)
Windthrow
Tree species
Act
At
Bg
Cw
Dr
Ep
Fd
Hw
Mb
Pl
Qg
Ra
Ss
cottonwood
trembling aspen
grand fir
western redcedar
red alder
paper birch
Douglas-fir
western hemlock
bigleaf maple
lodgepole pine
Garry oak
arbutus
Sitka spruce
Page 87
Stand structure
Code
Ev
EvGp
EvSg
EvVt
Ir
Mu
MuGp
Sh
Description
Even
Even with gaps
Even with snags
Even with vets
Broken (irregular canopy)
Multistoried (2+ distinct stories)
Multistoried with gaps
Shelterwood
Fuel hazard (x entered if Non-Fuel fuel type)
Code
L
M
H
Description
Low
Medium
High
Fuel type 15
Code
NF
C2
C3
C4
C5
C7
D1
M2
M2R
O1a
O1b
Description
Non fuel
Coniferous, young forests with moderate to closed canopies and well developed ladder fuels
Coniferous, young forests with moderate to closed canopies
Coniferous pole sapling stands (> 10m and < 40 yrs) with moderate to closed canopies
Coniferous, mature and old stands
Coniferous, pole sapling and young forest stands with open canopies
Deciduous stands
Mixed deciduous/coniferous stands
Young regenerating conifer stands
Herb/shrubs, non-cured
Herb/shrubs, cured
Oak
Code
Y
Description
Yes (indicates Garry oak observed in the field or visible on airphotos
Oak
Code
H
M
Description
High – significant cover of broom (Cytisus scoparius)
Moderate – patchy cover of broom
Element Occurrence Potential
Code
Y
Description
Yes (indicates potential value as CDC Element Occurrence
Terrain Group
Code
ANTH
DEEP
15
Description
anthropogenic (man-made surficial materials)
deep morainal or colluvial materials
Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System, Fire Behavior Prediction System Fuel Types (modified)
FLUV
MACO
MAFN
MAVN
ORGA
ROCK
SHAL
WATR
fluvial or glaciofluvial materials
deep, coarse textured marine materials
deep, fine-textured marine materials
veneer of marine deposits over morainal, residual, or bedrock materials
organic materials
bedrock
shallow morainal, colluvial, or residual materials over bedrock
water
Terrain Label
Code
x,x;X.x
Description
example layout - texture1,texture2;surficial material.surface expression
Terrain Short Label
Code
Xx/Yy
Description
example layout –surficial material,surface expression/subsurficial
material,subsurface expression
Terrain16
Code
Description
Terrain texture
a
blocks
b
boulders
k
cobbles
p
pebbles
s
sand
z
silt
c
clay
e
organic – fibric
u
organic – mesic
h
organic - humic
Surficial materials
A
Anthropogenic
C
colluvial
D
weathered bedrock
E
loess
F
fluvial
FG
glaciofluvial
L
lacustrine
M
morainal
O
organic
R
bedrock
W
marine
WG
glaciomarine
Surface expression
b
blanket
f
fan
h
hummocks
m
rolling
p
plain
16
Howes and Kenk (1997)
Page 88
r
ridges
s
steep slope
t
terrace
v
veneer
w
mantle of varying thickness
Geomorphological process
V
gully erosion
WI
washing (inactive)
R
rapid mass movement
Page 89
Page 90
10. APPENDIX C: Database Dictionary for GIF GIS Data
Database structure
Code
PLOTNUMBER
Description
GIF plot number
TYPE
BECUNIT
SMR
SNR
SS_PREL
SS_FINAL
STSTAGE
ELEV
SLOPE
ASPECT
MESOSLOPE
HERBCOV
MOSSCOV
SHRUBCOV
TREECOV
ROOTRESDEP
plot type
biogeoclimatic unit
soil moisture regime
soil nutrient regime
site unit - preliminary
site unit - final
structural stage
elevation (m)
slope (%)
aspect
mesoslope position
% cover of herb layer
% cover of moss layer
% cover of shrub layer
% cover of tree layer
depth to root restricting layer
(cm)
type of root restricting layer
% canopy crown closure
% composition terrain
component 1
terrain component 1 class
ROOTRESTYP
CROWNCLOSU
TC1PERCENT
TC1CLASS
TC2PERCENT
TC2CLASS
TC3PERCENT
TC3CLASS
TEXTURE
ORGTHICK
HUMUSFORM
CF
AHTHICK
TREESPP
CONCOMP
CC
AGE
DBH
as above
as above
as above
as above
soil texture class
forest floor thickness (cm)
humus form Group
soil course fragment content
(%)
thickness of Ah horizon (cm)
Tree species composition
label
conifer composition of stand
(%)
stand age
estimated average stand
diameter at breast height
Notes
e.g. 5-2G1 where 5 = mapsheet, 2 = field
trip, G = surveyor, 1 = sequential plot
number
GIF
as per classification assignment
see TEM database dictionary
texture, surficial materials, surface
expression; see TEM database dictionary
species code, decile composition (e.g.
Fd7Cw3); see TEM database dictionary
Page 91
HGT
STRUCTURE
CONCROWN
WTCLASS1
WTDIST1
WTSPP1
WTCLASS2
WTDIST2
WTSPP2
WTCLASS3
WTDIST3
WTSPP3
FUELFLAM
FUELWOODY
FUELCROWN_
SURHAZ
CRNHAZ
TOTHAZ
FUELTYPE
DISTTYPE1
DISTDATE1
DISTTYPE2
DISTDATE2
DISTTYPE3
DISTDATE3
HEALTHAG1
HEALTHSEV1
HEALTHDIST
HEALTHAG2
HEALTHSEV2
HEALTHDIST
CONSERVPOT
CONSERVCON
SITENOTES
(cm)
height (m)
stand structure
% crown closure of conifers
wildlife tree 1 - class
wildlife tree 1 - distribution
wildlife tree 1 - species
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
dominant understory fuel
flammability
woody fuel load
crown base/surface fuel
separation
surface fire hazard
crown fire hazard
total fire hazard
fuel type
disturbance type
disturbance date
as above
as above
as above
as above
forest health agent 1
tree impact severity of health
agent 1
distribution of health agent 1
as above
as above
as above
potential CDC element
occurrence
condition rank of potential
CDC element occurrence
general comments
Field Descriptions
Meso Slope Position
Code
CR
Description
crest
see TEM database dictionary for tree
