UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Vegetational composition and regeneration in three forest associations after logging in the coastal Western.. Houseknecht, Stephan J. 1976-02-11

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A6_7 H68.pdf [ 20.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0075421.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0075421-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0075421-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0075421-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0075421-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0075421-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0075421-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0075421-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0075421.ris

Full Text

VEGETATIONAL COMPOSITION AND REGENERATION IN THREE FOREST ASSOCIATIONS AFTER LOGGING IN THE COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE by STEPHAN J. HOUSEKNECHT B.Sc, Pennsylvania State University, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in the Faculty of Forestry We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF June, COLUMBIA BRITISH 1976 (cP) Stephan J. Houseknecht, 1976 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Forestry  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Date June 7, 1976 i ABSTRACT The study was initiated to determine the composition and structure of vegetation and natural tree regeneration invading logged areas within three major forest associations that were subjected to different site treatments in coastal British Columbia. To accomplish the above objectives, 50 one-fortieth acre plots were established in logged areas ranging in age from 2 to 14 years following logging and the accompanying site treatment. The number of trees per acre by height class, rooting substratum of the coniferous trees, and qualitative coverage estimates of the trees, shrubs, herbs and mosses encountered on each plot were sampled. These data were grouped into associations and analyzed using the releve' method for the vegetation arid analysis of variance to assess the role of natural regeneration in each associa tion and treatment class. Distance to the seed source and the type of seed source were measured to provide adjacent stand information. Environmental parameters such as slope, aspect, topographic position, seedbed type, parent material and depth, and altitude were measured to determine their significance in forming each association and their effect ii on natural regeneration. The results of the study indicate that the three forest associations are identifiable in the early stages of secondary succession. The identification of the sword-fern - western redcedar and salal - Douglas-fir associations was possible from vegetation characteristics alone. Identi fication of the moss - western hemlock association necessi tated the use of physiographic position, soil depth, and vegetation. Structurally, all associations contained the same average total cover, but differed considerably in species composition and layer dominance. The salal - Douglas-fir association had a very well developed shrub layer dominated by a low cover of Gaultheria shallons a well developed moss layer,dominated by Hylocomium splendens3 and a poorly developed herb layer. The moss - western hemlock association followed a similar trend. The swordfern - western redcedar association was characterized by a well developed shrub layer dominated by Rubus spectabilis3 a herb layer that was well-developed both in species composition and cover, and a poorly developed moss layer. It was found that factors such as the degree of disturbance, spacing of the planted trees, age, and parent material caused changes in structure and species composition within each association and between associations. In addition, site treatment, especially slashhurning, affected the species composition by eliminating many of the low grow-iii ing indicator species normally found in an association that had had no treatment. Slashburning decreased the number of species in the salal - Douglas-fir association the greatest, while in the swordfern - western redcedar association, this reduction was of a lesser extent. The results of the statistical analysis indicate that associations coupled with site treatment are more import ant in determining the number and species of coniferous trees invading a logged site than the association type. Coniferous trees preferred the salal - Douglas-fir and moss -western hemlock associations that had no treatment or were piled and burned. Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and western redcedar were all decreased in numbers by slashburning. The regeneration of deciduous trees was found to be more strongly controlled by the association type. The swordfern - western redcedar association was the favoured association. All coniferous species preferred a mineral soil seedbed for germination, however, survival was low except for Douglas-fir. Western hemlock preferred a decaying wood substratum and western redcedar was found most often on rapidly decomposing organic matter in moist pockets. The study indicated that an adequate number of coniferous trees existed in all associations and site treat ments according to normal restocking standards. Western iv hemlock was the dominant tree species and generally occurred in an uneven clumped pattern. Douglas-fir and western red-cedar were relatively poorly stocked in all associations and site treatment classes. Indications are that supplemental planting of Douglas-fir would be needed to reach a desirable level of stocking of Douglas-fir in all associations studied. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES viiLIST OF APPENDICES xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiiI. INTRODUCTION 1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW 4 III. DESCRIPTION OF AREA STUDIED 7 1. Coastal Western Hemlock Zone 7 Soils 11 Vegetation 3 2. Geological History of the Study Area. . . 15 IV. METHODS 17 1. Approach2. Selection of Plots 17 3. Plot Size 18 4. Forest Association 19 5. Associations Examined6. Analytical Procedure 20 General environmental data 20 Vegetation data anlaysis 1 Tree data analysis 25 Synthesis of vegetation . 25 vi Page 7. Lesser Vegetation ....... 28 V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 29 PART I - ASSOCIATION AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS . . 31 1. Floristic Features of the Three Serai Associations 3Salal - Douglas-fir association .... 31 Moss - western hemlock association. . . 41 Swordfern - western redcedar association 50 2. Causes of Variation in Vegetational Composition and Structure within the Three Serai Associations 60 Variation in vegetation and structure between and within associations .... 60 Variation caused by treatment on the structure and general species composition of the three associations . 68 Variation caused by treatment and association type on the individual plant species 70 Summary 6 PART II - SEEDLING ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE THREE SERAL ASSOCIATIONS 7 7 1. Seedling establishment of Coniferous and Deciduous Trees 7 2. Seedbed Characteristics of Coniferous Trees. 105 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 12 0 VII. LITERATURE CITED 127 APPENDICES 133 vii TABLES Page TABLE 1 Species significance scale 23 TABLE 2 Sociability scale 24 TABLE 3 Regeneration height classes 26 TABLE 4 Distribution of trees in numbers of trees per acre by association and treatment. . 78 TABLE 5 Number of deciduous trees per acre by age class 80 TABLE 6 Number of coniferous trees per acre by age class 1 TABLE 7 Factors with a correlation coefficient of .30 or greater 106 TABLE 8 Number of Douglas-fir seedlings growing on three types of seedbeds 115 viii FIGURES Page FIGURE 1 Map showing the location of the U.B.C. Research Forest and the Mission Tree Farm where the study was carried out 8 FIGURE 2 Photo-mosaic map of the University of British Columbia Research Forest, Haney, B.C. Dots indicate location of study plots. Approximate scale - 1:24,000. . . 9 FIGURE 3 Map of Mission Tree Farm. Dots indicate location of study plots. S.cale - 1: 125, 000 10 FIGURE 4 Plot 48 in the salal - Douglas-fir association was severely slashburned 2 years prior to examination. Note cover of Pteridium aquilinum and E-pilohium angustifolium and absence of any visible tree regeneration 32 FIGURE 5 Plot 47, 7 years after piling and burning. Note poor regeneration and survival of planted Douglas-fir 32 FIGURE 6 Plot 11 in the salal - Douglas-fir association illustrates the vegetation in an area that had no treatment after . logging 35 FIGURE 7 Heavy Gaultheria shallon cover forming on decaying wood after logging and no further treatment in the salal - Douglas-fir association 35 FIGURE 8 Moist pockets characteristic of logged areas. Polystiahum munition, Bleohnum spicantj Dryopteris austviaca and Eylooomium splendens are prominent here 38 ix Page FIGURE 9 Plot 32 in the moss - western hemlock association, 8 years after logging and no treatment. Tsuga heterophillla primary tree species , 42 FIGURE 10 Plot 33 in the moss - western hemlock association 8 years after logging, piling and burning, and planting of Douglas-fir at a 6x6 foot spacing 42 FIGURE 11 Moss - western hemlock association (Plot 45) on a north exposure. Note amount of Tsuga hetevophylla 45 FIGURE 12 Salal - Douglas-fir association (Plot 41) 7 years after slashburning on a southwest exposure. Note amount of Gaulthevia shallow. and lack of any regeneration except for planted Douglas-fir 45 FIGURE 13 Plot 2 exhibits the thick undergrowth of the swordfern - western redcedar association. 51 FIGURE 14 A successful plantation of Douglas-fir in the swordfern - western redcedar association {Plot 27) 51 FIGURE 15 Plot 8 in the swordfern - western redcedar association 5 years after logging and no treatment. Note the amount of deciduous tree regeneration and lack of any visible coniferous regeneration 53 FIGURE 16 Thick deciduous undergrowth in swordfern -western redcedar association. Note the poor establishment of planted Douglas-fir (Plot 28); ' 53 FIGURE 17 Average cover in percent of each layer by association and treatment 61 FIGURE 18 Plot 4 in the swordfern - western redcedar association shows the thick development of Rubus spectabilis 14 years after logging and slashburning 63 X FIGURE 19 Plot 5 in the swordfern - western redcedar association on poorly-drained glacio-marine parent material. Note amount of Juncus effusus and Alnus rubra and lack of coniferous regeneration 4 years after logging and piling and burning FIGURE 20 Lack of ground cover under 6x6 foot spacing of Douglas-fir in Plot 37. Upper photograph shows several small western hemlock seedlings and coniferous litter. Lower photograph shows decaying stems of Eubus spectabilis 66 FIGURE 21 Mean significance and presence of fifteen selected species in the salal - Douglas-fir association 71 FIGURE 22 Mean significance and presence of fifteen selected species in the moss - western hemlock association 72 FIGURE 23 Mean significance and presence of fifteen selected species in the swordfern - western redcedar association 73 FIGURE 24 Number of trees per acre of three tree species and two groups of species for individual associations 96 FIGURE 25 The number of trees per acre by height class of coniferous and deciduous trees for the salal - Douglas-fir association, age class 8 - 10, and no treatment. 97 FIGURE 26 The number of trees per acre by height class of coniferous and deciduous trees for the moss - western hemlock association, age class 8 - 10, and no treatment 98 FIGURE 27 The number of trees per acre by height class of coniferous and deciduous trees for the swordfern - western redcedar association, age class 5-7, and piled and burned . . 99 FIGURE 28 Western redcedar and western hemlock seedlings germinating on mineral soil seedbed 108 Page 63 xi Page FIGURE 29 Douglas-fir seedling germinating on typical mineral soil seedbed 108 FIGURE 30 Effectiveness of Ptevidium aquilinum [bracken fern) fronds in restricting tree regeneration Ill FIGURE 31 Tsuga heterophylla growing on a buried source of decaying wood. . . Ill FIGURE 32 Adventitious roots forming on a western redcedar branch 113 FIGURE 33 Typical clumped habit of western hemlock regeneration following logging 113 FIGURE 34 Douglas-fir growing well on decaying wood of fallen western redcedar tree 117 xii APPENDICES Page APPENDIX 1 133 PART I. General Environment Tables. 141 PART II. Vegetation Synthesis Tables 145 PART III. Tree and Stand Description. . . . \ . 156 APPENDIX II 207 Checklist of Species found in the Serai Associations 209 APPENDIX III 218 Analysis of Variance Tables 219 APPENDIX IV 222 Correlation Coefficients for Environmental Features 3 xiii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to the members of my committee: to Dr. J.V. Thirgood of the Faculty of Forestry, my advisor, who provided financial support and encouragement; to Dr. T. Ballard to the Department of Soil Science and Mr. J. Walters, Director of the University of British Columbia Research Forest, for their constructive reviews and criticisms of the manuscript. I wish to express my thanks to Mr. I. Rockwell of the Mission Tree Farm who familiarized me with the area and allowed me to carry out my study there. I am indebted to Dr. A. Kozak, Faculty of Forestry, who provided invaluable aid in the statistical analyses and to Mrs. Lillian Kerr for assistance in computer programming. I wish also to thank Dr. V.C. Brink, Department of Plant Science, for assistance in identification of the difficult grasses. Special thanks also go to Janet Lee Urhahn, TERA Environmental Resource Analyst Limited, for help in the drafting of the figures and use of the facilities. Most particularly I wish to extend special thank to Mr. K. Klinka, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Botany, who guided me in the initial stages of the study and helped in the identification of vascular plants. xiv A large part of the success of this study goes to my wife, Donna, without whose spiritual help and assistance in the field work this thesis would not be possible. To her. I am forever grateful. I was supported during the study by the Canadian Forestry Service and the Department of Forestry of the University of British Columbia. 1 I. INTRODUCTION The Coastal Western Hemlock Zone, identified by Krajina (1965), occupies a large area of coastal British Columbia. In this zone, the three major timber trees, namely Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) western hemlock (Tsuga heterophy lla), and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) attain their highest level of wood production. Empirical yield tables for natural stands in British Columbia show that the productivity of the coastal region may be two to three times that of good sites in the interior (Fligg 1960). Consequently, this zone is exceedingly valuable to the forest industry. Therefore, any practice that will promote faster regeneration and growth of the preferred species is of the utmost importance. Both the University of British Columbia Research Forest and the Mission Tree Farm, where this study was conducted, lie within the Coastal Western Hemlock Zone. This factor places a greater value on the results derived from the study. However, because of the time involved in field analysis, only the dry subzone was studied. But many of the conclusions and procedures for the dry subzone can be applied to the wet subzone. Scientific, common names and authors are contained in Appendix II. 2 Forests affected by human activity, that contain a number of age classes and successional stages, are frequent ly quite heterogeneous and unstable. Therefore, having some knowledge of the developmental patterns of vegetation after a disturbance greatly enhances the amount of information gained. Because of their longevity and diversity in structure and within time, forest successional patterns are difficult to define. Yet the dynamic processes during the initial stages of succession must be recognized if an effective system of forest classification is to be developed that is accurate and useful in the understanding of the regeneration character istics of the tree species found in each forest association. In recognition of a need for a more ecologically sound programme of silviculture and the division of the land scape into homogeneous units to provide for a better under standing as well as a more accurate one, regarding regenera tion of trees and vegetation patterns after logging, the following study was undertaken. The objectives of this study were two-fold: to describe and interpret the vegetational composition and structure of logged openings in the initial stages of secondary succession,iand to evaluate the role of natural tree regeneration in three forest associations within the dry subzone of the Coastal Western Hemlock Zone. It is hoped that differences in vegetation patterns and tree re generation characteristics will be evident between the three forest associations that will provide added information for 3 the management of logged over areas. To meet these objectives it was found advantageous to divide the thesis into two parts. Part I deals with the vegetation analysis and variations due to man's activities within the three associations studied, and Part II analyzes the seedling establishment within each association. In this way the objectives can be met in a more clear and easily understood manner. 4 II. LITERATURE REVIEW In British Columbia, the most significant and com plete ecosystematic classification was developed by Krajina (1959, 1965, 1969). This approach was adopted for this study. Krajina divided British Columbia into eleven biogeoclimatic zones, which were further subdivided into subzones. Basically his approach is founded on the concept devised by Jenny (1941, 1961) and Major (1951) which is that vegetation as well as soils is a product of climate, parent material, topography, organisms and time. It is this integration of ideas in the concept of the plant association (Krajina 1960) that makes this approach ecosystematic or holocoenotic. Each biogeoclimatic zone is differentiated by the climate, the zonal soil, and the climatic climax plant community existing on a mesic habitat. The recognition of each subzone is based mainly on the amount of precipitation received and the associated vegetation changes. The name of the zone is derived from the name of the dominant self-regenerating plants in the overstory and in the understory. Although Krajina recognizes the mesic association as being the climatic climax community, he does distinguish between edaphic and topographic climaxes, in recognition of the concept of the polyclimax. 