species
L, M, H
0-10, 10-15, >15 kg/m2
>6m, 2-6m, <2m
L, M, H
L, M, H
L, M, H
Y or blank
if Yes for potential - Excellent, Good, Fair,
Poor
DP
LV
LW
MD
TO
UP
depression
level
lower
middle
toe
upper
Root Restricting Type
Code
C
L
P
W
Description
strongly cemented horizon
lithic contact
dense pan
excessive water (water table or prominent gleying)
Wildlife Tree Class
Wildlife tree class (>. 25 cm DBH)
Wildlife Tree Distribution
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
Description
a few sporadically occurring individuals
several uniformly distributed individuals
many uniformly distributed individuals
a single patch or clump
several patches or clumps
many well-spaced patches or clumps
Forest Health Agent
Code
AN
CK
DR
FL
IN
MT
RR
SS
WI
Description
Animals
Conks
Drought
Flooding
Insects
Mistletoe
Root rots
Saltspray
Wind
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
11. APPENDIX D: Database Dictionary for Visuals GIS Data
Database structure
Code
TRIP
PLOT
Description
field trip number
Visual plot number
BECUNIT
SITE
SLOPE
ASPECT
CRNHAZ
SURHAZ
TOTHAZ
FUELTYPE
CONCROWN
CC
DBH
biogeoclimatic unit
site unit
slope (%)
aspect
crown fire hazard
surface fire hazard
total fire hazard
fuel type
% crown closure of conifers
diameter at breast height
(cm)
height (m)
Tree species composition
label
structural stage
stand structure
disturbance type
forest health
wildlife trees
invasive exotic plant species
HGT
TREESPP
STSTAGE
STRUCTURE
DIST
HEALTH
WLTREE
EXOTIC
Notes
e.g. 2-5VG4 where 2 = mapsheet, 5 = field
trip, VG = visual, surveyor, 4 = sequential
plot number
field assigned site unit
L, M, H
L, M, H
L, M, H
species code, decile composition (e.g.
Fd7Cw3); see TEM database dictionary
spp/class/distribution
Page 95
12. APPENDIX E: Full Species List – Latin name sort
Latin name
Abies grandis
Abies grandis
Acer glabrum
Acer macrophyllum
Acer macrophyllum
Achillea millefolium
Achlys triphylla
Adenocaulon bicolor
Agoseris grandiflora
Agoseris heterophylla
Aira praecox
Allium acuminatum
Allium cernuum
Alnus rubra
Alnus rubra
Amelanchier alnifolia
Ammophila arenaria
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Aphanes arvensis
Arabis glabra
Arabis hirsuta
Arbutus menziesii
Arbutus menziesii
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
Athyrium filix-femina
Athysanus pusillus
Bellis perennis
Blechnum spicant
Boykinia occidentalis
Brachythecium frigidum
Brachythecium sp.
Brodiaea coronaria
Bromus hordeaceus
Bromus pacificus
Bromus rigidus
Bromus sitchensis
Bromus sp.
Bromus sterilis
Bromus tectorum
Bromus vulgaris
Calypso bulbosa
Camassia quamash
Cardamine angulata
Cardamine occidentalis
Common name
grand fir
grand fir
Douglas maple
bigleaf maple
bigleaf maple
yarrow
vanilla-leaf
pathfinder
large-flowered agoseris
annual agoseris
early hairgrass
Hooker's onion
nodding onion
red alder
red alder
saskatoon
European beachgrass
sweet vernalgrass
field parsley-piert
tower mustard
hairy rockcress
arbutus
arbutus
kinnikinnick
lady fern
common sandweed
English daisy
deer fern
coast boykinia
golden short-capsuled moss
ragged-moss
harvest brodiaea
soft brome
Pacific brome
rip-gut brome
Alaska brome
brome
barren brome
cheatgrass
Columbia brome
fairy-slipper
common camas
angled bitter-cress
western bitter-cress
Page 96
Latin name
Cardamine oligosperma
Carex deweyana
Carex inops
Carex lenticularis
Carex obnupta
Carex sp.
Carex sylvatica
Castilleja miniata
Castilleja parviflora
Cerastium arvense
Cerastium semidecandrum
Chenopodium album
Chimaphila menziesii
Chimaphila umbellata
Circaea alpina
Cirsium arvense
Cirsium brevistylum
Cirsium vulgare
Cladina mitis
Cladina rangiferina
Cladonia squamosa
Claytonia perfoliata
Claytonia rubra
Claytonia sibirica
Clinopodium douglasii
Collinsia grandiflora
Collinsia parviflora
Collomia grandiflora
Conioselinum gmelinii
Corallorhiza maculata
Cornus stolonifera
Cornus suecica
Crataegus douglasii
Crataegus monogyna
Cynosurus cristatus
Cytisus scoparius
Dactylis glomerata
Daucus pusillus
Delphinium menziesii
Deschampsia elongata
Dicranum fuscescens
Dicranum scoparium
Dicranum sp.
Digitalis purpurea
Distichlis spicata
Dodecatheon pulchellum
Dryopteris expansa
Common name
Dewey's sedge
long-stoloned sedge
lakeshore sedge
slough sedge
sedge
European woodland sedge
scarlet paintbrush
small-flowered paintbrush
field chickweed
little chickweed
lamb's-quarters
Menzies' pipsissewa
prince's pine
enchanter's-nightshade
Canada thistle
short-styled thistle
bull thistle
lesser green reindeer
grey reindeer
dragon funnel
miner's-lettuce
redstem springbeauty
Siberian miner's-lettuce
yerba buena
large-flowered blue-eyed Mary
small-flowered blue-eyed Mary
large-flowered collomia
Pacific hemlock-parsley
spotted coralroot
red-osier dogwood
dwarf bog bunchberry
black hawthorn
common hawthorn
crested dogtail
Scotch broom
orchard-grass
American wild carrot
Menzies' larkspur
slender hairgrass
curly heron's-bill moss
broom-moss
heron's-bill moss
common foxglove
seashore saltgrass
few-flowered shootingstar
spiny wood fern
Page 97
Latin name
Eleocharis palustris
Elymus glaucus
Elymus hirsutus
Epilobium ciliatum
Equisetum arvense
Erodium cicutarium
Erythronium oregonum
Eurhynchium oreganum
Eurhynchium praelongum
Festuca occidentalis
Festuca rubra
Festuca subuliflora
Fragaria vesca
Fragaria virginiana
Fraxinus latifolia
Fritillaria affinis
Galium aparine
Galium trifidum
Galium triflorum
Gaultheria shallon
Geranium bicknellii
Geranium molle
Geranium robertianum
Geum macrophyllum
Glechoma hederacea
Gnaphalium purpureum
Goodyera oblongifolia
Grindelia integrifolia
Hedera helix
Heuchera micrantha
Hieracium albiflorum
Hieracium gracile
Holcus lanatus
Holodiscus discolor
Hordeum jubatum
Hylocomium splendens
Hypochaeris radicata
Ilex sp.
Isothecium myosuroides
Juncus effusus
Juniperus scopulorum
Koeleria macrantha
Lactuca muralis
Lathyrus japonicus
Lathyrus nevadensis
Leucolepis acanthoneuron
Leymus mollis
Common name
common spike-rush
blue wildrye
hairy wildrye
purple-leaved willowherb
common horsetail
common stork's-bill
white fawn lily
Oregon beaked-moss
slender beaked-moss
western fescue
red fescue
crinkle-awned fescue
wood strawberry
wild strawberry
Oregon ash
chocolate lily
cleavers
small bedstraw
sweet-scented bedstraw
salal
Bicknell's geranium
dovefoot geranium
Robert's geranium
large-leaved avens
ground-ivy
purple cudweed
rattlesnake-plantain
Puget Sound gumweed
English ivy
small-flowered alumroot
white hawkweed
slender hawkweed
common velvet-grass
oceanspray
foxtail barley
step moss
hairy cat's-ear
holly
variable moss
common rush
Rocky Mountain juniper
junegrass
wall lettuce
beach pea
purple peavine
palm tree moss
dune wildrye
Page 98
Latin name
Leymus mollis ssp. mollis
Lilium columbianum
Linnaea borealis
Listera cordata
Lomatium nudicaule
Lomatium utriculatum
Lonicera ciliosa
Lonicera hispidula
Lonicera involucrata
Lonicera utahensis
Lotus micranthus
Lotus micranthus
Lupinus bicolor
Lupinus littoralis
Luzula multiflora
Luzula parviflora
Lycopodium annotinum
Lysichiton americanus
Madia madioides
Madia sativa
Mahonia aquifolium
Mahonia nervosa
Malus fusca
Melica subulata
Microseris lindleyi
Mimulus alsinoides
Mimulus guttatus
Mitella pentandra
Moehringia macrophylla
Monotropa uniflora
Myosotis discolor
Nemophila parviflora
Nuphar lutea
Oemleria cerasiformis
Oenanthe sarmentosa
Opuntia fragilis
Orobanche uniflora
Osmorhiza berteroi
Paxistima myrsinites
Peltigera canina
Pentagramma triangularis
Phalaris arundinacea
Phleum pratense
Pinus contorta
Pinus contorta
Piperia elegans
Plagiochila undata
Common name
dune wildrye
tiger lily
twinflower
heart-leaved twayblade
barestem desert-parsley
spring gold
western trumpet
hairy honeysuckle
black twinberry
Utah honeysuckle
small-flowered birds-foot trefoil
two-coloured lupine
seashore lupine
many-flowered wood-rush
small-flowered wood-rush
stiff club-moss
skunk cabbage
woodland tarweed
Chilean tarweed
tall Oregon-grape
dull Oregon-grape
Pacific crab apple
Alaska oniongrass
Lindley's microseris
chickweed monkey-flower
yellow monkey-flower
five-stamened mitrewort
big-leaved sandwort
indian-pipe
common forget-me-not
small-flowered nemophila
yellow pond-lily
Indian-plum
Pacific water-parsley
brittle prickly-pear cactus
naked broomrape
mountain sweet-cicely
falsebox
dog pelt
goldenback fern
reed canarygrass
common timothy
lodgepole pine
lodgepole pine
elegant rein orchid
Page 99
Latin name
Plagiomnium insigne
Plantago elongata
Plantago lanceolata
Plantago macrocarpa
Plectritis congesta
Poa palustris
Poa trivialis
Pogonatum contortum
Polypodium glycyrrhiza
Polystichum imbricans
Polystichum munitum
Polytrichastrum alpinum
Polytrichum juniperinum
Polytrichum piliferum
Populus balsamifera
Populus tremuloides
Potentilla paradoxa
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Pteridium aquilinum
Quercus garryana
Quercus garryana
Racomitrium canescens
Ranunculus occidentalis
Ranunculus repens
Ranunculus uncinatus
Rhamnus purshiana
Rhizomnium glabrescens
Rhytidiadelphus loreus
Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus
Ribes lacustre
Rosa gymnocarpa
Rosa nutkana
Rubus discolor
Rubus laciniatus
Rubus parviflorus
Rubus spectabilis
Rubus ursinus
Rumex acetosa
Salix hookeriana
Salix lucida
Salix scouleriana
Salix sitchensis
Salix sp.
Sambucus racemosa
Sanicula bipinnatifida
Sanicula crassicaulis
Common name
coastal leafy moss
slender plantain
ribwort plantain
Alaska plantain
sea blush
fowl bluegrass
rough bluegrass
licorice fern
narrow-leaved sword fern
sword fern
stiff-leaved haircap moss
juniper haircap moss
awned haircap moss
balsam poplar
trembling aspen
bushy cinquefoil
Douglas-fir
Douglas-fir
bracken fern
Garry oak
Garry oak
grey rock-moss
western buttercup
creeping buttercup
little buttercup
cascara
large leafy moss
lanky moss
electrified cat's-tail moss
black gooseberry
baldhip rose
Nootka rose
Himalayan blackberry
cutleaf evergreen blackberry
thimbleberry
salmonberry
trailing blackberry
green sorrel
Hooker's willow
Scouler's willow
Sitka willow
willow
purple sanicle
Pacific sanicle
Page 100
Latin name
Schoenoplectus acutus
Sedum integrifolium
Sedum spathulifolium
Selaginella wallacei
Senecio sylvaticus
Silene gallica
Solidago canadensis
Sonchus asper
Sorbus sitchensis
Spiraea douglasii
Stachys chamissonis
Stellaria calycantha
Stellaria media
Symphoricarpos albus
Symphoricarpos hesperius
Taraxacum laevigatum
Taraxacum officinale
Taxus brevifolia
Tellima grandiflora
Thuja plicata
Thuja plicata
Torilis japonica
Trachybryum megaptilum
Trientalis borealis