5 Previous studies of secondary succession following clearcutting have been aimed at obtaining a general knowledge of succession following logging (Isaac 1940, Morris 1958, Yerkes 1960). There has been little attempt to stratify the early successional stages into communities, based on existing vegetation and nearby mature communities. As a result only broad successional stages have been distinguished because of the variation due to age, fire intensity, site type and variables such as soil, elevation, and aspect. Dyrness (1973) outlined the typical successional stages after logging: (1) moss-liverwort, (2) annual weeds and short-lived perennials, and (3) shrubs and tree seedlings. McMinn (1951) described the vegetation on a 20-year-old burn at the University of British Columbia Research Forest and distinguished a number of secondary vegetation types based on species composition and habitat. No evaluation of the previous stand was made. Also in this same area, Kellman (1969) studied the plant interrelationships during secondary succession. He noted that the prelogging species maintain themselves after logging and gradually re-establish dominance during succession whereas invader (pioneer) species respond initially to canopy removal and concentrate in the more severely disturbed sites. Mueller-Dombois (1960) studied the early succession al stages in eight associations that were described in their 6 mature state by Krajina and Spilsbury (1953). Information on their environmental and vegetational aspects in early secondary succession was described and evaluated. He found that even after clearcutting and slashburning the original plant association was still evident. Bailey C1966), using a similar method, investigated plant succession in the southern Oregon Coast Range. Bailey and Poulton (1968) classified 23-, 29- and 35-year-old secondary communities in northwest Oregon and related them to site type. The results revealed that serai vegetation developing after fire is classifiable and that communities exhibit consistent relationships to environmental factors. Dyrness (1965, 1973) followed the early stages of plant succession after logging and burning in the western Cascades in Oregon. He documented vegetative changes for seven years on permanent milacre plots. The prelogging plant communities were described before logging. Differences in disturbance from logging and burning highly affected the successional trends. Areas disturbed by logging, but unburned, supported a diversity of residual and invader species; whereas burned areas were occupied mostly by invader species. He also found that the postlogging and the prelogging communities were distinguishable. 7 III. DESCRIPTION OF AREA STUDIED The study was conducted on two areas: The University of British Columbia Research Forest, Haney, B.C. and the Mission Tree Farm located near Mission, B.C. Both areas are located on the southern fringe of the coast mountain range between Pitt and Harrison Lakes (Fig. 1). Figures 2 and 3 indicate the location of the study plots on the two forests. Both:.lie-: within the Coastal Western Hemlock Zone and are generally similar in climate, vegetation, and soil development. The topography is rugged with numerous rock outcroppings. The soil is mainly of glacial till origin and varies in depth from a few inches to three or more feet. The climate is characterized by mild wet winters and comparatively warm dry summers (Kendrew and Kerr 1955). Fire and logging history contribute to the major differences between the two areas. 1. The Coastal Western Hemlock Zone The Coastal Western Hemlock Zone was identified by Krajina (1959, 1965, 1969) and has been studied by several investigators: Krajina and Spilsbury (1953), Orloci (1961, 1964), Mueller-Dombois (1960, 1965), Lesko (1961), Eis (1962), Kuramoto (.196 5) , and Wade (1965) . This zone is the most typical FIGURE 1 Map showing the location of the U.B.C. Research Forest and the Mission Tree Farm where the study was carried out. FIGURE 2 Photormosaic map of the University of British Columbia Research Forest, Haney, B.C. Dots indicate location of study plots. Approximate scale - 1:24,000. FIGURE 3 Map of Mission Tree Farm. Dots indicate location of study plots. Scale - 1:125,000. 11 of coastal British Columbia, beginning directly at the coast and extending inland on the slopes of the Coast and Cascade Mountains. The Coastal Western Hemlock Zone is the wettest zone in British Columbia. The climate is characterized by an equable mesothermal climate (Cfb) and to some extent a milder Dfb climate, after Koppen (1936). Krajina (1969) summarized its attributes as follows: mean annual temperature: 5 - 9° C; annual range of temperature: 9 - 21° C; absolute maximum temperature: 26 - 40° C; absolute minimum temperature: -30 to -7° C; number of frost-free days: 120 - 250 days; annual total precipitation: 65 - 262 inches; annual snowfall: 5 - 295 inches; seasonal occurrence in percent of total precipitation: 30 - 45%*- in, winter- and 7 - 15% in summer; eleva'tibn: 0: -3000 feet. The zone is subdivided into two subzones based on precipitation. The annual total precipitation in the dry subzone ranges from 65 to 110 inches. The wet subzone is characterized by an annual total precipitation of 110 to 262 inches. Since the study is only concerned with the drier subzone of the Coastal Western Hemlock Zone, only this sub-zone will be discussed further concerning soils and vegetation. Soils The zonal soils of the drier subzone were identified by Krajina (1969) as Humo-Ferric or Ferro-Humic Podzols. Zonal 12 soils are those having well developed characteristics which directly and indirectly reflect the climate, without being influenced by extremes of parent material and drainage. Pod-zols generally have thick raw humus accumulations on the mineral soil surface. The thick accumulation of raw humus is the result of the cool temperatures of this zone and a predominance of fungal activity, with relatively little activity by bacteria and burrowing fauna. Fungi are promoted in an acid environ ment (Lutz and Chandler 1946; Buol, Hole and McCracken 1973), which is characteristic of coniferous litter (Ovington 1956). The heavy precipitation in this zone causes a strong leaching of the soil to take place, thus removing many of the minerals from the upper soil horizons to form an eluviated horizon under the organic layers and an illuviated horizon in the lower profile. Throughfall and stemflow precipitation also contri bute to the leaching process and the cycling of nutrients in the forest environment (Madgewick and Ovington 1959; Tarrant et al. 1968). Lesko (1961) found the soils to be very acid with pH ranging from 2.9 to 4.9 in the 0 horizons, 3.5 to 4.6 in the Ae horizon, 3.7 to 5.4 in the Ah horizon and 4.0 to 6.0 in the B horizon. He also noted the absence of an accumulation of calcium, magnesium, and potassium in the B horizon caused by the high precipitation promoting leaching. The soils generally exhibit a coarse texture ranging from sandy loam to gravelly loamy sand. The soils are stony 13 with the stones varying in size from gravel to large boulders. Soil mapping of the study areas has been done by several investigators. Kowall (1967) mapped compartment 1 of the Mission Tree Farm and determined the capability of the soils for forestry purposes. Subsequently, the entire Mission Tree Farm, as well as the surrounding area, was mapped by Lutt merding and Sprout (1968) for the British Columbia Department of Agriculture. The University of British Columbia Research Forest has been preliminarily mapped by the soils division of the British Columbia Department of Agriculture in co operation with Rowles and Lavkulich of the Department of Soil Science, University of British Columbia. In all cases the basic mapping unit was the soil series. Vegetation The study of the mature forest associations in the drier subzone of the Coastal Western Hemlock Zone has been done by Orloci (1961, 1964), Eis (1962) and Kojima (1972). The mature associations must be analyzed before the more unstable and ecologically diverse serai stages can be fully understood. In this zone Tsuga hetevophylla3 Pseudotsuga menziesii3 and Thuja plioata reach the most productive state. Pseudotsuga menziesii attain its best growth, some times reaching 300 feet in height and 12 feet in diameter (Krajina 1959). Pseudotsuga menziesii occurs as a pioneer 14 tree (moderately shade intolerant) on all sites except the driest hygrotope. Consequently, it usually becomes established after fire or logging as secondary succession progresses. As the growth of the stand continues under the humid conditions, coniferous litter and dead trees begin to decay, advancing the process of podzolization and promoting raw humus formation causing the habitat to become more favorable to the establish ment of Tsuga hetevophylla. According to Krajina (1965), an abundance of acid mor humus greatly enhances the establish ment of Tsuga hetevophylla. Tsuga hetevophylla is the climatic climax species on mesic habitats but is commonly found in all habitats throughout the Coastal Western Hemlock Zone. Thuja plioata grows best on sites where seepage water is abundant. Because of the ample supply of nutrients and moisture on these sites, soil organisms are abundant, forming a mull humus which is favourable to the species. Thuja plioata usually becomes dominant in depressional re ceiving areas or alluvial habitats along streams. Several deciduous trees are commonly found: Aoev macvophyllum, Pvunus emavginata3 Covnus nuttallii3 Alnus rubva3 Aoev oivoinatum3 Populus tviohoeavpa, Betula papyvi-feva, and Bhamnus puvshiana. All of these deciduous trees require a fairly moist and rich habitat to attain their peak productivity. Pinus oontovta and Pinus montieola occur infrequent ly, Pinus montieola ±s better adapted to montane areas but it is usually eliminated by the white pine blister rust before 15 it achieves dominance. Pinus contorta is very shade intol erant and therefore acts primarily as an invader of open areas if a seed source is available. 2 . Geological'.History of the ..Study Areas: The study areas were subjected to four glaciations: Seymour, Semiamu, Vashon, and a minor one that only glaciated the valleys, the Sumas (Armstrong 1957). The Vashon was the most important glaciation as far as the soils and present land features of the study area are concerned. During each glacia tion the land was depressed relative to the sea. As the ice wasted, the ice previously resting on the sea floor thinned and floated, leaving glaciomarine stoney clay deposits below 500 feet elevation. Succeeding the ice melt, the land surface rose above the sea. Meltwater, produced from wasting glacial ice, created localized areas of glacial outwash deposits above 500 feet elevation. The ice moved in a generally southerly direction forming a valley trend running north to south. The valleys are usually broad and U-shaped with steep sides. The mountains are composed mainly of quartz diorite, granodiorite, or diorite. Volcanic or sedimentary rocks are found only locally and considered of minor importance (Geological Map of B.C., 1948). Within the study area, glacial drift is by far the most abundant material and underlies most of the terrain. The depth of the till varies from a thin veneer on the top of the slopes to deep plain deposits on the 16 lower slopes. The till is derived from the mechanical abrasion of the ice against the rock strata and consists of two types, ablation till and basal till. Ablation till is material on and within the ice, and as the glacier melts it falls to the surface. Basal till is compacted under the weight of the glacier. This compacted material is relatively impermeable to roots and water. The basal till generally does not travel a great distance and therefore tends to reflect the crystal size and composition of the underlying bedrock. 17 IV. METHODS 1. Approach The basic approach and methods initially developed by the phytosociologists of the Ziirich-Montpellier school were followed in conducting this study. These have been discussed in detail by Braun-Blanquet C1932, 195.1), Billings (1952), Poore (1955, 1956), Becking (1957), and Krajina (1933, 1959, 1960, 1965). Only a brief discussion is necessary here to clarify the methods adopted. 2. Selection of Plots The sample plots were subjectively chosen so that each represented a uniform stand floristically as well as physiographically. Each plot is considered to be a sampling unit, which represents a complete sample of that particular ecosystem and can be characterized by a certain set of prop erties. Although it is apparent that no two plots are going to be identical in every detail, comparison of floristic and environmental data has disclosed analogous relationships in vegetation pattern and structure. At the University of British Columbia Research Forest sample plots were tentatively selected using Klinka's preliminary ecosystem map of the Forest (1972). Final identi-18 fixation of the site type was made in the field utilizing position on slope, depth and type of parent material, residual vegetation and existing vegetation in the adjacent stands. In the absence of a detailed ecological study at the Mission Tree Farm, a map could not be used to tentatively choose the location of the plots established there. The experience gained from the field work at the University of British Columbia Research Forest, as well as the previously mentioned indicators, were used to locate each plot at this forest. When sampling was carried out in a cut-over area, more than one plot was usually laid out in one site type in an effort to sample variations in site preparation, burn ing intensity, and topographic position. Such variations will cause lesser vegetational dissimilarities as well as affecting tree growth and regeneration. 3. Plot Size Each site type was described on a one-fortieth (1/40) acre square plot. At the beginning of the field work in the summer of 1973, one-tenth (1/10) acre plots were used. But it was found that even though the larger plot size could provide more information (Orloci 1964), it was very difficult to handle and time-consuming because of the complex nature of the vegetation in cut-over areas. Consequently, one-fortieth (1/40) acre plots were chosen. 19 4. Forest Association The definition of a forest association adopted for this study is as follows: "A forest association has a definite uniform vegetation composition and physiognomy, and is associated with a certain set of environmental and physical factors. It is in a climax state and at equilibrium with the climate of the area." Because of past fires and logging, numerous successional stages exist before the final climatic climax stage is reached. Although it is emphasized that these successional stages will eventually reach the final climax association, the reason for centering a classification on the more stable climax association is that it draws together several successional stages that will all develop into the same climax association. This reduces the size of the classi fication and increases its usefulness. For these reasons, the serai associations of this study have been identified and named according to the climax association to which they relate, since intrinsic characteristics such as soil, climate, parent material, and topography remain relatively unaltered, as does the independent biotic factor discussed by Jenny (1941). 5. Associations Examined Three associations were selected to be sampled: Salal - Douglas-fir (xeric) type 20 Moss - western hemlock (mesic) type Swordfern - western redcedar (subhygric-hygric) type The non-forested ecosystem on rock, skunk cabbage -western redcedar and Devil's club - western redcedar associa tions were disregarded in this investigation because the area covered by these is small compared to the other associations and insignificant in terms of management potential. 6. Analytical Procedure General Environmental Data On all the plots examined, the following parameters were taken into consideration for analysis of the environment and plot history: Phy_si_og_raphy2_ 1. Altitude 2. Aspect 3. Topography 4. Micro-relief within plot 5. Slope gradient 6. Position on slope 7. Landform 8. Texture of parent material 21 Stand descri£t:ion: 9. Location 10. , Setting size 11. Date logged 12 . Date since last disturbance 13. Age of stand 14. Date planted 15. Type of treatment 16. Burning intensity 17. Distance to seed source 18. Distance to south edge 19. Type of seed source Soi.l_and_organix__laye_rs : 20. Soil order 21. Depth of organic layers 22. Hygrotope 23. Percentage of plot covered by rock, slash, mineral soil, organic material, and decaying wood 24. Percentage of brush species overtopping or non-overtopping trees. The scales used for each parameter are contained in Appendix I. Vegetation Data Analysis Vegetation in each plot was assessed with-reference to .the. following aspects: 1. Estimate of percentage surface cover of each vegetation 22 layer defined according to life form and height: Layer A: Tree layer - trees over 30 feet in height Layer B: Shrub layer - B^ - woody plants over 6 feet but less than 30 feet B^ - woody plants less than 6 feet in height Layer C: Herb layer - all herbaceous plants including creeping shrubs and commercial trees species less than 1 foot tall Layer D: Moss layer - DH - Bryophytes growing on humus DW - Bryophytes growing on decay ing wood DM - Bryophytes growing on mineral soil DR - Bryophytes growing on rock. Each species is rated in terms of species significance and sociability in each respective vegetation layer according to the Domin-Krajina scale (1933). The scales employed are shown in Tables,1 and 2. Species signifi cance was used to assess the abundance or dominance of a species in each plot, and sociability allows for an approximate estimate of a species tendency to grow in groups or singly. The significance and sociability estimates were done visually. The visual estimation approach has been adopted by most phytosociologists (Braun-Blanquet 1932, 1951; Krajina and Spilsbury 1953, Brayshaw 1955, Becking 1957, Orloci 1964, Bell 1964, Kojimi 1972) because of its efficiency and speed for most comparison purposes. 