Trifolium microcephalum
Trifolium willdenowii
Triphysaria pusilla
Triteleia hyacinthina
Tsuga heterophylla
Typha latifolia
Ulex europaeus
Urtica dioica
Vaccinium ovatum
Vaccinium parvifolium
Veronica arvensis
Vicia americana
Vicia nigricans
Vicia sativa
Vulpia myuros
Zigadenus venenosus
Common name
hard-stemmed bulrush
roseroot
broad-leaved stonecrop
Wallace's selaginella
wood groundsel
small-flowered catchfly
Canada goldenrod
prickly sow-thistle
Sitka mountain-ash
hardhack
Cooley's hedge-nettle
northern starwort
common chickweed
common snowberry
trailing snowberry
red-seeded dandelion
common dandelion
western yew
fringecup
western redcedar
western redcedar
upright hedge-parsley
broad-leaved starflower
small-headed clover
tomcat clover
dwarf owl-clover
white triteleia
western hemlock
common cattail
gorse
stinging nettle
evergreen huckleberry
red huckleberry
wall speedwell
American vetch
giant vetch
common vetch
rattail fescue
meadow death-camas
Page 101
13. APPENDIX F: Full Species List – common name sort
Common name
Alaska brome
Alaska oniongrass
Alaska plantain
American vetch
American wild carrot
angled bitter-cress
annual agoseris
arbutus
arbutus
awned haircap moss
baldhip rose
balsam poplar
barestem desert-parsley
barren brome
beach pea
Bicknell's geranium
bigleaf maple
bigleaf maple
big-leaved sandwort
black gooseberry
black hawthorn
black twinberry
blue wildrye
bracken fern
brittle prickly-pear cactus
broad-leaved starflower
broad-leaved stonecrop
brome
broom-moss
bull thistle
bushy cinquefoil
Canada goldenrod
Canada thistle
cascara
cheatgrass
chickweed monkey-flower
Chilean tarweed
chocolate lily
cleavers
coast boykinia
coastal leafy moss
Columbia brome
common camas
common cattail
Latin name
Bromus sitchensis
Melica subulata
Plantago macrocarpa
Vicia americana
Daucus pusillus
Cardamine angulata
Arbutus menziesii
Arbutus menziesii
Rosa gymnocarpa
Populus balsamifera
Lomatium nudicaule
Bromus sterilis
Lathyrus japonicus
Geranium bicknellii
Acer macrophyllum
Acer macrophyllum
Ribes lacustre
Crataegus douglasii
Elymus glaucus
Pteridium aquilinum
Opuntia fragilis
Trientalis borealis
Bromus sp.
Dicranum scoparium
Cirsium vulgare
Potentilla paradoxa
Solidago canadensis
Cirsium arvense
Rhamnus purshiana
Bromus tectorum
Mimulus alsinoides
Madia sativa
Fritillaria affinis
Galium aparine
Plagiomnium insigne
Bromus vulgaris
Camassia quamash
Typha latifolia
Page 102
Common name
common chickweed
common dandelion
common forget-me-not
common foxglove
common hawthorn
common horsetail
common rush
common sandweed
common snowberry
common spike-rush
common stork's-bill
common timothy
common velvet-grass
common vetch
Cooley's hedge-nettle
creeping buttercup
crested dogtail
crinkle-awned fescue
curly heron's-bill moss
cutleaf evergreen blackberry
deer fern
Dewey's sedge
dog pelt
Douglas maple
Douglas-fir
Douglas-fir
dovefoot geranium
dragon funnel
dull Oregon-grape
dune wildrye
dune wildrye
dwarf bog bunchberry
dwarf owl-clover
early hairgrass
electrified cat's-tail moss
elegant rein orchid
enchanter's-nightshade
English daisy
English ivy
European beachgrass
European woodland sedge
evergreen huckleberry
fairy-slipper
falsebox
few-flowered shootingstar
field chickweed
field parsley-piert
Latin name
Stellaria media
Myosotis discolor
Digitalis purpurea
Crataegus monogyna
Equisetum arvense
Juncus effusus
Athysanus pusillus
Erodium cicutarium
Phleum pratense
Holcus lanatus
Vicia sativa
Stachys chamissonis
Ranunculus repens
Cynosurus cristatus
Festuca subuliflora
Dicranum fuscescens
Rubus laciniatus
Blechnum spicant
Carex deweyana
Peltigera canina
Acer glabrum
Geranium molle
Cladonia squamosa
Mahonia nervosa
Leymus mollis
Cornus suecica
Triphysaria pusilla
Aira praecox
Piperia elegans
Circaea alpina
Bellis perennis
Hedera helix
Ammophila arenaria
Carex sylvatica
Vaccinium ovatum
Calypso bulbosa
Cerastium arvense
Aphanes arvensis
Page 103
Common name
five-stamened mitrewort
fowl bluegrass
foxtail barley
fringecup
Garry oak
Garry oak
giant vetch
golden short-capsuled moss
goldenback fern
gorse
grand fir
grand fir
green sorrel
grey reindeer
grey rock-moss
ground-ivy
hairy cat's-ear
hairy honeysuckle
hairy rockcress
hairy wildrye
hardhack
hard-stemmed bulrush
harvest brodiaea
heart-leaved twayblade
heron's-bill moss
Himalayan blackberry
holly
Hooker's onion
Hooker's willow
indian-pipe
Indian-plum
junegrass
juniper haircap moss
kinnikinnick
lady fern
lakeshore sedge
lamb's-quarters
lanky moss
large leafy moss
large-flowered agoseris
large-flowered blue-eyed Mary
large-flowered collomia
large-leaved avens
lesser green reindeer
licorice fern
Lindley's microseris
little buttercup
Latin name
Mitella pentandra
Poa palustris
Hordeum jubatum
Tellima grandiflora
Quercus garryana
Quercus garryana
Vicia nigricans
Ulex europaeus
Abies grandis
Abies grandis
Rumex acetosa
Cladina rangiferina
Glechoma hederacea
Lonicera hispidula
Arabis hirsuta
Elymus hirsutus
Spiraea douglasii
Brodiaea coronaria
Listera cordata
Dicranum sp.
Rubus discolor
Ilex sp.
Allium acuminatum
Salix hookeriana
Monotropa uniflora
Koeleria macrantha
Carex lenticularis
Chenopodium album
Rhizomnium glabrescens
Geum macrophyllum
Cladina mitis
Microseris lindleyi
Page 104
Common name
little chickweed
lodgepole pine
lodgepole pine