23 Table 1 Species significance scale (Domin - Krajina, 1933) Class Description + Solitary, very low dominance (0 - 11) 1 Seldom, very low dominance (1 - 2%) 2 Very scattered, low dominance (2 - 3%) 3 Scattered, low dominance (3 - 5%) 4 Covering 5 - 101 of the plot 5 Covering 10 - 20% of the plot 6 Covering 20 - 33% of the plot 7 Covering 33 - 50% of the plot 8 Covering 50 - 75% of the plot 9 Covering more than 75% but less than 100% of the plot 10 Covering 100% of the plot 24 Table 2 Sociability scale (Krajina, 1933) Class Descript ion + Sociability 0, individual plants 1 Groups, up to 2 4 x 4 cm 2 Groups, up to 2 2 5 x 2 5 cm 3 Groups, up to 2 50 x 50 cm 4 Groups, up to 1/3 - 3/4 m2 5 Groups, up to 1 - 2 m 6 Groups, up to c 2 5 m 7 Groups, up to 25 - 50 m2 8 Groups, up to 100 m2 9 Groups, up to 200 - 250 m2 10 Groups, at least 500 m2 25 Tree Data Analysis Tree information was handled in a somewhat more detailed manner than the vegetational component. The tree analysis consisted of a tally of all tree species present in one foot height classes (Table 3). De pending on the density of the stocking on a plot, it was divided into quarters or thirds and regeneration recorded in each section and then totalled for all sections in that plot. The number of trees recorded on each plot were then converted to a per acre basis for purpose of comparison. On cut-over areas that had been planted, an attempt was made to separate and tally the planted trees from those of natural origin. This *ras done by comparing the height of the planted vs. naturally regenerated trees, by whorl counts, and by observing if the trees were in rows. This method work ed well in all areas except those that were older and extreme ly dense in which the row effect of the planted trees was obscured. Synthesis of Vegetation The vegetation synthesis consists of a summation and analysis of the vegetation data collected. The data were then abstracted to form associations. When the plots were sampled they were grouped into tentative associations. All plots of the same tenta tive associations were grouped and species stratified by 26 Table 3 Regeneration height classes Regeneration Class Height (ft.) 0 under 1 foot in 1 1-2 2 2-3 3 3-4 4 4-5 5 5-6 6 6^7 7 7-8 8 8-9 9 9-10 10 10-11 etc. etc. 27 layer. For each species within an association, a presence, mean significance, and range of significance value were determined. The species were arranged within each vegetation layer in decreasing order, firstly by presence. If two or more species were alike in presence value, they were arranged according to highest mean significance values, and finally if two or more species were alike in both presence and mean significance, they were arranged alphabetically. This pro cedure was carried out using a computer method developed by. KIinka (19 74). Once the synthesis tables were formed, they were manipulated until the final associations were abstracted. The "characteristic combination of species" (Braun-Blanquet 1932, Krajina 1933, Orloci 1961) was employed to typify an association. Only species that fell into one of the follow ing classes were considered as having some diagnostic value for identifying the association: 1. Constant dominant species: a species which has high presence (80 - 1001) and high significance (mean species significance more than 5.0). 2. Constant species: a species which has high presence (70 - 80%) but low significance (mean species signifi cance less than 5.0). 3. Important companion species: a species which does not belong to any of the above, but tends to associate more or less exclusively with a certain association. 28 Lesser Vegetation The use of this classification places heavy emphasis on the role of lesser understory vegetation for identification of a particular association. Lesser vegetation is generally more sensitive to environmental differences and variation (Becking 1957, Daubenmire 1968, Dyrness and Youngberg 1958) than overstory species. First, the feeding roots of trees, shrubs, and various herbs are usually all located in the most fertile part of the soil profile (Kalela 1950, Coile 1952). Second, lesser vegetation ordinarily has a narrower ecologi cal amplitude than overstory species, such as Tsuga hetevo-•phylla or Pseudotsuga menziesii. Third, after a major dis turbance such as fire, lesser vegetation tends to sprout from rhizomes and continue the original vegetation pattern, although a change in structure may occur (Mueller-Dombois 1960). However, this may be masked by invading weed vegeta tion. Fourth, important indicative tree species tend to be preceded by short-lived serai species that do not truly indi cate the effect of environment, but rather the availability of seed and their ability to capitalize on disturbed situa tions. This results in an unstable condition persisting for a number of years. One problem in the use of lesser vegetation is the lack of knowledge about its distribution, habits, and toler ance in response to different treatments- or. disturbances (Rowe 1956). 29 V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The vegetation has been analyzed as described in Chapter III, and the results recorded in Appendix I. The data are organized into three parts: general.plot information, vegetation synthesis tables, and stand description. Within each association, the plots are ordered from left to right by treatment and age. The species in the vegetation syn thesis tables are arranged vertically in the following order: a) by strata b) by decreasing presence within a stratum c) by decreasing mean significance, where presence within a stratum is identical and d) alphabetically, if presence and mean significance are identical. The stand description section contains the number of trees per acre found on each plot by species and height class. It should be realized that these associations are relatively broad in vegetative characteristics and could possibly be divided into a number of smaller units if mature associations were being dealt with rather than early success ional ones. However, because of the heterogeneity of the vegetation at this stage of development, brought about by the severe alteration of the environment after clearcutting, the permanent vegetative characteristics have not had time to stabilize. Therefore extensive variability occurs .: 30 within and between plots grouped in the same association, regardless of how far the divisive process is carried. This variability in vegetative features in the early successional stages causes difficulty in the identification and description of the early successional associations. This difficulty is aggravated by the occurrence of many short-lived annual plants and shade intolerant shrubs, trees and herbaceous plants that are not found in the mature associations and tend to cover up the more important plant species indicative of a particular association. This results in a greater use of environmental features to characterize each individual association. Water status and soil depth become two of the most important parameters for this purpose. 31 PART I - ASSOCIATION AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 1. Floristic Features of the Three Serai Associations Salal - Douglas-fir association This association develops on relatively shallow soils over bedrock usually possessing a convex topography. It generally occupies ridgetops and upper slope positions. The slope gradient varies from 0-5 percent on ridges to 45 p.ercent on neutral slopes CFigs. 4, 5, and 6). Appendix I, Parts I and II contains the data discussed in this section. The characteristic combination of species for this association is: Constant dominant species: Gaulthevia shallon Tsuga hetevophylla Ptevidium aquilinum Polytviohum junipevinum Constant species: Betula papyvif eva Vacoinium parvifolium Rubus speotabilis Epilobium angustifolium Bleohnum spicant Rubus uvsinus Pseudotsuga menziesii 32 FIGURE 4 Plot 48 in the salal - Douglas-fir association was severely slashburned 2 years prior to examination. Note cover of Pteridium aquilinum and Epilobium angusti folium, and lack of any visible tree regeneration. FIGURE 5 Plot 47, 7 years after piling and burning. Note poor regeneration and survival of planted Douglas-fir. 33 34 The A and layers are largely a function of the age of the stand. Early successional tree species reach these layers first as well as Tsuga heterophylla on unburned plots where it occurs as advanced regeneration. Betula papyrifera3 Salix sitchensis 3 and Tsuga heterophylla are dominant species with Pvunus emarginata3 Alnus rubra, Populus trichocarpa3 Acer civcinatum 3 and Thuja plioata occurring sporadically. The B2 layer is consistently dominated by Gaultheria shallon3 accompanied by Vaccinium parvifolium3 Tsuga heterophylla3 Rubus speotabilis3 and Betula papyrifera. As in the mature association, Gaultheria shallon is dominant but to a greater extent, forming a continuous carpet (Fig. 7] one to two feet tall. The extensive layer of Gaultheria shallon largely eliminates low growing herbs and tree regeneration or restricts their occurrence to moist pockets and exposed areas. Slash-burning did not seem to reduce Gaultheria shallon in signifi cance but did cause a more pronounced patchy occurrence rather than a continuous layer. Vaccinium parvifolium is strongly associated with the amount of decayed wood present and de creases noticeably as the amount of decayed wood is decreased. Rubus speotabilis also had a relatively high dominance which is quite different from the mature association where it occurs only sporadically. This is due to the increased light and the mineralization of the organic layers brought about by clear-cutting. Other common shrubs in the B? layer are Menziesia 35 Plot 11 in the salal - Douglas-fir association illustrates the vegetation in an area that had no treatment after logging. Heavy Gaulthevia. shallon cover forming on decaying wood after logging and no further treatment in the salal - Douglas-fir association. 36 37 ferruginea, Spiraea douglasii, Vaecinium ovalifolium, Rubus parviflorus, Vacoinium alaskaense, and Rubus leuoodermis. All the tree species prevailing in the B^: layer also occur in the B^ layer, but usually with a higher constancy and signifi cance . The C layer is largely composed of tall weed vegeta tion present because of clearcutting, and numerous ferns, some of which are residual from the period before cutting. Pteridium aquilinum, Epilobium angustifolium, Bleohnum spioant, Anaphalis margaritacea, and Rubus ursinus compose the major proportion of this layer. Bleohnum spioant, Polystiohum munitum, Dryop-tevis austriaoa, and Athyrium filix-femina occur mostly in moist pockets that offer a most favorable habitat (Fig. 8). The development of these moist pockets is quite common after logging. They result from the logging operation and usually contain a high proportion of organic matter and are shaded by adjacent logging slash. Slashburning removes much of the adjacent slash and organic matter from the moist pockets, and destroys pre-existing plants, reducing their favourability to shade-loving species. Consequently, after slashburning the fern species are greatly reduced in significance. Athyrium filix-femina is completely eliminated. However, Pteridium aquilinum exhibits a different trend. It seems to be enhanced by any disturbance that takes place. On areas that were untreated, but=where the logging operation exposed mineral soil, Pteridium aquilinum was present in high proportions also. 38 FIGURE 8 Moist pockets characteristic of logged areas. Polystiahum munition, Blechnum spiaant, Dryopteris dustriaca and Eylocomium splendens are prominent here. 39 40 Maini and Horton (,1966) found regeneration of Pteridium aquilinum considerably stimulated by either scarification or burning, and the density significantly greater than on untreated soil. Linnaea borealis covers significant areas of the ground in the unburned plots and can be considered a constant dominant species on these areas. Slashburning, however, effectively excludes Linnaea borealis. The moss layer (D) is extensive (57%) after clear-cutting. Hylocomium splendens and Rhytidiadelphus loreus are the dominant mosses on humus. Eurhynehium oreganum, which is important in the mature association, assumes a very minor role after clearcutting. On mineral soil Polytrichum juniperinum is consistently the most common. Pogonatum contortum and Pohlia nutans are largely restricted to unburn ed areas. These mosses are controlled by the degree in which the mineral soil is exposed in logging. The moss flora on decaying wood is restricted to unburned areas and consists of Plagiotheeium undulatum3 Hylocomium splendens and Rhytidia-delphus loreus as the most common, but they possess a relative ly low significance value. The mosses on rock depend on the amount of rock exposed. This layer is normally not as well-developed as in the mature association, because the rock areas are sometimes covered with slash, mineral soil, and organic material during the logging operation, or if slashburning is carried out, the existing flora is partially destroyed. 41 The two most common mosses are Rhacomitrium oanescens and Rhacomitrium heterostichum. Tsuga heterophylla occurs most frequently and has a higher cover than either Pseudotsuga menziesii or Thuja plicata in all layers. Tsuga heterophylla is associated with decaying wood on which it reaches its best growth. It can also be found germinating on mineral soil. However the survival rate is exceedingly low and most germinants are eliminated in the first two seasons. Slashburning greatly decreases Tsuga heterophylla in significance. Pseudotsuga menziesii is less abundant than Tsuga heterophylla and is found almost exclusively growing on mineral soil. Thuja plicata is a common seedling but seldom reached the B^ layer, unless it occurs as advanced regeneration on the unburned plots. The structure of this association is comprised of a very well-developed shrub layer that restricts the develop ment of a low growing herbaceous layer. Tall herbs and ferns are the only significant dominants. The moss layer is well-developed on humus and mineral soil, but relatively less-developed on decaying wood and rock. Moss - Western Hemlock Association This association occurs on lower mountain slopes with moderate slope gradients (Figs. 9 and 10). It can also occupy relatively flat areas with deep soils that are well-42 FIGURE 9 Plot 32 in the moss - western hemlock associa tion, 8 years after logging and no treatment. Tsuga heterophylla is primary species. FIGURE 10 Plot 33 in the moss - western hemlock associa tion 8 years after logging, piling and burning, and planting of Douglas-fir at a 6x6 foot spacing. 43 44 drained. This association will ordinarily occupy an equiva lent physiographic position on north exposures as that which the salal - Douglas-fir association does on south exposures (Figs. 11 and 12). Refer to Appendix I, Part I and II for the data discussed in this section. The characteristic combination of species for this association is: Constant dominant species: Gaultheria shallon Tsuga heterophylla Rubus speotabilis Pteridium aquilinum Hylooomium splendens Constant species: Vaccinium parvifolium Vaccinium alaskaense Thuja plicata Polystichum munitum Bleohnum spicant Dryopteris austriaca Rubus ursinus Rhytidiadelphus loreus Polytrichum juniperinum Plagiothecium undulatum The layer is dominated by Tsuga heterophylla and Betula papyrifera. Acer circinatum, Salix sitchensis, 45 FIGURE 11 Moss - western hemlock association (Plot 45) on a north exposure. Note amount of Tsuga heterophil I la. FIGURE 12. Salal - Douglas-fir association (Plot 41) 7 years after slashburning on a southwest exposure. Note amount of Gaultheria shallon and'lack of any regeneration- except'for planted Douglas-fir. 47 and Rhamnus purshiana all frequently occur also. The layer is well developed and is dominated by a number of species, Gaultheria shallon, Vaooinium parvifolium, Vaocinium alaskaense, Rubus spectabilis, Tsuga heterophylla, and Thuja plioata. Vaooinium ovalifolium3 Sambucus racemosa, Spiraea douglasii3 Menziesia ferruginea, and Rubus parviflorus are commonly occurring shrubs. . As in the salal - Douglas-fir association, the C layer is highly influenced by the thick shrub layer and is composed mainly of tall herbs, ferns, and shade tolerant trees such as Tsuga heterophylla and Thuja plioata. Bleohnum spicant, Tsuga heterophylla, Pteridium aquilinum, Polystiohum munitum, Dryopteris austriaca, Thuja plioata, and Rubus uvsinus are the dominant plants. Moist pockets account for a large proportion of the fern development. Luzula parviflora, Tiar-ella trifoliata, and Trillium ovatum begin to occur sporadi cally in this association as an increase in moisture and nutrient availability takes place. The moss layer is well developed. The dominant mosses on humus are Hylocomium splendens, Rhytidiadelphus loreus, and Plagiotheoium undulatum. All of them are charact eristic- o'f th'rs association. Eurhynohium oreganum occurs frequently. The mosses on mineral soil consisted mainly of Polytrichum juniperinum, Pogonatum eontortum, and Pogonatum alpinum. As stated earlier, this layer depends on the extent of microsites (exposed mineral soil) available after logging. 48 Plagiothecium undulatum, Hylooomium splendens3 and Rhytidia-delphus loreus are the prominent mosses on decaying wood, although their significance is quite low. They usually form patches on logs, decaying wood, and less commonly on humus rather than a continuous layer. The patches are usually four to six feet in diameter and confined to micro-depressions, where they show the most vigor. Elsewhere, they are quite yellowish and less vigorous. This is especially true for Hylooomium splendens. On rocks, the moss layer was non existent except for a solitary occurrence of Rhacomitrium oanesoens. As in the salal - Douglas-fir association, the degree to which the rock areas are disturbed is a determining factor. In all layers, Tsuga heterophylla had the highest stocking of the three major coniferous trees. It was found growing on decayed wood and organic matter as well as on mineral soil. As in the salal - Douglas-fir association, Tsuga heterophylla was germinating readily on mineral soil which provided a favourable substratum for seed germination. However, in this association where precipitation is the major source of water, droughts are common, and elimination of Tsuga heterophylla occurs before it reaches a dominant position. Thuja plicata also regenerates abundantly in this association, but very few seedlings become established. This is probably due to the high nutrient requirements of this species as well as the frequency of drought. The best survival, 49 as distinct from maximum germination, existed in moist micro-depressions where very rapidly decomposing organic material formed a two to three inch deep layer. Thuja plioata occurs in all layers but decreases sharply in abundance toward the layer. In the B^ and taller height classes of the B£ layer it persists primarily as advanced regeneration. Pseudotsuga menziesii was absent in micro-depressions and prevailed on mineral soil with sporadic occurrences on shallow organic matter and decaying wood. It was present in all layers. However, it was noticeably absent from a number of the Mission Tree Farm plots. This is apparently the result of age, seed source, and the planting density that will be discussed later. In order of abundance, Tsuga hetevophylla was most prolific followed by Thuja plioata and Pseudotsuga menziesii. The mature moss - western hemlock association is characterized by a lack of any shrub or herb species and a moss layer that forms a complete carpet over the ground. The major mosses are Hylooomium splendens, Rhytidiadelphus loveus, and Plagiotheoium undulatum. These mosses are still present after logging. However, their significance is greatly reduced. In addition, there are a number of saprophytes that occur in the mature association, namely, fi.emitomes. oongestum, Covallov-hiza maculata, and Monotvopa lanuginosa. These are completely absent after logging. Probably the most outstanding feature of the moss -50 western hemlock association after logging is the predominance of the shrub layer as well as numerous herbaceous plants. After logging, Gaulthevia shallow., Vaooinium pavvifolium, Vaccinium alaskaense, and Rubus spectabilis form a very well developed shrub layer. The average cover percent in the layer is 651. Gaulthevia shallow, dominates the layer after logging. Aggressive weed species such as Epilobium angustifolium, Anaphalis mavgavitaoea, and Ptevidium aquilinum rapidly invade the site and mask many of the more useful identifying characteristic plants. Although the shrub and tall herb species tend to conceal the moss layer, it still forms a dominant part of the association. Swordfern - Western Redcedar Association This association is found at the base of slopes and in depressions where an adequate supply of seepage water is present. The parent material is mostly glacial till, marine deposits, and outwash. The parent material is usually deep and receives a large portion of its water supply from seepage water (Figs. 13, 14, 15, and 16). Appendix I, Part I and II contains the data discussed in this section. The characteristic combination of species for this association is: Constant dominant species: Alnus vubva Rubus spectabilis 51 FIGURE 13 Plot 2 exhibits the thick undergrowth of the swordfern - western redcedar association. FIGURE 14 A successful plantation of Douglas-fir in the swordfern - western redcedar association (Plot 27). 52 53 FIGURE 15 Plot 8 in the swordfern - western redcedar association 5 years after logging and no treat ment. Note the amount of deciduous tree regeneration and lack of any visible coniferous regeneration. FIGURE 16 Thick deciduous undergrowth in swordfern -western redcedar association. Note the poor establishment of planted Douglas-fir (Plot 28). 54 55 Ptevidium aquilinum Polytviohum junipevinum Constant species: Spiraea douglasii Rubus pawiflovus Tsuga hetevophylla Salix sitohensis Polystiohum munitum Epilobium angustifolium Anaphalis mavgavitacea Bleahnum spioant Luzula pavviflovus. Laotuoa biennis Dvyoptevis austviaoa Thuja plioata Athyvium filix-femina Important companion species: Plagiomnium insigne Mnium lyoopodiodes Viola sempervivens Euvhynohium pvaelongum Tvientalis latifolia Galium, tviflovum The B^ layer is dominated by Alnus vubva, Salix sitohensis3 and Populus tviohooavpa. On the areas that were planted, Pseudotsuga menziesii becomes an important dominant. 56 Tsuga hetevophylla and natural Pseudotsuga menziesii occur frequently, but not in the proportion recorded in the pre vious two associations. On the older plots C004, 029, 007), Rubus speetabilis and Rubus pawiflovus may reach a height of nine feet. Other companions in this layer are Pvunus emavgin-ata3 Aoev oivoinatums Salix s oouleviana 3 and Betula papyri-fera. The B^ layer is very well developed. Rubus speeta bilis. Spiraea douglasii3 Rubus pawiflovus3 Tsuga hetevo phylla and Salix sitohensis are the prevalent species. This layer is not defined by a few dominant species. It contains a large number of species that form a dominant portion of the layer. Other common associates are Ribes sanguineum3 Rubus leuoodevmis3 Sambuous vacemosa, and Rubus laoiniatus. Oplopanax hovvidum may occur in moist, shaded pockets. Gaulthevia shallon3 although quite common in this association, is localized on decaying wood, which composes very little of the total ground cover. Vacoinium pawifolium is also reduced in significance due to the lack of decaying wood. The C layer is very well developed, even though the shrub layers were dense. The increased moisture and relatively higher nutrient availability undoubtedly accounts for the rich development of the C layer. Polystiohum munitum is constantly present, as would be expected for this associa tion and was little affected by logging. In fact, logging seemed to increase its occurrence in all of the associations studied. Mueller-Dombois P-960) also noted this occurrence. 57 Epilobium angustifolium and Anaphalis margaritacea are both highly dominant and reach their optimum in this association. As in the previous two associations, Pteridium aquilinum is also extremely prevalent. Other frequent companions in the C layer are Bleohnum spioant3 Luzula parviflora, Lactuoa biennis, Dryopteris austriaca, Athyrium filix-femina, Galium triflorum, Trientalis latifolia, Tiarella trifoliata, Viola sempervirens and Rubus ursinus. Agrostis scabra, Holous lanatus, Hypochaeris radioata, and Festuoa oooidentalis are all strongly indicative of the degree of disturbance. Juncus effusus and Soirpus miorooarpus usually indicate moist depres sions or high moisture status of the parent material. For example, plots 005, 030, and 031 are all located on glacio marine deposits and are poorly drained. These plots contain large amounts of Juncus effusus and Soirpus microcarpus as well as a very rich flora of other species. The moss layer is not well developed (average cover of 37%). Eurhynchium oreganum and Eurhynohium prae-longum are the dominant mosses on humus; however, their presence and mean significance values are low. On moist habitats, Plagiomnium insigne and Leucolepis menziesii are commonly found. On mineral soil in exposed sunny habitats, Polytrichum junipevinum and Ceratodon purpureus occur as the dominant mosses. Mnium lyoopodiodes is established on mineral soil in moist habitats shaded by slash or deciduous cover. In the plots examined, the moss flora on decaying wood is not well represented. This results from the lack of decaying 58 wood or slash, because of prior treatment either by slash-burning or piling and burning. Hylooomium splendens is the most common but has a low presence and mean significance. Plot 008, the only untreated plot, showed a definite increase in the decaying wood mosses. Tsuga heterophylla, as in the previous two associa tions, germinates well in this association and surpasses both Thuja plicata and Pseudotsuga menziesii. However very few seedlings ever constitute a significant portion of the upper shrub layer. Its relatively slow growth rate and the intense competition from the dense shrub and herb layers could account for this. Thuja plicata obtains its best growth in this association. It was found in all layers except the layer. Organic matter, in a state of rapid decomposition, provided the best survival rate. Maximum germination appeared to be on exposed mineral soil, but as in the other associations survival was low. Pseudotsuga menziesii was the least abund ant of the three. It did occur in all layers, including the B^, but very sporadically. Although this association provides the best sites for Pseudotsuga menziesii3 competition from herbaceous and woody brush species is an important limiting factor here. Its shade intolerance destroys many new seed lings. Exposed mineral soil or a fine covering of organic matter provide the best habitat for germination. The swordfern - western redcedar association differs considerably from the previous two associations. The shrub 59 layer is highly developed and composed mainly of Rubus parvi-ftorus, Rubus speotabilis, and Spiraea douglasii. In the previous associations, Gaultheria shallon and Vacoinium parvi-folium were dominant shrubs. The rich development of the herb layer is the most outstanding characteristic of the swordfern - western redcedar association. This is caused by seepage water which largely controls the development of this association. The seepage water also permits a greater diversity of deciduous trees and shrubs to exist. In the mature state both the shrub stratum and herb layer are greatly reduced by the canopy coverage. However this association still supports a greater diversity of species and a better developed C layer than the other associations. The type of treatment seemed to have little effect on the vegetation in this association. The habitat is rapidly invaded by all the characteristic species found in the mature association. Slashburning may even enhance the development of the C layer by rapidly releasing nutrients stored in the organic matter. The abundance of seepage water also reduces the recovery time needed after treatment. In addition to the previous mosses mentioned, Eypnum oiroinale, Dioranum fusoesoens, and Dioranum howellii were present on decaying wood in all associations. However the significance was very low and restricted to small patches on decaying wood. Slashburning usually eliminated these mosses by reducing the amount of decaying wood. 60 2. Causes of Variation in Vegetational Composition and  Structure Within the Three Serai Association Variation in vegetation and structure between and within  associations All associations are structurally similar in average percent cover (Fig- 17). However variation did occur in species composition and layer dominance. Consequently, it is difficult to assess the cover values and their signifi cance in each association without having an understanding of the species composition. For example, the shrub layer of the salal - Douglas-fir association is as equally well developed as in the richer swordfern - western redcedar association but possesses a completely different species composition. There fore its ecological significance is different. This also applies to stratification within one layer. For instance, tall-growing invader herbs can mask those low growing herbs which are more indicative of the forest association. Varia tion caused by age and treatment is also evident and will be discussed later. The salal - Douglas-fir and moss - western hemlock associations are both characterized by a well developed shrub layer composed of Gaultheria shallon and Vaooinium parvifolium and a herb layer consisting of tall herbs and Pteridium aquilinum. The swordfern - western redcedar association has an equally well developed shrub layer but is composed of Rubus speotabilis3 Rubus parviflorus3 and Spiraea douglasii. 61 FIGURE. 17 Average cover in percent of each layer by association and treatment. 62 In the swordfern - western redcedar association the herb layer consisted of a large number of low growing herbs as well as tall herbs such as Epilobium angustifolium and Anaphalis margavitaoea. Although all associations had a very well de veloped shrub layer, the swordfern - western redcedar associa tion offered a greater degree of competition to coniferous tree species because it was taller, denser, and more highly stratified. A total of 148 species were encountered on the plots. The checklist is contained in Appendix II. Of these 148 species, 93 and 77 were identified on the salal - Douglas-fir and moss - western hemlock associations, respectively. In the swordfern - western redcedar association, 119 were identi fied. The greater number of species found in the latter association is the result of the rich habitat. The C layer is the major contributor. The large number of species encountered in the salal - Douglas-fir association as compared to the moss -western hemlock association was undoubtedly caused by a large number of plots being disturbed, thus allowing various grasses and mosses that are associated with mineral soil to become established. Age is an important factor affecting the structure and species composition. Plots 004 and 029 in the swordfern -western redcedar association were 12 and 13 years old re spectively. At this age in this association the shrub canopy is extremely dense (Fig- 18). This largely eliminates the well 63 FIGURE 18 Plot 4 in the swordfern - western redcedar association shows the thick development of Rubus speotabilis 14 years after logging and slashburning. FIGURE 19 Plot 5 in the swordfern - western redcedar association on poorly-drained glacio-marine parent material. Note amount of Junous effusus and Alnus rubra and lack of coniferous regeneration 4 years after logging and piling and burning. 65 developed C layer found on the younger plots. The moss layer is also affected. The mineral soil mosses are reduced in cover as a result of a build up of humus and a lack of light. Mosses such as Plagiomnium insigne and Leuoolepis menziesii begin to occur as the canopy closes and a rapid mineralization of the mixed coniferous-deciduous litter takes place. Unlike the University of British Columbia Research Forest which uses an 8 x 8 or 10 x 10 foot spacing, the Mission Tree Farm has an established policy to plant at a 6 x 6 foot spacing. This decreased spacing has a considerable influence on the understory vegetation. Plots 037 and 038 are located in the moss - western hemlock association at the Mission Tree Farm and were planted at a 6 x 6 foot spacing in 1959 or 1960. Figure 20 illustrates the resultant ground cover. The thick canopy has eliminated the shrub and the herb layers and the moss layer has been reduced to small patches. Age was also an important factor. At an earlier stand age the resultant effect would not have been as evident. The effect of close spacing is further illustrated in Figure 17. All the plots in the moss - western hemlock association that were piled and burned have been planted at a 6 x 6 foot spacing. The reduction in total cover and cover of each layer is well exemplified. A large proportion of the total cover consists of planted Douglas-fir in the layer. 66 FIGURE 20 Lack of ground cover under 6x6 foot spacing of Douglas-fir in Plot 37. Upper photograph shows several small western hemlock seedlings and coniferous litter. Lower photograph shows decaying stems of Rubus spectabilis. 68 Variation caused by treatment on the structure and general  species composition of the three associations Logging and the accompanying treatment of the area has a notable influence on the general species composition and structure. In the study it is difficult to assess the effects of treatment on the structure because of the mixture of age classes within each treatment. Figure 17 shows the slight variations that take place between treatments. These variations are probably caused by age differences. The salal -Douglas-fir association exhibited the only significant dif ferences between no treatment and slashburning. Dyrness (1965, 1973) noted, however, a significant variation between treat ments with regard to structure. He found that the cover on undisturbed plots was two to five times that found on the disturbed-unburned and lightly burned plots, respectively. Total cover on the severely burned plots consistently lagged behind the other plots. He also observed a .substantially lower number of trees on the severely burned plots. The type of treatment and the accompanying disturb ance exert a more obvious influence on species composition. In all the associations that were untreated, the residual component species still exist and are supplemented by an influx of invader species depending on the amount of disturbance that has taken place. On habitats that have been burned, the residual component is largely destroyed. 69 In other words, species that were present in the mature stand are also present in the untreated cutover stand. At the same time, piling and burning does not affect the residual component as much as slashburning. Piling and burning allows species to be partially destroyed or untouched altogether. The residual component is, therefore, allowed to expand; whereas, slashburning usually destroys all the vegetation and a complete re-invasion of the site must take place. In most cases, the untreated habitats contained more species than treated areas. The logged setting presents a heterogeneous habitat for species invasion, with a variety of individual microsites. The degree of disturbance and the associated extent of micro-sites created strongly control the number and the quantity of species entering a particular habitat. Plots Oil and 012 (Appendix I) illustrates this relationship, having a large number of sporadic species colonizing on favorable microsites. In most cases, these species possess little diagnostic value. Slashburning reduces the number of species occurring on a site by diminishing the number of moist pockets, decaying wood, and residual component species. Exposed mineral soil is the major microsite available for colonization. Piling and burning does not have as adverse an effect on species composi tion as slashburning. This is well illustrated in the tables in Appendix I, Parts I and II. 70 The preceding factors are just a few of the major causes for variation between associations and within each association. Slope, aspect, elevation, and parent material all play an important role in influencing vegetational varia tion. The effect of parent material is especially noteworthy in plots 005, 029, 030 located in the swordfern - western redcedar association on glacio-marine parent material. The species composition is exceedingly rich, containing a large number of species not found on other parent, materials, as well as an influx of Salix spp. and Alnus rubra (Fig. 19). This is caused by the poorly drained conditions. Juncus effusus and Soirpus microcarpus are common associates. Variation caused by treatment and association type on the  individual species ' Figures 21, 22, and 23 compare the effect of treat ment on a number of selected species within each association along with the mean for the association. The number at the top of each bar is a presence value. It appears from the figures that most species occur in all associations but increase toward a higher mean signifi cance and presence in certain associations. Moisture regime and lack of decaying wood as a growing medium seemed to be the important controlling factors. In addition, a large number of shade intolerant plants occur under all site conditions after logging, exhibiting no preferential trends. These Figure 21 Mean significance and presence of fifteen selected species in the salal - Douglas-fir association Figure 22 Mean significance and presence of fifteen selected species in the moss - western hemlock association 73 O I ; ; «, _ Mean (or Association 8 -7 ~ G - 100. I Slashburncd 8 -7 ~ G - 100. Figure 23 Mean significance and presence of fifteen selected species in the swordfern - western redcedar association 74 species are responding to increased light conditions due to the lack of the forest canopy. Very few species showed a definite site specificity. These species mostly occurred in the rich swordfern - western redcedar association. For example, species exhibiting an increasing mean significance toward the swordfern - western redcedar association are: Salix sitohensis Rubus speotabilis Polystiohum munitum Species showing an opposite trend are: Tsuga hetevophylla Gaulthevia shallon Vacoinium pavvifolium Linnaea bovealis Truly ubiquitous species: Epilobium angustifolium Betula papyvifeva Spivaea douglasii The expansion in the normal habitat of a species appears to be characteristic of cutover areas. It results from the increase in light, moisture, mineralization of organic layers, and the creation of micro-habitats. All, these features allow the plants to expand their normal range as other favor able habitats are created, as well as inhibiting plants that do not respond to these factors. 