long-stoloned sedge
many-flowered wood-rush
meadow death-camas
Menzies' larkspur
Menzies' pipsissewa
miner's-lettuce
mountain sweet-cicely
naked broomrape
narrow-leaved sword fern
nodding onion
Nootka rose
northern starwort
oceanspray
orchard-grass
Oregon ash
Oregon beaked-moss
Pacific brome
Pacific crab apple
Pacific hemlock-parsley
Pacific sanicle
Pacific water-parsley
palm tree moss
pathfinder
prickly sow-thistle
prince's pine
Puget Sound gumweed
purple cudweed
purple peavine
purple sanicle
purple-leaved willowherb
ragged-moss
rattail fescue
rattlesnake-plantain
red alder
red alder
red fescue
red huckleberry
red-osier dogwood
red-seeded dandelion
redstem springbeauty
reed canarygrass
ribwort plantain
rip-gut brome
Robert's geranium
Latin name
Cerastium semidecandrum
Pinus contorta
Pinus contorta
Carex inops
Luzula multiflora
Zigadenus venenosus
Osmorhiza berteroi
Orobanche uniflora
Allium cernuum
Rosa nutkana
Holodiscus discolor
Dactylis glomerata
Fraxinus latifolia
Bromus pacificus
Malus fusca
Oenanthe sarmentosa
Leucolepis acanthoneuron
Adenocaulon bicolor
Sonchus asper
Lathyrus nevadensis
Epilobium ciliatum
Brachythecium sp.
Vulpia myuros
Alnus rubra
Alnus rubra
Festuca rubra
Cornus stolonifera
Claytonia rubra
Plantago lanceolata
Bromus rigidus
Page 105
Common name
Rocky Mountain juniper
roseroot
rough bluegrass
salal
salmonberry
saskatoon
scarlet paintbrush
Scotch broom
Scouler's willow
sea blush
seashore lupine
seashore saltgrass
sedge
short-styled thistle
Siberian miner's-lettuce
Sitka mountain-ash
Sitka willow
skunk cabbage
slender beaked-moss
slender hairgrass
slender hawkweed
slender plantain
slough sedge
small bedstraw
small-flowered alumroot
small-flowered blue-eyed Mary
small-flowered catchfly
small-flowered nemophila
small-flowered paintbrush
small-flowered wood-rush
small-headed clover
soft brome
spiny wood fern
spotted coralroot
spring gold
step moss
stiff club-moss
stiff-leaved haircap moss
stinging nettle
sweet vernalgrass
sweet-scented bedstraw
sword fern
tall Oregon-grape
thimbleberry
tiger lily
Latin name
Sedum integrifolium
Poa trivialis
Gaultheria shallon
Rubus spectabilis
Castilleja miniata
Cytisus scoparius
Salix scouleriana
Plectritis congesta
Lupinus littoralis
Distichlis spicata
Carex sp.
Cirsium brevistylum
Claytonia sibirica
Sorbus sitchensis
Salix sitchensis
Hieracium gracile
Plantago elongata
Carex obnupta
Galium trifidum
Heuchera micrantha
Lotus micranthus
Lotus micranthus
Silene gallica
Luzula parviflora
Bromus hordeaceus
Dryopteris expansa
Lomatium utriculatum
Urtica dioica
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Galium triflorum
Polystichum munitum
Mahonia aquifolium
Rubus parviflorus
Lilium columbianum
Page 106
Common name
tomcat clover
tower mustard
trailing blackberry
trailing snowberry
trembling aspen
twinflower
two-coloured lupine
upright hedge-parsley
Utah honeysuckle
vanilla-leaf
variable moss
wall lettuce
wall speedwell
Wallace's selaginella
western bitter-cress
western buttercup
western fescue
western hemlock
western redcedar
western redcedar
western trumpet
western yew
white fawn lily
white hawkweed
white triteleia
wild strawberry
willow
wood groundsel
wood strawberry
woodland tarweed
yarrow
yellow monkey-flower
yellow pond-lily
yerba buena
Latin name
Arabis glabra
Rubus ursinus
Symphoricarpos hesperius
Populus tremuloides
Linnaea borealis
Lupinus bicolor
Torilis japonica
Lonicera utahensis
Achlys triphylla
Lactuca muralis
Veronica arvensis
Festuca occidentalis
Tsuga heterophylla
Thuja plicata
Thuja plicata
Lonicera ciliosa
Taxus brevifolia
Fragaria virginiana
Salix sp.
Senecio sylvaticus
Fragaria vesca
Madia madioides
Mimulus guttatus
Nuphar lutea
Plagiochila undata
Pogonatum contortum
Salix lucida
Sambucus racemosa
14. APPENDIX G: Vegetation Summary Tables
•
•
•
applicable to CDFmm only
based on GIF plots with Young Forest to Old Forest structural stages
tables display presence class and mean cover class (1:<1%, 1:1-5%, 2:525%, 3:25-50%, 4:50-75%, 5:>75%).
Presence
Class
I
II
III
IV
V
% frequency
1-20
21-40
41-60
61-80
81-100
Page 108
15. Forested Ecosystems
Strata
Spp
0453Qg50-Fd(Qg)- 51-FdRaFdBg11-Cw - 13-Cw - 14-Cw01-Fd- 02-FdPl- Mixed
03-Fd- Saskatoon- Salal-Hairy 52-Fd - Oregon 06-CwBg- 07-CwSkunk Indian Slough
Salal Arbutus grass Oniongrass Herbs honeysuckle Snowberry grape Foamflower Snowberry cabbage plum
sedge
63
n
25
A
Abies grandis
II - 1.62
A
Acer macrophyllum
I - 1.10
A
Alnus rubra
I - 1.80
A
Arbutus menziesii
III - 1.67 V - 2.05
A
Fraxinus latifolia
A
Pinus contorta
A
Populus balsamifera
2
I - 0.10
25
2
I - 1.00
IV - 1.74
31
6
41
20
I - 1.00
I - 2.00
II - 1.63
III - 1.22
II - 2.06
IV - 1.38
IV - 2.56
V - 2.65
I - 1.00
V - 1.50
IV - 2.05
IV - 1.50
1
1
6
6
IV - 1.25
V - 5.00
V - 4.00 II - 3.00 V - 3.17
I - 1.33
I - 1.00
I - 1.25
I - 1.80 III - 2.00
I - 3.00
I - 1.00
II - 2.50
I - 1.00
A
Populus tremuloides
A
A
Quercus garryana
A
Thuja plicata
III - 2.48
A
Tsuga heterophylla
I - 1.42
B
Abies grandis
I - 1.00
B
Acer glabrum
I - 2.00
B
Acer macrophyllum
I - 1.03
B
Alnus rubra
B
I - 1.75
B
Arbutus menziesii
I - 2.00
B
Cornus stolonifera
B
Crataegus douglasii
B
Crataegus monogyna
B
Cytisus scoparius
I - 1.00
II - 1.68
I - 1.00
I - 1.75
B
Gaultheria shallon
V - 2.81 III - 1.55
I - 2.00
V - 2.67