75 Figure 21 of the salal - Douglas-fir association shows that slashburning influences the selected species the greatest. Salix sitohensis, Thuja plioata, Linnaea borealis, and Luzula parviflora were completely eliminated, while Bleohnum spicant, Polystiohum munitum, and Tsuga heterophylla were greatly reduced in both presence and mean significance. Gaultheria shallon exhibited no identifiable difference be tween treatments. Betula papyrifera showed the only notable increase with slashburning. Although not shown in Figure 21, Ceratodon purpureus and Polytrichum guniperinum also exhibit an increase with slashburning. The influence of fire on the moss - western hemlock association CFig- 22) is more difficult to evaluate since no plots were slashburned. The differences between no treatment and piled and burned are minimal. All species appear to de crease slightly in both presence and mean significance. This is probably due to the close spacing of the planted trees rather than treatment differences. The swordfern - western redcedar association (Fig. 23) reflects a similar trend with respect to treatment,, as did the salal - Douglas-fir association. However the effect is not as great and the number of species affected is less. This un doubtedly reflects the richness of the habitat and the result ing increased response rate in vegetative development. The mean presence for each association is given at the top of each figure. These values can be compared with each other as a visual technique in identifying each species response 76 to particular habitats of fifteen species given. Summary Vegetational variation after logging is influenced mainly by the accompanying human alterations to the site. The variation in vegetation is influenced most directly by the degree of site disturbance to the habitat, type of treatment, spacing of planted trees, amount of light exposure due to clearcutting, age of stand as well as the abiotic factor of moisture regime between associations. Of lesser importance are slope, aspect, and parent material. However, the relation ships of these and other abiotic factors may be masked by the impact of the human-related disturbances after clearcutting. 77 PART II - SEEDLING ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE THREE SERAL ASSOCIATIONS 1. Seedling Establishment of ConiCerous and Deciduous Trees The number of seedlings per acre was evaluated on the l/40th acre plots. The results for each plot are recorded in Appendix I,Part III. The subjectively chosen plots were selected to represent general stocking and spatial distribu tion of the seedlings for that particular site as well as being representative of the vegetation for the association. Because of the variability in regeneration characteristics, the exact quantitative relationships cannot be observed by use of a subjective sampling system. However, trends and qualitative relationships are well represented with regard to associations and treatments. The results are compared by examining the actual number of trees per acre in each association and treat ment . Table 4 presents the average number of trees per acre that occur in the three associations by treatment for all the tree species encountered on the plots. The standard deviation is also included where it is considered important. The calculation of the trees per acre is a summation of all age classes. Tables 5 and 6 represent the number of trees per acre by age class for coniferous and deciduous trees. It is apparent that not enough observations were available to make any comparisons between age classes. Therefore, a Table 4 Distribution of trees in numbers of trees per acre by association and treatment ASSOCIATION SALAL - D.F. MOSS - W. H. SWORDFERN -• W.R.C • TREATMENT NONE P$B SL MEAN NONE P$B MEAN NONE Pt}B SL MEAN NO. OF PLOTS 10 3 6 19 9 6 15 1 7 8 16 WESTERN HEMLOCK * 3849 ±2327 6667 ±5286 448 ±479 3220 ±3262 5110 ±1717 3701 ±2928 4547 ±2291 900 889 ±820 636 ±797 763 ±764 WESTERN REDCEDAR 957 ±1350 907 ±845 33 ±53 657 ±1087 889 ±549 860 ±798 877 ±632 1030 267 ±237 303 ±329 333 ±329 . NATURAL DOUGLAS -FIR 505 ±345 160 ±160 53 ±65 308 ±330 244 ±342 127 ±178 197 ±286 - 167 ±111 95 ±77 121 ' ±100 PAPER BIRCH 121 467 620 333 78 333 180 2300 1027 630 908 VINE MAPLE 79 213 33 86 576 693 623 430 244 350 309 CASCARA 35 27 13 27 209 127 176 90 3 11 13 BITTER CHERRY 94 - 53 66 87 7 55 740 366 185 299 BLACK COTTONWOOD 30 13 13 22 42 47 44 60 1581 65 728 RED ALDER 14 - 7 10 28 7 20 120 910 269 540 WILLOW SPP. 473 120 73 291 634 193 458 60 4204 770 2228 BIG-LEAF MAPLE - - - - - - - 30 - 35 19 PACIFIC DOGWOOD 5 - - 3 - 13 5 80 - 20 15 Standard deviation about the mean Table 4 continued ASSOCIATION SALAL - D.F. MOSS - W. H. SWORDFERN - W.R. C. TREATMENT NONE P§B SL MEAN NONE P$B MEAN NONE P$B SL MEAN NO. OF PLOTS 10 3 6 19 9 6 15 1 7 8 16 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR - 1147 1060 516 - 1160 464 - 540 382 379 LODGEPOLE PINE - - 13 4 - - - - - -PACIFIC SILVER FIR - - - - - 7 3 - - - -SITKA SPRUCE - - - - 4 - 3 - - - _ <r> CONIFEROUS TREES 5311 7733 547 4189 6248 4695 5626 1930 1323 1035 1217 + 3495 ±6085 ±558 ±4186. ±1995 ±3824 ±2847 - •±1059±1111 ±1040 DECIDUOUS TREES 851 840 813 837 1655 1420 1561 3910 8335 2335 5059 ±695 ±349 ±878 ±685 ±851 ±639 ±758 - ±5981± 1417 ±4930 Table 5 Number of deciduous trees per acre AGE CLASS (yrs.) ASSOCIATION 0-2 3-4 5-7 8-10 11-12 13-15 SALAL - D.F. No Treatment Slashburned 120.0 Piled § Burned Total 120.0 MOSS - W.H. No Treatment Slashburned Piled § Burned Total SWORDFERN - W.R.C. No Treatment Slashburned Piled § Burned Total 952.0 840.0 1792.0 1410.0 1410.0 3910.0 4160.0 13900.0 4593.0 13900.0 12663.0 910.0 910. 0 1460.0 1090.0 2550.0 1680.0 2870.0 4550.0 792. 0 792.0 2360.0 1920.0 4280. 0 1820 . 0 1820.0 Table 6 Number of coniferous trees per acre AGE CLASS (yrs.) ASSOCIATION 0-2 3-4 5-7 8-10. 11-12 13-15 SALAL - D.F. No Treatment Slashburned 280.0 Piled § Burned Total 280.0 MOSS - W.H. No Treatment Slashburned Piled § Burned Total C ' SWORDFERN - W.R.C. No Treatment Slashburned Piled § Burned Total 4840.0 4840.0 1073.0 1073. 0 600.0 7733.0 8333.0 1930.0 2180 . 0 1933.0 6043.0 4618. 0 4618.0 6378.0 4220.0 10598.0 883. 0 240.0 1123.0 6004.0 6004.0 6560. 0 5644. 0 12204.0 195. 0 195.0 82 summation of all age classes was the only valid means of comparison. The first and most apparent characteristic is the high degree of variation in trees per acre for western hemlock, western redcedar, and Douglas-fir. This is largely the result of the sampling method and to a lesser extent the summation of age classes. Since the sampling was carried out on large, selectively located plots, errors due to clumping of western hemlock regeneration and uneven distribution of other coniferous species are likely. In the case of western hemlock, the clumped pattern is very noticeable in the field and follows a negative binomial distribution (Smith and Ker 1957). MacBean (1941) found dense bodies of slash and thick ground-cover im portant factors in restricting seedling establishment. Accordingly, any sampling method that uses a small number of large plots will not sample enough of the variation to accurate ly estimate the number of trees per acre or their spatial distribution. Therefore, a large within-plot standard devia tion is incurred, as the plot encompasses varying distributions of seedbeds and types of seedbeds within a large plot area. Although statistical analysis is difficult due to the large standard deviation, trends are noticeable between association and treatment and deserve further analysis to determine if there are significant differences. In order to analyze the relationships, analysis of covariance was initially employed, but analysis of variance was chosen for the final 83 analysis of the data (Wine j_964) . The analysis of covariance was initially used rather than an analysis of variance because of possible effects age could have on the results since the age of each stand was not held constant. By means of an analysis of covariance, the effect of age was removed from the other variables and the means adjusted accordingly. However upon examining the regression equations obtained from the analysis of covariance, it was found that age contributed little to the variation in number of trees per acre. Therefore, analysis of variance would pro duce as adequate results as analysis of covariance. Consequent ly, analysis of variance was used in the final analysis of the data. The following analysis of variance table was con structed to analyze the results: Source of Variation Degrees of Freedom Associations 2 Treatments within associations 5 Error 42 TOTAL 9 This table corresponds to the nested design (Hicks 1964). A nested design was used rather than a two-way classifi cation because a nested design allows an unequal number of observations to occur within the sources of variation. A two-way classification loses orthogonality if an unequal 84 number of observations is present Quicks 1964). Also in the nested design, the number of levels of the nested factor i.e. treatment, need not be the same for all levels of the other factor i.e. association. This is the case in this experiment, since no slashburned plots exist for the moss -western hemlock association. A Barlett's test of homogeneity of variance was carried out on the raw data to see if the variances were homogeneous, a basic assumption of analysis of variance. It was found that the variances were not homogeneous. There fore, a logarithmic transformation was done and the transformed data tested for homogenity of the variance. The variances were then found to be homogeneous. Duncan's multiple range test was employed to rank the means if they were found significant in the analysis of variance. The mean value is the number of trees per acre for that particular association and treatment. After all association and treatment means were ranked, the means were arranged diagramatically in declining order of their mean values from left to right. The grouping of mean values that are similar at the 5 percent level of significance is shown by an underline. The following symbols were used to indicate the association and treatment for the Duncan's multiple range tests: S-NT Salal - Douglas-fir association - no treatment 85 M-NT M-P£B Sw-NT S-P§B S-S Sw-S Sw-P^B Salal - Douglas-fir association - piled § burned Salal - Douglas-fir association - slash burned Moss - western hemlock association -no treatment Moss - western hemlock association - piled § burned Swordfern - western redcedar association - no treatment Swordfern - western redcedar association - piled § burned Swordfern - western redcedar association - slashburned 1) Western hemlock: The analysis of variance indicates that a highly significant difference in mean number of trees per acre exists for treatments within an association with an F-value of 6.43 (Table III - 1 in Appendix III). No significant difference was found to exist between individual associations;. In other words, the effect Of treatment coupled with associa tion was more important in explaining the differences in number of trees per acre than were associations alone. Duncan's multiple range test shows the following relations among treatments within an association for western hemlock: S-S Sw-S Sw-P§B Sw-NT M-P§B S-NT S-P§B M-NT 306.1 343.2 577.2 900.5 2624.2 3257.6 3832.6 4864.1 The salal - Douglas-fir association - slashburned and swordfern - western redcedar association - slashburned 86 and piled and burned were significantly different from the other groups, except for the swordfern - western redcedar association - no treatment, which was not significantly differ ent from either group. The S-S, Sw-S, and Sw-P§B also contain the least number of trees per acre. Consequently, it is evident that both slashburning and the swordfern - western red cedar association have a noticeable effect on western hemlock. Slashburning undoubtedly removes the much-needed organic matter and decaying wood that is important to the establishment of western hemlock. The removal of organic matter and de caying wood also alters the moisture and nutrient status of the upper soil layers. The same is true for the swordfern -western redcedar association, where rapid mineralization reduces the organic matter quickly. The other group consists of the salal - Douglas-fir and moss - western hemlock associa tions where the slash was either piled and burned or had no treatment. This group contained the highest number of western hemlock trees per acre. Here the abundance of organic matter and decaying wood accounted for the large amount of western hemlock. This same trend is illustrated for the number of established J western hemlock per acre. Table III - 8 indicates that treatments within associations is highly signifi cant again. The following, Duncan's multiple range test, illustrate this analogous trend: One foot or greater in height 87 Sw-P$B S-S Sw-S Sw-NT M-Pc]B S-NT S-P§B M-NT 98.8 140.1 175.1 380.5 1809.7 2340.5 3038.1 3429.3 2) Western redcedar: The analysis of variance indicates that treatments within associations is highly significant with a value of F = 5.34 (Table III - 2). Associations alone were not significant. Duncan's multiple range test exhibits the relation among treatments within associations for western redcedar: S-S Sw-S Sw-P§B M-NT S-NT S-P§B M-P§B Sw-NT 2.9 98.9 101.2 399.2 530.2 557.9 586.4 1030.6 Western redcedar, as stated earlier, thrives well on habitats that are moist and supply an abundant source of nutrients. After clearcutting, these habitats are usually found in moist microdepressions created during the logging operation in the salal - Dougals-fir association and moss -western hemlock association. However, because of the higher moisture status of the soils in the swordfern - western red cedar association, these habitats are more universal and are not always confined to microdepressions. Statistically, 88 western redcedar does not appear to have a preference as far as germination is concerned. The Duncan's multiple range test shows that there are no significant differences between all treatment and association combinations except for the salal - Douglas-fir association - slashburned which had the lowest number of western redcedar trees per acre. Although the mean number of trees per acre for western redcedar is not significantly different, the trend is an increasing number of trees per acre on the salal - Douglas-fir and moss - western hemlock associations that have not been exposed to slashburn ing. This is further illustrated when examining the number of established western redcedar trees per acre. The analysis of variance in Table III - 9 indicates that the means for treat ments within associations are significant at the 1 percent level. The following Duncan's multiple range test illustrates the relationships among means: S-S Sw-P$B Sw-S Sw-NT M-NT S-NT M-P§B S-P$B 0.0 5.8 14.2 110.5 220.2 255.8 403.4 422.6 Established western redcedar exhibits two definite groups, those within the swordfern - western redcedar associa tion except for no treatment.and the salal - Douglas-fir association - slashburned, and the remaining salal - Douglas-89 fir and moss - western hemlock associations that have either been piled and burned or had no treatment. It is felt that this is due partially to the occurrence of advanced regenera tion of western redcedar on areas that have not been heavily disturbed. But more likely an important factor is the lack of competition from deciduous trees and herbaceous plants in the salal - Douglas-fir and moss - western hemlock associations. In the swordfern - western redcedar association, the competi tion is intense. 3) Douglas-fir: The analysis of variance Table III - 3 denotes that there is a significant difference between means at the 1 percent level for treatments within associations. The F-value is 3.58. The Duncan's multiple range test shows the following relationships among means: Sw-NT S-S M-P^B M-NT Sw-S Sw-P^B S-P§B S-NT 0.0 7.1 18.7 30.4 47.2 137.2 139.6 367.8 The salal - Douglas-fir association - no treatment was found to be significantly different " from".the'swordfern -western redcedar association - no treatment, salal - Douglas-fir association - slashburned, moss - western hemlock association - piled and burned, and moss - western hemlock 90 association - no treatment. The same is true for the number of established Douglas-fir trees per acre as the following Duncan's multiple range test indicates: Sw-NT S-S M-P§B Sw-S M-NT Sw-P$B S-P§B S-NT 0.0 4.5 16.9 26.7 28.5 42.3 115.9 300.5 The data indicates that Douglas-fir has no prefer ence with repect to association or treatment, except for salal - Douglas-fir association - no treatment which totaled the highest number of trees per acre. This could be caused by a coincidence with an excellent seed year, distance to seed source or some other type of extraneous factor. This observation is contrary to that of Bever (1954) who observed an increased number of Douglas-fir seedlings on areas that had been slashburned. However, Vogl and Ryder (1969) found a significant decrease in Douglas-fir stocking on burned sites, while Lavender et al. (1956) found stocking of Douglas-fir on unburned plots exceeded that on burned plots. Con sequently, many opinions exist. Undoubtedly this is caused by the many variations in sites, degrees of disturbance, and other important environmental controls that differ among various studies. In any case, the data in this study indicate that supplemental planting of Douglas-fir is needed in all 91 associations and treatments to "achieve an adequate stocking level of Douglas-fir. 4) Coniferous trees: This category includes mainly western hemlock, western redcedar, and Douglas-fir. The analysis of variance Table III - 4 shows a highly significant value of F = 7.42. Duncan's multiple range test shows the relations among means: S-S Sw-S Sw-P$B Sw-NT M-P^B S-NT S-P^B M-NT 373.1 627.9 942.5 1930.6 3336.6 4423.8 4701.1 5993.8 It is evident from the Duncan's multiple range tests that coniferous trees (as a category) follow a pattern identi cal to that of western hemlock. This results from western hemlock making up the major portion of the coniferous trees, while other tree species only add a small proportion. Con sequently, the response of coniferous trees is identical to that of western hemlock and the effect of the other tree species is not shown.. 