B
Hedera helix
I - 3.00
I - 0.10
I - 2.00
I - 2.00
II - 2.50 III - 2.33
V - 3.63 V - 3.17 V - 1.50
V - 3.67
V - 2.00
V - 3.52
V - 3.17
V - 2.88
I - 1.50 V - 3.00
III - 1.01
III - 2.00
I - 1.00
I - 2.00
II - 1.91
IV - 2.64
III - 2.25
V - 2.00 IV - 2.25
IV - 2.36
V - 2.00 IV - 1.75 I - 2.00
I - 1.50
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
I - 0.55
I - 0.10
I - 1.33
I - 3.00
I - 2.00
I - 2.00
I - 0.70
I - 0.80
I - 0.10
V - 2.00
I - 1.05
II - 1.00
I - 2.50
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
I - 2.00
II - 1.50
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
I - 2.00
III - 1.42
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
II - 1.43
V - 2.00 III - 2.33
I - 1.00
12/15/08
Page 109
Strata
Spp
sedge
B
Holodiscus discolor
B
Ilex sp.
III - 1.82 I - 1.20
II - 0.85
B
B
Lonicera ciliosa
II - 1.06
I - 1.20
I - 1.50
B
Lonicera hispidula
II - 1.11 IV - 1.42 III - 0.10
V - 1.95
B
Lonicera utahensis
I - 2.00
B
Lotus micranthus
B
Mahonia aquifolium
I - 1.00
II - 0.25
I - 0.46
B
Mahonia nervosa
III - 1.50 II - 1.46
I - 1.00
B
Malus fusca
B
B
B
Pinus contorta
I - 2.00
B
I - 2.00
B
Quercus garryana
I - 0.10
B
Rhamnus purshiana
B
Ribes lacustre
B
Rosa gymnocarpa
B
Rosa nutkana
B
Rubus discolor
B
Rubus laciniatus
III - 2.00
I - 2.00
V - 3.67
I - 2.00
I - 0.40
I - 0.33
III - 1.00
V - 1.00
I - 3.00
I - 1.00
I - 2.00
III - 1.17
III - 1.70
I - 1.52
V - 1.88
I - 1.00
I - 1.18
I - 0.10
III - 1.56
I - 1.00
II - 1.32
I - 1.05
I - 1.00
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
I - 2.00
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
III - 1.00
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 0.40
I - 1.00 III - 0.10
I - 0.55
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
I - 2.00
V - 1.40
I - 1.03
II - 0.95
I - 1.00
I - 2.00
II - 1.23
V - 2.00
I - 2.00
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
II - 2.50
I - 1.00
I - 1.00
II - 1.50
I - 1.00
I - 2.00
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
I - 2.00
I - 2.00
I - 1.00
B
Rubus parviflorus
I - 1.00
B
Rubus spectabilis
I - 1.33
B
Salix hookeriana
B
Salix sitchensis
B
Salix sp.
B
Sambucus racemosa
B
Sorbus sitchensis
I - 1.00
I - 2.50
III - 1.67
I - 1.00
I - 2.00
I - 1.00
I - 1.00
I - 1.00
I - 1.00
I - 3.00
12/15/08
Page 110
Strata
B
B
Spp
Symphoricarpos
hesperius
sedge
I - 1.03
I - 1.00
III - 3.00
I - 1.03
V - 3.50
II - 1.00
I - 0.55
B
Taxus brevifolia
I - 0.10
B
Thuja plicata
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
B
Ulex europaeus
I - 2.00
B
Vaccinium ovatum
I - 0.55
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
B
I - 0.64
I - 0.55
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
II - 1.48
II - 1.75
I - 0.78
I - 0.55
I - 1.00
C
C
Achlys triphylla
I - 1.00
I - 0.55 III - 0.10
I - 0.55
C
Adenocaulon bicolor
I - 0.70
C
C
Allium acuminatum
I - 0.10
C
Allium cernuum
I - 0.10
C
Aphanes arvensis
C
Arabis glabra
I - 0.10
C
Arabis hirsuta
I - 0.10
C
C
Bellis perennis
C
C
Brodiaea coronaria
I - 2.00
III - 0.10
I - 1.00
I - 1.03
I - 0.10
I - 3.00
I - 2.00
II - 0.82
I - 0.10
I - 1.53
I - 0.10
II - 0.55
I - 2.00
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
C
Bromus pacificus
I - 2.00
C
Bromus sp.
I - 1.00
C
Calypso bulbosa
I - 0.10
C
Camassia quamash
I - 1.00
C
C
Carex deweyana
C
Carex inops
I - 1.33
I - 1.00
III - 3.00
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
I - 0.55
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
I - 1.05
I - 3.00
I - 2.00
I - 3.00
V - 1.00
12/15/08
Page 111
Strata
Spp
sedge
C
Carex lenticularis
C
Carex obnupta
C
Carex sp.
C
Castilleja miniata
I - 0.10
C
I - 1.00
C
Cerastium arvense
Cerastium
semidecandrum
C
C
C
Circaea alpina
C
Cirsium brevistylum
C
Cirsium vulgare
C
I - 2.00
I - 1.03
II - 1.02
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 0.55
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
I - 0.73
I - 1.67
I - 3.00
I - 2.00
I - 0.10
I - 0.80
I - 1.50
I - 4.00
Claytonia rubra
I - 0.46
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
Claytonia sibirica
C
C
C
Cornus suecica
C
Daucus pusillus
I - 2.00
I - 1.25
I - 0.10
C
Dryopteris expansa
C
I - 1.00
C
Elymus hirsutus
I - 1.00
Epilobium ciliatum
I - 2.00
I - 1.50
II - 1.16
I - 0.10
I - 0.46
I - 4.00
Digitalis purpurea
Equisetum arvense
I - 0.10
I - 0.78
C
C
III - 1.00
I - 0.10
C
C
I - 5.00
I - 0.10
C
V - 1.60 V - 4.80
I - 0.10
C
C
V - 1.00
I - 1.00
I - 1.05 III - 2.00
C
I - 1.78
I - 3.00
I - 1.03
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
V - 1.00
I - 2.00
I - 0.10
I - 1.37
V - 1.00
II - 1.00
12/15/08
Page 112
Strata
Spp
sedge
C
Erodium cicutarium
I - 0.55
C
I - 2.00
C
Festuca subuliflora
C
Fragaria vesca
I - 0.55
C
Fragaria virginiana
I - 1.00
III - 2.00
II - 2.50
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 0.70
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
III - 1.32
III - 1.01
I - 1.00
I - 1.00
II - 0.85
II - 1.01
I - 1.00
I - 2.00
I - 2.00
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
Fritillaria affinis
C
Galium aparine
C
Galium trifidum
C
Galium triflorum
C
Geranium molle
C
C
Geum macrophyllum
C
Glechoma hederacea
C
I - 0.40
II - 0.66
I - 0.55
II - 0.51
II - 1.00
I - 0.10
C
Grasses
II - 1.41 V - 3.71 V - 7.50
V - 6.01
IV - 2.34
V - 1.35
II - 2.24