5) Total number of naturally regenerated trees: This group contains all deciduous and coniferous trees minus the planted stock CDouglas-fir). The analysis of variance Table III - 5 92 expresses a significant difference for treatments within associations at th.e 1 percent level. Associations themselves demonstrated no significant difference. The following Duncan's multiple range test expresses the relationship among treatments within associations: S-S Sw-S M-Pt>B S-NT Sw-NT S-P§B M-NT Sw-P§B 941.7 2867.5 4846.2 5228.8 5841.2 6050.6 7571.8 8081.6 Three distinct groups are visible. Salal - Douglas-fir association - slashburned, which had the lowest number of trees per acre, swordfern - western redcedar association -slashburned, and together moss - western hemlock association -no treatment and swordfern - western redcedar association -piled and burned. It is clear that the slashburning had a definite effect on regeneration of both coniferous and deciduous trees in the salal - Douglas-fir association. This is not true for the swordfern - western redcedar association that was slashburned. The effect of slashburning was not as great in this association because of the rapid coloniza tion by deciduous trees largely concealing the influence of slashburning on coniferous regeneration. The preceding tests indicate that slashburning reduces the number of trees per 93 acre in all associations, although, it is not always a statisti cally significant reduction. The effect of slashburning was not as severe in the swordfern - western redcedar association as in the salal - Douglas-fir association because of the superior moisture conditions and possible increase in the nutrient supply from lateral seepage. In a greenhouse study, Jablanczy (1964) found that the swordfern - western redcedar association could benefit from slashburning by accelerating mineralization. Slashburning in this association caused the least damage. The salal - Douglas-fir association suffered the most because there is no supplemental nutrient supply from seepage water and much of the nutrient supply must normally be derived from the humus, and the latter may be partially or completely destroyed by burning. The reason for the moss - western hemlock association - no treatment and swordfern - western redcedar association - piled and burned containing the highest number of trees per acre is directly opposite. The major portion of the moss - western hemlock association - no treatment is made up of coniferous trees, which was shown previously, while the swordfern -western redcedar association - piled and burned is composed largely of deciduous trees, and coniferous trees only make up a small percentage of the total number. This will be further illustrated in the following section. 94 6) Deciduous trees: The analysis of variance Table 111-6 indicates that associations are significantly different at the 1 percent level with an F-value of 12.52. Treatments within associations exhibited no significant difference, un like that of the other tree species. Duncan's multiple range test expresses the following relationships among associations: S M Sw 566.8 1392.8 3503.5 The salal - Douglas-fir association and swordfern -western redcedar association were significantly different from each other. The moss - western hemlock association fell in between these two associations. This conclusion is what would be expected, since the deciduous trees seem to respond to changes in moisture status of the soil. Therefore, be cause of the high moisture status of the swordfern - western redcedar association, it contains a higher number of deciduous trees per acre than the salal - Douglas fir association which has a low moisture status most of the year. The moss -western hemlock association is intermediate in moisture status between the other two associations. In general, the Duncan's multiple range tests indicate that all coniferous tree species prefer areas that 95 have been either piled and burned or had no treatment in the salal - Douglas-fir and moss - western hemlock associations. Slashburning reduces the number of trees present. The sword fern - western redcedar association probably presents just as good an environment for regeneration, but early invasion of the site by deciduous trees, as well as herbaceous plants, limits the establishment of coniferous trees. Figure 2 4 illustrates diagramatically the role of western hemlock, western redcedar, Douglas-fir, coniferous trees, and deciduous trees in each of the associations studied. The behavior of coniferous and deciduous trees in each individual association is further illustrated in Figures 25, 26, and 27. The number of trees per acre for coniferous and deciduous trees by one-foot height classes is given. An attempt was made to stratify the three associations by age class and treatment to add more comparability to the graphs. This was accomplished for salal -Douglas-fir and moss - western hemlock associations. However, since no comparable age class or treatment existed for the swordfern - western redcedar association, the closest combina tion was chosen. This was age class 5-7 and treatment piled and burned. It is felt that this should provide an acceptable comparison since Duncan's multiple range tests showed that the number of trees per acre did not vary signifi cantly between no treatment and piled and burned. The comparison between graphs indicates that the number of deciduous trees increases rapidly from the salal -96 Figure 24 Number of trees per acre of three tree species and two groups of species for individual associations 97 FIGURE 25 The. number of trees per acre by height class of coniferous and deciduous trees for the salal - Douglas-fir association, age class 8-10, and no treatment. 98 \ CON IF EROUS A D.E C I D U 0 U S ^ —A , , , , _, , , f— .0 l.D 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 B.O 9.0 HEIGHT CLASS FIGURE 26 The number of trees per acre by height class of coniferous and deciduous trees for the moss -western hemlock association, age class 8 - 10, and no treatment. 99 X cc UI ce 9H \ \ V \ \ V I \ \ \ \ \ \ V \ \ / xv • • /\ / ^ ^ DECIDUOUS / . \ \ / x CONIFEROUS \ \ , , 1 r 1 1 ~r— f ™ 0 0 1 0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 HEIGHT CLASS FIGURE 27 The number of trees per acre by height class of coniferous and deciduous trees for the swordfern - western redcedar association, age class 5-7, and piled and burned. 100 Douglas-fir association to the swordfern - western redcedar association. The number of coniferous trees per acre is highest for the moss - western hemlock association and de creases toward each of other associations, especially the swordfern - western redcedar association. Within each association there is a similar trend, as the height of the trees increased, the number of coniferous trees per acre decreased, while the number of deciduous trees per acre increased. If height is considered an approximate index of tree age, then as height increases so does age. With this analogy in mind, it is apparent that the number of coniferous trees per acre rapidly decreases with age. The rapid mortality in the early stages of development is mainly due to mortality of the young seedlings resulting from factors such as drought, exposure, rodents, and other environmental conditions. In the swordfern - western redcedar association (Fig. 27), this process is accelerated because of competition from a heavy cover of deciduous trees. The steepness of the curve for coniferous trees and the low constant level reached for the swordfern - western redcedar association exhibits the competition effect. The number of deciduous trees per acre increases to a peak with height (age) in each association then begins to drop off. The regeneration of deciduous trees is controlled by the removal of the canopy and initial regeneration of deciduous trees occurs directly after the canopy is removed, 101 then decreases to a very slow rate. On the graphs, this is shown by the peak in the deciduous trees curve which is considered close to the initial date of establishment. On the left the more recent regeneration is encountered. The preference of coniferous trees for areas that have been either piled and burned or had no treatment is believed to be caused primarily by seedbed conditons. Isaac (1943) felt this was due to more available seed in the duff that was not destroyed by burning rather than the superior seedbed conditions on unburned areas. Mueller-Dombois (1960) also found this to be true. The moisture-holding capacity of a compact organic layer is also much greater than the mineral soil, thereby preventing drying out of the seed (Isaac and Hopkins 1937). Hatch and Lotan (1969) observed better Douglas-fir regeneration on undisturbed seedbeds and attributed it to the conservation of soil moisture, :the reduction in herba ceous vegetation, and the protection of seed from rodents and birds. Shade is another important factor in the early establishment of coniferous trees. Slash left after the logg ing operation provides beneficial shade for seedling establish ment and survival. The diffuse light and shading from direct sunlight reduces seedling mortality caused by moisture loss from the surface layers, and prevents direct heat injury to the seedlings. Minore (1971) and Strothman :(1972) both found 102 that dead shade derived from slash, benefited Douglas-fir seedlings. Shade derived from living brush species complicates the shading effect, with competition to the regeneration for available moisture and nutrients. Slashburning may affect a site in many ways. The main factors affecting the regeneration of coniferous trees which may be modified by slashburning are soil, temperature, air temperature at the soil surface, soil moisture-holding capa city, nutrient availability, amount of mycorrhizae present in the soil, and soil p'H. There is much controversy and con flicting information as to whether these factors are beneficial or not to the regeneration of coniferous trees. In any case, the results of this study indicate that in all associations, slashburning decreased the number of trees per acre present for all tree species. Although the areas that were piled and burned or had no treatment contained an adequate number of coniferous trees per acre, western hemlock made up the major portion of the regeneration. Furthermore, most of the regenera tion was spotty and not well distributed. Since western hemlock was the most abundant conifer in all associations and treatments, environmental factors had the least effect on it. Western hemlock's prolific seed-bearing habits, wind disseminated seed, ability to withstand a wide variety of seedbed conditions, and its capability to exist under a forest canopy for long periods of time and grow as advanced regeneration after the canopy is-opened, accounted 103 for its abundance in all associations. Douglas-fir, -on the other hand, bears seed crops at very sporadic intervals, usually 5 to 7 years between heavy crops (Fowells 1965). The seed is also relatively large and is freely eaten by rodents and birds. These factors limit the amount of seed available for germination and establishment. The relative shade intolerance of this species also prevents it from be coming established as advanced regeneration. Western red cedar, even though it is a prolific seed producer and rodent depredations are minor, has a very low regeneration success rate. Advanced regeneration of western redcedar appeared to be an important means of regeneration in areas receiving no treatment. An investigation of the correlation matrix in Appendix IV indicates that the size of the setting and distance to seed source had correlation coefficients of -0.23305 and -0.28355, respectively, for western redcedar. These are relatively high compared to the remaining environmental para meters sampled for western redcedar. Isaac (1930) in his seed release studies noted a dispersion distance of 400 feet when western redcedar seed was released from an elevation of 150 feet. Therefore in large clearcuts, distance from seed source is a limiting factor as it is for western hemlock and Douglas-fir. However, the seed flight of these two species is much greater as compared with that of western redcedar. In addition, the amount of adjacent western redcedar seed 104 source was limited in most cases to approximately 5 - 10 percent of the total. Consequently, although western redcedar is a prolific seed producer, not many seed trees were present to produce seed. Western redcedar's rich edaphic requirements are probably the greatest limiting factor to its establishment. Unlike western hemlock it cannot withstand a wide variety of nutrient and moisture conditions within the seedbed environment. Many other environmental factors such as slope, as pect, position on slope, and altitude can cause localized variations in the number of seedlings per acre and variations in the results obtained from different studies. Most observa tions and attempts at trying to define the complex natural factors affecting regeneration have had only limited success. The wide sources of variation and complex interrelationships cause problems in analysis of the individual factors. If the factors are subjected to a multiple regression analysis, the amount of variation accounted for can change with differ ent combinations of variables and certain variables that cannot be quantified or measured easily are left out, although they could contribute to a major portion of the variation. The results of one study may not be directly extrapolated to other areas, since the degree in which one factor is import ant can change from area to area. Therefore, because of the problems and inaccuracies 105 involved in interpreting a complex analysis of the natural factors affecting regeneration, only a simple correlation matrix is presented in Appendix IV for the correlations ob served in this study between the number of trees per acre for the individual tree species and the environmental factors measured in the field. No attempt will be made to analyze each factor. A Summary Table 7 of the correlation coefficients Cr) with a value greater than .30 for the coniferous tree species and deciduous tree groups will be presented. These factors are considered relatively important in determining the regeneration potential of a logged opening. One environmental parameter, namely, distance to the south edge, exhibited a relatively high negative correla tion with western redcedar 34609) , western hemlock (•• .41 738) and Douglas-fir (-. 29726).- The distance to the south edge represents a relative measurement of the time a site is exposed to bright sunlight. In other words, the smaller the setting or more northernly the exposure, the less time direct sunlight will be on the site. The negative correla tion coefficients'.-seemed, to. indicate that, tree regeneration prefers to be shaded during some part of day. 2. Seedbed Characteristics of Coniferous Trees In all associations the three coniferous species investigated, Tsuga. heterophlla Qvestern hemlock), Thuja Table 7 Factors with a correlation coefficient of ± .30-or:greater WESTERN HEMLOCK WESTERN REDCEDAR DOUGLAS-FIR DECIDUOUS Altitude (-3396) Age of stand (.4140) Distance to south edge (-.3461) Distance to seed source (-.3982) Distance to south edge (-.4174) % of plot-slash (.. 3698) Altitude (.6533) Position on slope (.4712) Position on slope Age of stand (-.3916) (- .4281) Setting size (-.4015) Depth of organic matter (-.3565) % of douglas-fir seed % of plot-rock (-.3018) source (.5033) % of western hemlock % of plot-slash (-.4378) seed source (-.4601) o % of plot mineral soil (.6381) Correlation coefficient 107 plicata (western redcedar), and Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir), all preferred mineral soil over other types of seedbeds for germination (Figs. 28 and 29). With the exception of Douglas-fir, survival was extremely poor. Western hemlock survived best on decaying wood. The decaying wood substratum met western hemlock's low nutri tional requirement and furnished an ammonium source of nitro gen (Krajina 1969). The ability of decaying wood to conserve moisture is also important to western hemlock's survival. Osborn (1968) maintained that mineral soil provides an ade quate seedbed if there is no competition and soil moisture is good. Under decaying wood conditions, western hemlock grows best because its competitors will not grow on this substratum. If this substratum is not available, such as after slashburning, western hemlock is greatly decreased in numbers. In some cases, western hemlock appeared to be grow ing very well on mineral soil, but further examination in dicated a buried decaying wood source was present and thus sustaining the hemlock seedling (Fig. 31). In most cases, western hemlock occurred in clumps rather than being randomly distributed (Fig. 33). This growth pattern follows the negative binomial or clumped distribution that Smith and Ker (1957) noted for this species. Although the plots in dicated the area had an ample supply to western hemlock regeneration, the amount of area occupied by trees was low due to the clumpy nature of the regeneration. The clumpy 108 FIGURE 28 Western redcedar and western hemlock seedlings germinating on mineral soil seedbed. FIGURE 29 Douglas-fir seedling germinating on typical mineral soil seedbed. 109 110 behavior is brought about by unsatisfactory seedbed conditions and conditioning of the microsite under an established hem lock to favor its further regeneration (Osborn 1968). Another important factor restricting regeneration, not only of western hemlock but of all species, was the effect of competing vegetation. In the study area, Pteridium aquili num (bracken fern) was the major competitor. Besides heavy canopy and root competition, the matting of the fronds on the ground is particularly destructive to regenerating trees (Fig- 30). Western redcedar survived best on rapidly decompos ing organic matter in shaded moist pockets. Western redcedar was not found on decaying wood or thick organic matter at all. Its rich edaphic requirements restricted it to habitats rich in nutrients and where nitrification provided a readily available source of nitrates (Krajina 1969). On areas that were not slashburned, advanced regeneration was a prevalent means of western redcedar esta blishment. After logging, adventitious roots can develop on limbs that have been buried or covered with soil during the logging operation (Fig. 32). These limbs then have the ability to become erect self-sustaining trees. Schmidt (1955) observed this type of cedar regeneration in old growth coastal forests. Western redcedar constituted a very small portion of the regenerating stand and very few made it to the four foot height class in any of the associations, as can Ill FIGURE 30 Effectiveness of Ptevidium aquilinum (bracken fern) fronds in restricting tree regeneration. FIGURE 31 Tsuga hetevophylla growing on a buried source of decaying wood. 112 113 FIGURE 32 Adventitious roots forming on a western redcedar branch following logging. FIGURE 33 Typical clumped habit of western regeneration following logging. hemlock 114 115 be seen from the plot data in Appendix I, Part III. This could be attributed to a high mortality rate and a slow growth rate. Western redcedar did not assume a clumped pattern as did western hemlock, but grew as widely scattered individuals. In the summer of 1974, 181 naturally regenerating Douglas-fir trees were investigated in terms of the type of substratum they were growing on. The results are presented below: Table 8 Number of Douglas-fir seedlings on three types of seedbeds ASSOCIATION MINERAL SOIL DECAYING WOOD ORGANIC MATTER TOTAL Salal - D.F. 65 15 1 81 % of total 80 19 1 45 Moss - W.H. 54 14 3 71 % of total 76 20 4 39 Swordfern - W.R.C. 2 7 1 1 29 % of total 93 3 3 16 TOTAL 146 30 5 181 % of total 81 17 3 Germination on mineral soil was the highest, followed by decaying wood and organic .matter, respectively. The fact 116 that Douglas-fir germinates best on mineral soil is widely accepted (Isaac 1939, Garman 1955, Fowells 1965). Nevertheless, many young Douglas-fir seedlings were found growing vigorously on decaying wood (Fig. 34). In many cases, it was observed that due to the logging operation mineral soil may have been thrown on top of logs providing a suitable seedbed for Douglas-fir germination. The decay ing wood below also provided available moisture. Further more, if the seedlings were able to extend their rooting systems either through the decaying wood or around it in order to reach mineral soil, they were then capable of sus taining themselves and growing as well as seedlings estab lished on mineral soil. The major factors controlling germination appeared to be within-site variations (microsite) resulting from the logging operation. The number of microsites created that are available for germination depends on the logging method and treatment thereafter. Important micro-environmental factors were the amount of shade, soil surface temperatures, available soil surface moisture, type of seedbed, and speed in which the organic layers decomposed. Macro-environmental controls such as local climate, elevation, landform, and depth of parent material less closely control the germination process. In other words, unsatisfactory seedbed conditions such as dense shade, heavy accumulations of undecaying slash, 117 FIGURE 34 Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir) growing well on decaying wood of downed western redcedar tree. 118 119 thick layers of organic matter and a desiccated soil surface condition were the primary factors affecting seed germina tion. While the above factors are important in controlling seed germination, the type of seed source and distance to the seed source are important in determining the amount of seed available. Loss of seed due to rodents and birds could be important but were not identified in this study. 120 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The results of this study have shown that the for est associations in their initial stages of secondary suc cession are identifiable in the field although vegetation indicators alone are not enough and must be coupled with physiographic information. The knowledge of the vegetative relationships that exists in the individual forest associa tions is important to the proper "ecological" management of a site. Silvicultural prescriptions should be developed for each association. Information on the ecology of the different tree species and the effect of different treat ments on each association should be the basis for the silvi cultural prescriptions and choice of the most ecologically suitable species for planting. Furthermore, certain associa tions may not require planting and natural regeneration may be safely relied on to ..stock the: site, providing environ mental factors such as seed years, distance to seed source, and type of seed source are favorable. In other words, the allocation of silvicultural prescriptions requires not merely identification of the forest association, but realization of the complex interacting environmental factors on planted and natural regeneration. These should be evaluated before 121 logging as well as after, so a suitable environment can be created for each association. Since man is an active environmental factor, his activities are controlling factors and affect the development of the forest. Therefore, his activities should be guided by the natural controlling factors of the site as much as possible. The differentiation between associations is dis tinct between the extremes, namely the salal - Douglas-fir association and swordfern - western redcedar association. The distinction between these two associations could be made by vegetative characteristics alone. The swordfern - western redcedar association possesses a highly diverse group of species indicating its high moisture and nutrient regimes. Structurally, both the shrub and especially the herb strata are very well developed. The moss layer is relatively poorly developed. The salal - Douglas-fir association, on the other hand, has very few species. The shrub and moss strata are well-developed, but the herb stratum is almost lacking. Physiographically, the swordfern - western redcedar associa tion occupies lower slopes and depressions, whereas the salal - Douglas-fir association occupies upper slopes and ridge tops. Unfortunately, the distinction between the salal - Douglas-fir association and the moss - western hemlock association is not clear. Vegetatively, no differences arise in species composition. However, the shrub stratum of the salal -122 Douglas-fir association contains more Gaulthevia shallon, while the moss stratum of the moss - western hemlock associ ation is better developed and the B^ layer has a higher presence and significance of Vaaainium alaskaense. Un fortunately, these changes are slight to an untrained observer. The major means by which these two associations can be divided is by physiographic position and depth to an impervious layer. The salal - Douglas-fir association occupies the top of ridges or the upper slopes. The parent material usually is shallow ablation till over bedrock. The moss - western hemlock association invariably occurs on upper slopes on north-facing aspects and moves gradually down in slope position to the mid-slope position on south-facing aspects. However, on areas near the transition zone into the Coastal Western Hemlock wetter subzone, the increased rainfall causes the moss - western hemlock association to occupy flat areas on ridge tops where slight depressions exist. The moisture regime is slightly greater and the parent material is deeper in these depressions. Here, the salal -Douglas-fir association is found on adjacent rocky ridges or steep slopes with a shallow soil. On the cutover associations, a classification that takes into consideration only the presence or the absence of species is not sufficient to classify the various associations after logging. Mueller-Dombois (1960) also noted this for 123 the Coastal Douglas-fir Zone. This is brought about by an increase in favorable habitats of the individual species and invasion of the site by short-lived pioneer vegetation responding only to increased light. These tall pioneer herbs have no indicative significance. Very few of the truly indicative forest species are destroyed by logging. Only after a severe slashburn are they reduced to a negligible amount and further covered by weed vegetation. The creation of microsites or microdepressions is a common phenomenon after logging and accounts for much of the variation between homogeneous associations. Structurally, all associations contained the same total average cover. All associations were quickly invaded by tall herbs such as Epilobium angustifolium and Anaphalis margaritacea, although the salal - Douglas-fir and moss -western hemlock associations were invaded to a lesser extent. The shrub layers were all well-developed. The shrub layer of the swordfern - western redcedar association consisted of mainly Rubus speotabilis, whereas the salal - Douglas-fir and moss - western hemlock association ' s shrub layers were dominated by Gaultheria shallon. The herb layer reacted dif ferently. In the rich swordfern - western redcedar associa tion, the herb layer was well developed. But in the salal -Douglas-fir and moss - western hemlock associations, the low thick cover of Gaultheria shallon largely restricted the herb 124 layer to tall weedy invading herbs rather than low growing herbs. The moss layer was just the opposite. In the sword fern - western redcedar association it was poorly developed, while the salal - Douglas-fir and moss - western hemlock associations had well-developed moss layers. It was found that the degree and type of disturbance, extent of micro-sites created, spacing of planted trees, age, and parent material brought about changes in both structure and species composition in each association. Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and western redcedar all germinated best on mineral soil seedbeds, but survival was very poor, except for Douglas-fir. Western hemlock grew best on decaying wood, while western redcedar preferred rapidly decaying organic matter in moist pockets. Advanced regeneration was an important means of regeneration of western hemlock and western redcedar. Douglas-fir survived well on mineral soil and was not laffected by drought as much as the other two species. Douglas-fir was also found growing well on decaying wood. The results of the statistical analysis indicate that treatments within associations had a definite effect on the number and type of coniferous trees per acre. Associations alone were not significant. The number of deciduous trees per acre, on the other hand, were less affected by the type of treatment and responded more to the association type, with 125 the swordfern - western redcedar association being the preferred type. The salal - Douglas-fir association - slash burned and the swordfern - western redcedar association -slashburned or piled and burned significantly reduced the number of trees per acre of Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and western redcedar in most cases. Although not statisti cally significant, slashburning did not affect the swordfern -western redcedar association as much as the salal - Douglas-fir association. The preference of coniferous trees for areas that have had no treatment is presumed to be caused mainly by a higher amount of available seed present that was not destroyed by burning, a greater variety of seedbed types favorable to all species, and shading of slash. All conifer ous tree species preferred areas that were either piled and burned or had no treatment in the salal - Douglas-fir and moss - western hemlock associations. The swordfern - western redcedar association undoubtedly provided an equally suitable habitat to regeneration, but early invasion of this rich habitat by deciduous trees and herbaceous plants, limits the establishment of coniferous trees. The distribution of western hemlock followed a negative binomial or clumped distribution and in most cases the regeneration was not well distributed over the logged areas. The indications of this study are that supplemental planting of Douglas-fir would be needed to obtain a 126 satisfactory number of Douglas-fir trees and an even dis tribution of them on all associations, although the salal -Douglas-fir association provided the best habitat. Graphs, comparing the number of trees per acre versus height class (age), indicate that as height class increases the number of coniferous trees per acre rapidly decreases, while the number of deciduous trees per acre increases. The reduction in the number of coniferous trees per acre was the greatest in the swordfern - western redcedar association, where intense competition from deciduous trees and herbaceous plants restricted establishment. The many complex interrelated environmental factors are hard to analyze by statistical means because of a mul titude of localized variations and the number of available observations. Consequently, only the correlation coefficients of the more important factors affecting each tree species is presented in Table 7, whereas a complete list is contained in Appendix IV. 127 VII. LITERATURE CITED Armstrong, J.E. 1957. Surficial geology of New Westminster map-area, British Columbia. Canada Dept. of Mines and Technical Surveys. Paper 57-5. Bailey, A.W. 1966. Forest associations and secondary plant succession in the southern Oregon Coast Range. Ph.D. thesis. Oregon State University. 166 pp. Bailey, A.W. and C.E. Poulton. 1968. Plant communities and environmental interrelationships in a portion of the Tillamook burn, northwestern Oregon. Ecology 49(1):1-12. Becking, R.W. 1957. The Ziirich-Montpellier school of Phytosociology. Bot. Rev. 23:411-488. Bell, M.A.M. 1964. Phytocoenoses in the dry subzone of the Interior Western Hemlock zone of British Columbia. Ph.D. thesis. Dept. of Biol, and Botany, Univ. of British Columbia. 246 pp. Bever, D.N. 1954. Evaluation of factors affecting natural reproduction of forest trees in central western Oregon. Oregon State Board of Forestry Res. Bull. 3. Billings. W.D. 1952. The environmental complex in relation to plant growth and distribution. Quar. Rev. Biol. 27(3):251-265. Braun-Blanquet, J. 1932. Plant sociology: the study of plant communities. Trans., revised and ed. by G.D. Fuller and M.S. Conrad). McGraw-Hill, New York. 439 pp. . 1951. Pflanzensoziologie. 2 Auf1. Springer Verlag, wein. Brayshaw, T.C. 1955. An ecological classification of the ponderosa pine stands in the southern interior of British Columbia. Ph.D. thesis. Dept. of Biol, and Botany, Univ. of British Columbia. 240 pp. Buol, S.W., F.D. Hole and R.J. McCracken. 1973. Soil genesis and classification. Iowa State University Press, Ames. 360 pp. Coile, T.S. 1952. Soil and the growth of forests. Adv. Agron. 4:329-398. Daubenmire, R.H. 1968. Plant communities: A textbook of synecology. Harper and Row, Publishers, New York. 300 pp. 128 Dyrness, CT. 1965. The effects of logging and slashburning on understory vegetation in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest arid Range Experiment Station. Res. Note. No. 31. . 1973. Early stages of plant succession follow ing logging and burning in the western Cascades of Oregon. Ecology 54 Cl):57-69. Dyrness, CT. and CT. Youngberg. 1958. Soil-vegetation relationships in the central Oregon pumice region. First North Amer. Forest Soils Conf. pp. 57-66. Eis, S. 1962. Statistical analysis of several methods for estimation of forest habitats and tree growth near Vancouver, B.C. Faculty of Forestry, Univ. of British Columbia. Forestry Bull. No. 4. Fligg, D.M. 1960. Empirical Yield Tables. British Columbia Forest Service. Survey Note No. 6. Fowells, H.A. 1965. Silvics of forest trees of the United States. U.S.D.A., Forest Service, Agr. Handbook No. 271. Fulton, R.J. 1972. Landform classification. British Columbia Dept. of Agriculture. 8 p., Appendix, 6 pp., (Mimeo). Garman, E.H. 1955. Regeneration problems and their silvi-cultural significance in the coastal forests of British Columbia. Dept. of Lands and Forests, British Columbia Forest Service. Tech. - Publ.. T. 41. . Hatch, CR. and J.E. Lotan. 1969. Natural regeneration of Douglas-fir in central Montana. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Res. Note.INT-85. Hicks, CR. 1964. Fundamental concepts in the design of experiments. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. 293 pp. Isaac, L.A. 1930. Seed flight in the Douglas-fir Region. Jour, of Forestry. 28:492-499. . 1939. Factors affecting establishment of Douglas-fir seedlings. U.S.D.A. Washington, D.C. Circular No. 486. . 1940. Mortality of Douglas-fir seed trees on cutover land. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Pacific North west Forest Exp. St. Res. Note 31. 129 Isaac, L.A. 1943. Reproductive habits of Douglas-fir. Charles Lathrop Pack For. Found., Washington, D.C. 107 pp. Isaac, L.A. and H.G. Hopkins. 1937. The forest soil of the Douglas-fir regions and changes wrought upon it by logg ing and slashburning. Ecology 18(2):264-279. Jablanczy, A. 1964. Influence of slashburning on the establish ment and initial growth of seedlings of Douglas-fir, western hemlock and western redcedar. Ph.D. thesis. Dept. of Biol, and Botany, University of British Columbia. 194 pp. Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of soil formation. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 289 pp. . 1961. Derivations of state factor equations of soil and ecosystems. Soil Sci. Soc. Proc. 25:385-388. Kalela, E.K. 1950. Manniloiden Ja Kuusikoiden Juurisuh-teista I. (on the horizontal roots in pine and spruce Stand 1). Acta For. Fennica 57:7-79. Kellman, M.C. 1969. Plant species interrelationships in a secondary succession in coastal British Columbia. Syesis 2:201-212. Kendrew, W.G. and D. Kerr. 1955. The climate of British Columbia and the Yukon Territories. Dept. of Transport, Meteorological Div., Queen's Printer, Ottawa, pp. 1-222. Klinka, K. 1972. Preliminary ecosystem map of the University of British Columbia Research Forest. Kojima, S. 1972. Phytogeocoenoses of the Coastal Western Hemlock Zone in Strathcona Provincial Park, B.C., Canada. Dept. of Botany, U.B.C. Ph.D. thesis. 322 pp. Koppen, W. 1936. Das geografische System der Klimate. Vol. 1, Part C. Kowall, R. C. 1967. Soils and soil capability classification for forestry of the Mission Tree Farm. M.Sc. thesis. Dept. of Soil Science, Univ. of British Columbia. 106 pp. Krajina, V.J. 1933. Die Pflanzengesellschaften-• des-. Mlynica tales in den Vysoke tatry (Hohe tatra). Botan. Centralb. 