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
C
Heuchera micrantha
C
I - 0.80
I - 0.79
II - 0.83 III - 0.10
I - 1.00
I - 1.00
C
C
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 0.55
IV - 0.97
II - 0.78
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
II - 1.13
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 3.00
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
III - 1.00
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
II - 3.33
V - 2.00
II - 0.55
I - 2.00
III - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 0.66 III - 0.10
I - 0.64
II - 0.61
III - 1.21
I - 1.00
C
Hieracium gracile
C
II - 0.90 III - 1.00
I - 1.50
C
Juncus effusus
I - 0.10
C
Lactuca muralis
I - 0.10
C
Lathyrus nevadensis
I - 0.10
C
Lilium columbianum
C
Linnaea borealis
I - 2.00
C
Listera cordata
I - 0.10
C
Lotus micranthus
I - 0.10
C
Lupinus bicolor
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
I - 0.55
I - 1.50
I - 1.37
I - 0.10
II - 1.03
I - 0.55
I - 2.00
III - 2.00
I - 0.10
I - 0.78
I - 1.22
III - 0.10
I - 1.00
I - 1.00
12/15/08
Page 113
Strata
Spp
sedge
C
Lupinus littoralis
I - 0.10
C
Luzula multiflora
I - 0.64
C
Luzula parviflora
C
C
C
Madia madioides
C
Madia sativa
C
Microseris lindleyi
I - 0.10
C
Mimulus alsinoides
I - 1.00
C
Mitella pentandra
C
C
Monotropa uniflora
C
Myosotis discolor
C
C
Oenanthe sarmentosa
C
Opuntia fragilis
C
Orobanche uniflora
C
Osmorhiza berteroi
II - 0.78
I - 0.40
III - 2.00
I - 1.00
I - 0.55
I - 1.00
II - 0.94
II - 1.38
II - 0.55
I - 2.00
V - 0.10
I - 2.00
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 0.40
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 0.55
II - 0.93
I - 1.00
I - 1.00
III - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 0.81
III - 0.10
I - 2.00
I - 0.78
C
C
Piperia elegans
I - 0.46
I - 1.00
I - 0.73
C
Plantago lanceolata
I - 0.55 V - 0.55
II - 1.25
I - 0.55
II - 0.77
I - 0.55
I - 1.00
C
Plectritis congesta
C
Poa trivialis
II - 1.87
C
C
C
Polystichum munitum
III - 0.91 I - 1.00
C
Pteridium aquilinum
I - 0.79
C
I - 0.10
V - 2.00
I - 2.00
I - 0.58
I - 2.00
III - 2.00
I - 0.10
II - 1.55
I - 0.10
I - 0.10 III - 1.00
II - 0.49
I - 0.78
I - 1.00
V - 2.55
IV - 2.57
I - 1.30
I - 0.10
V - 4.00
V - 3.00 III - 3.33 II - 1.00
I - 3.00
12/15/08
Page 114
Strata
Spp
sedge
C
Ranunculus repens
I - 2.00
I - 2.33
C
I - 1.00
I - 2.00
C
Rubus ursinus
III - 1.92
III - 1.23
C
Rumex acetosa
C
II - 1.20
I - 1.67
I - 0.64 III - 0.10
I - 1.00
I - 0.55
I - 0.70 III - 0.10
III - 1.02
III - 0.10
I - 0.78
C
I - 1.00
I - 1.03
II - 1.67
III - 1.00
I - 0.55
C
II - 0.87
I - 0.78
V - 1.50
I - 0.10
C
II - 1.33
I - 1.75
C
Senecio sylvaticus
C
Solidago canadensis
I - 1.50
I - 1.50
V - 1.60
II - 1.05
I - 0.70
III - 1.00
I - 1.03
I - 1.00
I - 2.00
C
Stachys chamissonis
I - 0.55
I - 2.00
C
I - 1.00
I - 1.67
C
Stellaria media
I - 1.00
C
I - 0.10
C
C
Tellima grandiflora
C
Torilis japonica
C
Trientalis borealis
C
I - 0.10 III - 1.00
I - 1.00
C
I - 0.10
I - 0.82
C
I - 1.00
I - 4.00
C
Urtica dioica
C
Veronica arvensis
C
Vicia americana
C
Vicia nigricans
I - 1.00
C
Vicia sativa
I - 2.00
C
Vulpia myuros
C
Zigadenus venenosus
V - 1.00
I - 2.00
I - 1.00
II - 1.21
I - 1.50
I - 1.00
II - 2.29
III - 1.38
I - 1.00
I - 2.00
I - 0.55
II - 0.81
I - 1.25
I - 0.55
II - 0.55
V - 1.20
I - 1.50
V - 2.00
I - 1.00
I - 0.55
I - 0.10
I - 0.55 V - 0.55
III - 1.62
I - 0.46
I - 1.00
I - 0.55
I - 3.00
I - 0.10
12/15/08
Page 115
Strata
Spp
sedge
D
I - 5.00
D
Brachythecium sp.
I - 5.33
I - 6.00
D
Cladina mitis
I - 2.10
D
Cladina rangiferina
II - 2.89
D
Cladonia squamosa
I - 0.20
D
Dicranum fuscescens
I - 3.50 III - 0.20
D
Dicranum scoparium
II - 5.71
I - 5.60
D
Dicranum sp.
I - 4.00
I - 4.00
III - 6.00
D
IV - 4.43 II - 5.11 III - 0.20
II - 4.00
III - 6.00
D
I - 2.00
D
I - 3.83
D
D
Leucolepis
acanthoneuron
D
Plagiochila undata
I - 1.10
D
Plagiomnium insigne
I - 0.20
D
Pogonatum contortum
D
D
D
I - 4.00
D
II - 4.40
I - 2.00
II - 4.89
I - 6.00
I - 6.00
I - 8.00
I - 2.00
I - 4.00
I - 4.00
I - 4.00
I - 3.00
IV - 4.88
II - 3.40
I - 4.67
V - 4.84
III - 4.38
II - 4.00
II - 5.00
I - 4.29
III - 4.00
V - 6.00 I - 6.00
I - 1.60
I - 3.00
I - 4.00
I - 2.55
I - 2.00
I - 4.00
I - 3.00
I - 0.20
I - 2.55
II - 2.75
I - 1.55
I - 2.00
I - 4.00
I - 4.00
I - 3.33
I - 2.00
III - 4.92
I - 3.20
II - 2.67
V - 2.00
I - 3.00
I - 2.00
I - 0.20
D
D
Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus I - 2.84
I - 1.10
I - 1.10
12/15/08
Page 116
Non Forested
Strata
Spp
76Miners71-Rock
7475lettuce70-Rock
moss7273Camass- Juniper- Beach
bluffs Selaginalla Dunegrass Snowberry Herbs
Oak
pea
4
n
A
Acer macrophyllum
III - 1.50
A
Arbutus menziesii
III - 2.00
A
III - 2.00
A
Quercus garryana
II - 0.10
B
4
3
4
II - 2.00
16
11
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
II - 2.00
II - 0.10
II - 1.67
II - 2.33
III - 1.50
I - 1.03
I - 0.55
II - 1.00
I - 1.00
I - 1.50
I - 1.00
I - 1.00
B
Arbutus menziesii
B
Cytisus scoparius
III - 0.55
B
Holodiscus discolor
II - 1.00
B
B
Lonicera ciliosa
B
Lonicera hispidula
B
B
Mahonia aquifolium
III - 1.00
II - 1.25
B
II - 2.00
I - 1.00
I - 2.00
B
Quercus garryana
III - 0.55
I - 1.00
III - 3.50
II - 3.00
IV - 2.50
III - 2.00
I - 2.00
II - 1.75
I - 1.00
V - 2.22
I - 0.10
II - 1.00
II - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
II - 0.10
B
Rosa gymnocarpa
B
Rosa nutkana
B
Rubus discolor
IV - 1.00
B
Salix scouleriana
II - 0.10
B
Salix sp.
II - 1.00
B
C
C
Achlys triphylla
C
1
II - 0.55
II - 1.00
II - 0.10
IV - 2.33 III - 1.50 V - 1.67
III - 1.05
V - 3.53
II - 0.10
II - 1.00
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
I - 2.00
V - 2.70
III - 1.23
I - 0.55
I - 0.10
12/15/08
Page 117
Strata
C
Spp
76Miners71-Rock
7475lettuce70-Rock
Oak
pea
II - 1.00
I - 1.00
C
Allium acuminatum
C
Allium cernuum
C
Ammophila arenaria
V - 4.00
C
Aphanes arvensis
II - 0.10
C
C
Brodiaea coronaria
C
Camassia quamash
C
Cardamine angulata
III - 0.55
II - 1.00
I - 0.10
I - 2.00
II - 1.50
II - 1.67
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
II - 1.00
I - 1.00
III - 0.10
IV - 1.03
V - 2.86 IV - 2.13
I - 1.00
C
C
C
Cerastium arvense
C
Cirsium vulgare
C
C
Claytonia rubra
C
Claytonia sibirica
I - 1.00
C
I - 0.10
C
C
C
C
Daucus pusillus
C
C
C
Erodium cicutarium
C
C
Fragaria vesca
C
Fritillaria affinis
I - 1.00
II - 1.00
II - 1.00
II - 1.00
II - 0.46 III - 0.64
I - 2.00
II - 0.10
II - 1.00
II - 0.10
I - 1.00
III - 2.00 V - 4.00
I - 0.70
I - 0.10
II - 0.72
I - 0.55
II - 0.10
I - 0.10
II - 1.00
II - 0.10
I - 0.10
II - 0.10
I - 0.10
IV - 0.40
I - 2.00
II - 1.00
I - 0.10
II - 0.10
II - 0.66
II - 0.10
V - 1.00
12/15/08
Page 118
Strata
C
Spp
Galium aparine
76Miners71-Rock
7475lettuce70-Rock
Oak
pea
IV - 0.70
III - 0.55
I - 1.00
II - 0.10
II - 0.10
I - 0.40
C
Geranium bicknellii
C
Geranium molle
C
Geum macrophyllum
C
C
Grasses
V - 2.50
C
II - 2.00
C
II - 1.00
C
V - 1.50
C
Koeleria macrantha
C
Lactuca muralis
V - 1.00
I - 0.10
IV - 2.00
III - 2.00
V - 4.55 IV - 4.50 V - 3.00
III - 1.14 II - 1.00
II - 1.18
I - 3.00
II - 1.00
Lathyrus japonicus
III - 2.50
I - 1.00
C
Lathyrus nevadensis
II - 1.00
I - 1.00
C
Leymus mollis
IV - 2.00
C
II - 1.00
C
Lomatium nudicaule
C
Lotus micranthus
C
Luzula multiflora
C
C
Madia madioides
II - 0.10
C
Mimulus alsinoides
II - 0.10
C
Mimulus guttatus
Opuntia fragilis
C
C
Plantago elongata
C
Plantago lanceolata
C
Plectritis congesta
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
V - 6.00
C
C
IV - 1.00
I - 2.00
II - 2.00
V - 4.00
V - 3.00
II - 2.25
III - 1.05
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
II - 1.00
II - 1.00
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
I - 0.10
II - 0.10
I - 0.10
II - 0.10
II - 1.00
II - 0.64
III - 1.43 III - 1.82
12/15/08
Page 119
Strata
C
Spp
76Miners71-Rock
7475lettuce70-Rock
Oak
pea
II - 0.10
II - 1.00
II - 3.00
I - 0.73
II - 1.67
I - 1.00
C
Polystichum munitum
C
I - 1.50
C
I - 2.50
C
Rubus ursinus
C
Rumex acetosa
C
C
II - 1.00
I - 0.10
II - 0.64
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
II - 1.67
III - 1.60 III - 0.85
C
Sedum integrifolium
I - 0.55
C
V - 1.53
II - 0.10
I - 0.70
C
V - 1.50
II - 3.00
I - 1.50
C
Senecio sylvaticus
C
Silene gallica
C
Sonchus asper
C
Stachys chamissonis
C
C
Stellaria media
IV - 1.67
II - 0.55
I - 1.00
II - 1.00
II - 1.00
I - 0.10
I - 1.00
II - 0.10
I - 2.00
C
Torilis japonica
C
C
C
Triphysaria pusilla
C
C
Vicia americana
C
Vicia sativa
II - 1.00
C
Zigadenus venenosus
II - 1.00
D
II - 4.00
D
Brachythecium sp.
IV - 1.00
I - 0.10
II - 0.10
I - 0.40
I - 0.55
I - 1.00
II - 1.00
II - 1.50
II - 1.00 III - 0.82
I - 1.00
I - 0.10
III - 2.00
12/15/08
Page 120
Strata
Spp
D
Cladina mitis
D
Cladina rangiferina
D
Dicranum scoparium
D
76Miners71-Rock
7475lettuce70-Rock
Oak
pea
II - 2.00
II - 4.00
II - 2.00
I - 0.20
II - 6.00
I - 4.00
I - 3.00
D
Peltigera canina
II - 0.20
D
Pogonatum contortum
II - 0.20
D
D
D
D
D
I - 4.00
I - 0.20
II - 4.00
II - 6.00
V - 5.50
II - 0.20
II - 5.00
I - 4.00
II - 2.00
I - 2.00
12/15/08
Page 121
Wetlands
Strata
Spp
n
B
61-Juncus marsh
63-Reed
canarygrass
marsh
64-Cattail marsh
65-Sedge fen
1
1
1
1
Cornus stolonifera
66-Shrub swamp
67-Hardhack
swamp
68-Seashore
saltgrass tidal
marsh
1
1
1
V - 3.00
B
Gaultheria shallon
V - 2.00
B
Salix lucida
V - 5.00
V - 3.00
B
Spiraea douglasii
V - 2.00
V - 3.00
V - 4.00
C
Carex obnupta
V - 4.00
V - 0.10
V - 1.00
C
Carex sylvatica
C
Cerastium arvense
V - 3.00
C
Cirsium arvense
V - 3.00
C
Distichlis spicata
V - 5.00
C
C
Equisetum arvense
C
Galium aparine
V - 1.00
C
Juncus effusus
V - 5.00
C
C
Nuphar lutea
C
Oenanthe sarmentosa
C
Opuntia fragilis
C
C
Potentilla paradoxa
V - 4.00
V - 5.00
V - 3.00
V - 2.00
V - 0.10
V - 2.00
V - 1.00
V - 4.00
V - 3.00
V - 3.00
V - 1.00
V - 4.00
V - 1.00
C
Ranunculus repens
C
Rumex acetosa
C
C
Typha latifolia
C
Urtica dioica
D
V - 6.00
D
V - 2.00
V - 1.00
V - 2.00
V - 2.00
V - 1.00
V - 3.00
V - 3.00
12/15/08
Page 122
12/15/08

Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping of the Southern Gulf

Transcription

Similar documents

Presentation_COLOMBIA

BIO-C3 - Bonus

MCP 650 - Wavebid

in the Northern Gulf of Mexico

Title A LIST OF FISHES FROM THE TOKARA ISLANDS

Handy guide to focal services

here - Landscape Architects

Developing and testing low cost LTD Stirling engines

The Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation

Gulf Interstate Engineering Statement of Qualifications

to see who was at Fencex 2014

The Year in Review - Homegrown Communications

International Credentials

Monthly Master Limited Partnership Overview

SO Prize Innovation Competition

Soils of the Gulf Islands of - Ministry of Environment