50:774-957; 51:1-224. . 1959. Bioclimatic zones in British Columbia. Univ. of British Columbia. Botanical Series No. 1:1-47. 130 Krajina, V.J. 1960. Can we find a common platform for the different schools of forest type classifications? Sylva Fenn. No. 105:50-55. . 1965. Biogeoclimatic zones and biogeocoenoses of British Columbia. Ecol. of Western North America 1:1-17. ., Ed. 1969. Ecology of forest trees in British Columbia. Ecol. of Western North America 2.(1): 1-147. Krajina, V.J. and R.H. Spilsbury. 1953. Forest associations on the east coast of Vancouver Island. Forestry Handbook for British Columbia. Univ. of British Columbia. pp. 142-145. Kuramoto, R.T. 1965. Plant associations and succession in the vegetation of the sand dunes of Long Beach, Vancouver Island. M.Sc. thesis. Dept. of Biol, and Botany, Univ. of British Columbia. 87 pp. Lavender, D.P. et al. 1956. Natural regeneration on staggered settings. Oregon State Board of Forestry Res. Bull. 10. Lesko, O.L. 1961. Ecological study of soils in the Coastal Western Hemlock zone. M.Sc. thesis. Dept of Biol, and Botany, Univ. of British Columbia. 141.pp. Luttmerding, H.A. and P.N. Sprout. 1968. Soil survey of Mission area. British Columbia Dept. of Agriculture. Preliminary Report No. 9 of the Lower Fraser Valley Soil Survey. Lutz, H.J. and R.F. Chandler. 1946. Forest soils. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 514 pp. MacBean, A.P. 1941. A study of the factors affecting the reproduction of western hemlock and its associates in the Quatsino Region, Vancouver Island. British Columbia Dept. of Lands and Forests Branch. Tech. Publ. No. T. 25. Madgewick, H.A.I, and Ovington, J.D. 1959. The chemical composition of precipitation in adjacent forest and open plots. Forestry 32:14-22. Major, J. 1951. A. functional factorial approach to plant ecology. Ecology 32:392-412. McMinn, R. G. 195.1. The vegetation of a burn near Blaney Lake, British Columbia. Ecology 32 (1) :13S-140 . 131 Minore, D. 1971. Shade benefits Douglas-fir in southwestern Oregon cutover area. Tree Planter's Notes 22.(1) : 22-23. Morris, W.G. 1958. Influence of slashburning on regeneration, other plant cover, and fire hazard in the Douglas-fir region. (A Progress Report). Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper No. 29. Mueller-Dombois, D. 1960. The Douglas-fir forest associations, on Vancouver Island in their initial stages of forest succession. Ph.D. thesis. Dept. of Biol, and Botany, Univ. of British Columbia. 570 pp. . 1965. Initial stages of secondary succession in the Coastal Douglas-fir zone of British Columbia. pp. 35-37 in Ecology of Western North America, Vol. 1. National Soil Survey Committee. 1958. Outline for the class ification of Canadian Soils as of Nov. 195.8. •Mimeo. Orloci, L. 1961. Forest types of the Coastal Western Hemlock zone. M.Sc. thesis. Dept.of Biol, and Botany, Univ. of British Columbia. 206 pp. . 1964. Vegetational and environmental variations in the eco-systems of the Coastal Western Hemlock Zone. Ph.D. thesis. Dept. of Biol, and Botany, Univ. of British Columbia. 199 pp. Ovington, J.D. 1953-1955. Studies of the development of woodland conditions under different forest trees. 1953. I. Soil Ph.J. Ecol. 41:13-34. 1954. II, The forest floor. J. Ecol. 42:71-80; 1955. The ground flora. J. Ecol. 43:1-21. . 1956. The form, weights and productivity of tree species grown in close stands. New Phytol. 55. Osborn, J.E. 1968. Influence of stocking and density upon growth and yield of trees and stands of western hemlock. Ph.D. thesis. Faculty of Forestry, Univ. of British Columbia. 396 pp. Poore, M.E.D. 1955. The use of phytosociological methods in ecological investigations. I. The Braun-Blanquet system. J. Ecol. 43:226-244. . 1956. The use of phytosociological methods in ecological investigations. IV. General discussion of phytosociological problems. J. Ecol. 44:28-50. 132 Rowe, J.S. 1956. Uses of undergrowth plant species in forestry. Ecology 37:461-473. Schmidt, R.L. 1955. Some aspects of western redcedar regeneration in the coastal forests of British Columbia. British Columbia Forest Service. Research Note No. 29. Smith, J.H.G. and J.W. Ker. 1956. Some distributions encountered in sampling forest stands. Forest Science 3(2):137-144. Strothman, R.O. 1972. Douglas-fir in northern California: Effects of shade on germination, survival and growth. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Res. Paper PSW-84. Tarrant, R.F. et al. 1968. Nutrient cycling by throughfall and stemflow precipitation in three coastal Oregon forest types. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Res. Paper PNW-54. Vogl, R.J. and C. Ryder. 1969. Effect of slashburning on conifer reproduction in Montana's Mission Range. Northwest Sci. 43: 135-147. Wade, L.K. 1965. Vegetation and history of the Sphagnum bogs of the Tofino area, Vancouver Island. M.Sc. thesis. Dept. of Biol, and Botany, Univ. of British Columbia. 125 pp. Wine, R.L. 1964. Statistics for scientists and engineers. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 667 pp. Yerkes, V.P. 1960. Occurrence of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation after clearcutting old-growth Douglas-fir in the Oregon Cascades. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Res. Paper No. 34. 133 APPENDIX I PART I. General Environment Tables PART IT. Vegetation Synthesis Tables PART III. Tree and Stand Description 134 EXPLANATION AND LEGEND FOR THE SYNTHESIS TABLES (.1) ASPECT indicates compass readings from north in degrees. (2) TOPOGRAPHY refers to the shape of the land profile on a mesoscale and is described as follows: Topography Class Description N Neutral (uniform slope) CC Concave cv Convex F Flat (3) MICRORELIEF pertains to the land surface shape within the sample plot (microscale) and is evaluated by a descriptive scale as follows: Microrelief Description N Neutral (smooth) H Hummocky, irregular - very irregular microtopography with a number of sharply rising ridges or mounds running through the plot. U Undulating - a slightly wavy microtopography, less severe than hummocky. F Flat 0 Outcrop 135 SLOPE GRADIENT is the average inclination of the sample plot. POSITION ON SLOPE is the location of the sample plot in relation to the land surface and is described as follows: Position on Slope Description 0 Peak, ridge sloping in several directions 1 Just below the peak or ridge sloping in one direction 2 Further from peak or edge of terrace 3 Upper slope 4 Upper part of mid-slope 5 Lower part of mid-slope 6 Lower slope 7 8 Slopes near bottom of depression Flat bottom of the valley or depression itself LANDFORM describes the type and the origin of the parent material and is evaluated as follows: 136 ft Land Form Symbol Description MP Deep morainal deposit [loose till over compacted basal till): materials thick enough to cover irregularities of underlying bed rock; relatively flat to gently sloping; slopes less than 30%. MB Morainal blanket (loose till over compacted basal till bedrock controlled): a thick till cover, more than 3 feet, usually cover ing irregularities of underly ing bedrock; slopes range from 0 to 50%. MV Morainal veneer (loose till over bedrock); till less than 3 feet overlying bedrock; materials too thin to mask underlying bedrock irregularities; slopes range from 0 to 50%. GF Glacio-fluvial deposits: sand, silt, gravel, and minor coarser material deposited by meltwater from the wasting glacier; relat ively flat and usually deposited in thick stratified layers; mat erial masks all features of underlying bedrock or material of another genetic category; slopes less than 10%. GW Glacio-marine deposits: sand, silt, clay and minor coarser fragments deposited under the influence of a marine environ ment; usually poorly drained and relatively flat in topography. •55 —' Fulton, R.J. 1972. Landform Classification. B. C. Depart ment of Agriculture. 8 p., Appendix 6 p., (Mimeo). 137 Land Form Symbol Description CV Colluvial veneer: a thin, .less than 3 feet heterogeneous mix ture of materials, deposited by mass wasting processes; materials too thin to cover irregularities of underlying bedrock; slopes range from 30 to 50%. (7) TEXTURE OF PARENT MATERIAL - see table below: A Texture of Parent Description Material (Symbol) B Bouldery - abundance of materi al classed as boulder in size (.greater than 10 in..):; not encountered' in', .'study, area. G Gravelly - dominantly gravel and coarse sand sized material (.4 - 10 in.). S Sandy - dominantly granule and sand sized material (.4 - .05 mm.) . Si Silty - dominantly fine sand and silt sized (.25 - .005 mm.) . LOCATION - UBCF - University of British Columbia Re search Forest MTF - Mission Tree Farm Fulton, R.J. 1972. Landform Classification. B.C. Depart ment of Agriculture. 8 p., Appendix 6 p., (Mimeo). 138 (9) TYPE OF TREATMENT - NONE - No treatment . ^ SL - Slashburned P$B - Piled and burned (10) BURNING INTENSITY - L - bark on stumps lightly blackened. N - bark on stump blackened as well as the wood being scorched or blackened. S - wood on stumps hollowed out by fire, (11) HYGROTOPE - pertains to the moisutre regime classes of the soils and is approximately equal to the soil drain age classes proposed by Leskiw (1973) . The symbols employed for the hygrotope classes are as follows (after Krajina, 1969): X Xeric SX Subxeric M MesiSHG HG Subhygric (with temporary seepage) Hygric (with permanent seepage, mostly 30 cm to 60 cm below the soil surface) (,12)R0CK, SLASH, MINERAL SOIL, AND ORGANIC MATERIAL refers to the area in percent of each item on the sample plot. (13)% OF BRUSH SPECIES, OVERTOPPING TREES OR NOT OVERTOPPING  TREES refers to the percentage of herbaceous and non commercial tree species overtopping or not overtopping 139 the commercial tree species, i.e. Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and western redcedar. (14) STRATUM COVERAGE indicates the total area covered by each vegetative stratum. The strata .are denoted as A(tree layer), B (shrub layer), C(herb layer), and D (moss layer). The B layer is separated into B^ (woody vegetation 6' - 30') and B^ (woody vegetation 1' - 6'). The C layer also contains commercial tree species under 1 foot in height and creeping shrubs. The D layer is separated into mosses on humus (DH), mosses on decaying wood (DW), mosses on rock (DR), and mosses on mineral soil(DM). (15) SOIL ORDER was extracted from existing soil association maps and may be prone to errors. It was included merely to give an idea of the type of soil to be expected and not to provide positive proof of the soil order or subgroup. The first four letters of each soil order were used on the synthesis tables. (16) PRESENCE (P) was calculated using the following formula: p _ number of occurrences of a species, ^ total number of releve's in that particular associat ion (17) MEAN SIGNIFICANCE (MS) was calculated by taking the mean of each significance class, then transforming it back to the original scale of species significance. The number 140 to the left of the decimal in the mean significance column refers to the species significance class, while the number to the right of the decimal refers to the tenth of that particular species significance class the species falls in. (18)RANGE OF SIGNIFICANCE(RS) is simply the difference bet ween the lowest and highest significance encountered for a particular species. 141 PART I. General Environment Tables VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART I - GENERAL PLOT INFORMATION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUUZONE FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL - DOUGLAS-FIR PAGE 1 I PLOT NO. | 0481 0401 041 I 0*21 0431 0441 046| 0471 0501 0101 0151 0161 0171 0201 OUl 0121 0131 014| 0211 PHYS1 OCRAPHY ALTITUDE IFT.I 560 610 600 645 630 650 420 500 580 1243 553 540 545 1210 1308 1300 1023 1085 10601 ASPECT 35 30 100 25 120 1 FLAT 290 10 1250 1 35 90 110 FLAT 140 160 180 120 1220 160 1 TOPOGRAPHY CV CV CV CV CV lev CV lev N CV CV lev CV CV CV CV CV CV CV 1 MICROREL1EF (WITHIN PLOT) U F F U F F F H IU 0 0 . 0 H F 0 H 0' F- U 1 SLOPE GRADIENT il) 35 15 45 30 20 0-5 20 40 45 15 15 25 1-5 20 5 15 10 5 10 1 POSITION ON SLOPE I 1 I I 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 LANOFUKM MV MV |MV MV MV MV MV MV MB MV MV /MV KV MV MV MV MV MV MV 1 TEXTURE OF PARENT MATERIAL G C . G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 1 STANO DESCRIPTION LOCATION MTF MTF MTF MTF MTF MTF MTF MTF MTF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UDCF 1 SETTING SIZE (A.) 350 200 200 200 200 200 100 100 100 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 2.5 2.5 1 OATE LOGGED 1970 1968 1968 1968 196B 196B 1964 1964 1964 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1962 1962 1962 1962 19621 DATE SINCE LAST DISTURBANCE 1970 1968 1968 1968 196B 1968 1964 1964 L964 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1962 1962 1962 1962 1962 1 AGE OF STANO (YRS.) 2 6 6 6 6 6 10 10 10 8 8 9 9 9 11 1 I 11 1 1 12 1 DATE PLANTED 1971 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1965 1965 1965 TYPE OF TREATMENT SL SL SL SL SL SL PCB PCB PCB NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE 1 BURNING INTENSITY N S S L L N • DISTANCE TO SEED SOURCE (FT.) 1000 1500 1600 900 1300 1000 350 100 1700 150 500 500 800 120 50 50 70 50 75 1 DISTANCE TO SOUTH EDGE (FT.) 1500 5000 5000 6000 6000 5C00 350 100 5000 250 500 500 800 120 2 00 250 70 60 75 1 TYPE OF SEED SOURCE!*) OOUGLAS-FIR 30 30 . 30 30 3Q 30 20 30 30 80 60 60 60 60 80 80 70 70 70 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 15 30 30 30 35 15 15 20 20 25 I REDCEDAR 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 10 5 10 10 10 5 5 5 10 10 5 1 SOIL C ORGANIC LAYERS SOIL ORDER (CSSC 1970) POOZ PODZ PODZ POOZ PODZ PODZ POOZ POOZ PODZ FOLS POOZ PODZ PODZ POOZ PODZ POOZ PODZ PODZ POOZ 1 DEPTH OF ORGANIC LAYERS (IN.) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.5 <1.0 <1.0 <l.O 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 5.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 I .5 3.0 1 HYGRO TOP E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 t OF PLOT COVERED BYl ROCK 0 10 10 10 5 20 30 0 5 10 20 20 0 10 15 15 10 20 5 1 SLASH 30 30 30 30 30 10 20 30 40 70 70 75 65 40 60 70 40 40 50 1 MINERAL SOIL 55 40 40 30 30 45 20 5 0 <1 0 0 <5 30 15 <1 10 10 15 1 ORGANIC MATERIAL 15 20 20 30 25 25 30 65 55 20 10 5 30 20 10 40 40 30 30 1 VEGETATION t OF ERUSH SPECIES: . (A) OVERTOPPING TREES 10 20 10 40 30 10 30 10 20 20 40 20 20 20 50 40 60 60 60 1 IB) NOT UVCRTOPPING TREES 90 80 90 60 70 90 70 90 80 80 60 80 BO 80 50 60 40 40 40 1 STRATA COVERAGE I X) A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 5 1 Bl 5 60 75 30 20 20 30 40 90 40 55 20 50 20 20 40 30 30 60 1 b2 50 30 90 85 75 80 B5 95 90 90 80 95 95 70 90 90 ] 75 85 50 1 C 35 70 20 60 85 20 .10 50 85 70 70 45 70 60 80 65 80 80 50 1 U BO 50 40 70 75 70 B5 35 35 60 60 80 40 70 40 45 40 80 30 1 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PARI I - GENERAL PLOT INFORMATION PAGE COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - ORY SUBZONE FOREST ASSOCIATION! MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK IPLOT NO. I 0031 0091 018 I 0191 0221 0321 039| 0351 0361 033! 03*1 0371 0381 0451 049! I I I I PHYSIOGRAPHY 1 1 1 1 1 1 ALT ITUDE (FT.) I 850 1238 1200 1190 1190 480 500 700 650 540 500 675 690 450 400 I 1 II 1 ASPECT 1 260 40 30 340 150 90 145 FLAT FLAT FLAT 150 FLAT 295 10 0 1 1 1 1 1 TOPOGRAPHY 1 N CV CV CV CV CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC N CC 1 1 1 1 1 MICROKELIEF (WITHIN PLOT) 1 N H' H U U U U F U F U F F H U 1 1 I 1 1 SLOPE GRADIENT (X) 1 30 8 20 10 15 5 15 0-5 0-5 0-5 30 0-5 10 35 30 1 1 1 1 1 POSITIOS ON SLOPE 1 5 ' 3 2 3 3 6 6 7 7 6 6 8 7 5 7 1 1 1 1 1 LANOFURM 1 MVCV MV MV MV MV MP MP MP MP MP MP MP MP MB MB 1 . 1 1 1 1 TEXTURE OF PARENT MATERIAL 1 G G G c G G G G G C G G G G G 1 1 1 1 1 STAND DESCRIPTION 1 .' ! ! ! ! LOCATION 1 UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF MTF MTF MTF MTF MTF MTF MTF MTF MTF MTF 1 1 1 1 1 SETTING SIZE (A.I 14.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 110 110 80 80 110 110 80 80 100 100 1 1 1 II DATE LOGGED 1 1970 1965 1965 1965 1965 1966 1966 1959 1959 1966 1966 1959 1959 1964 19641 1 1 1 1 DATE SINCE LAST DISTURBANCE 1 1970 1965 1965 1965 1965 1966 1966 1960 1960 1966 1966 1960 I960 1964 19641 1 1 1 1 AGE OF STAND (YRS.) 1 3 8 9 9 9 8 6 14 14 8 8 14 14 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 DATE PLANTED , I 1967 1967 1960 1960 1965 19651 1 1 1 1 TYPE OF TREATMENT 1 NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB 1 1 I 1 1 BURNING INTENSITY | 1 1 1 1 1 DISTANCE TO SEED SOURCE (FT.) 1 150 100 200 150 150 50 25 125 100 150 200 250 300 300 500 I I I 1 1 DISTANCE.TO SOUTH EOGE 1 FT. 1 1 200 200 300 150 200 1000 50 200 200 600 550 900 900 300 500 1 I I I 1 TYPE OF SEED SOURCEII) j | | j | | DOUGLAS-FIR 125 80 55 55 60 10 10 5 5 10 10 5 5 20 30 1 1 1 1 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 50 15 35 35 35 70 70 90 90 70 70 90 90 60 60 1 1 I 1 1 REOCEOAR 1 25 5 10 10 5 20 20 5 5 20 20 5 5 20 10 I I I I I SOIL.1 ORGANIC LAYERS ! '!!!!! SOIL ORDER (CSSC 1970) 1 PODZ PODZ POOZ POOZ PODZ POOZ PODZ POOZ PODZ PODZ POOZ POOZ PODZ POOZ PODZI ! 1.1 1 DEPTH OF ORGANIC LAYERS (IN.) 12.5 1.0 4.0. 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 1 1 |'| I HYGRO TOP E IM M M M M M H M M M M M M M M 1 1 1 1 1 X OF PLOT COVERED BY: | 1 II 1 1 ROCK 1 0 <5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 SLASH 1 60 60 ao 60 35 60 65 60 60 20 35 45 40 60 30 1 1 1 1 1 MINERAL SOIL 1 2 <1 5 10 20 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 I I | I I ORGANIC MATERIAL 1 38 30 10 25 45 35 35 35 35 80 65 55 60 40 55 1 1 I I ! VEGETATION | III! i t OF tJRUSH SPECIESl | !!!! IA) OVERTOPPING TREES 15 40 30 50 40 70 60 70 90 10 10 20 20 20 30 l I I i y (B) NOT OVERTOPPING TREES 195 60 70 50 60 30 40 30 10 90 90 80 80 80 70 I I I I I STRATA COVERAGES) | 1 1 1 1 1 A I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 50 10 40 30 0 Oil 1 1 I BI 1 40 30 60 30 40 25 25 80 90 90 95 90 95 95 95 1 1 1 1 1 B2 1 80 05 85 90 65 95 95 65 70 25 25 20 35 85 60 I 1 I I I C 1 90 30 65 t>5 90 40 90 40 40 30 20 10 10 25 60 I 1 | | | D 1 5 10 50 65 80 60 45 30 50 40 20 20 20 90 70 I I | | | VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART I - GENERAL PLOT INFORMATION COASTAL, WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - ORY SUBZONE FOREST ASSOCIATION! SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR PAGE IPLOT NO. | 0051 0301 0311 OOtl 0061 0231 007 1 0081 0271 0281 0021 0241 0251 026 1 004| 0291 I, ,n 1 PHYSIOGRAPHY II 1 1 1 ALT ITUDE (FT.) 397 405 410 758 580 730 WO 198 147 2 :o 505 535 580 500 360 400 1 1 1 1 IASPECT 45 0 FLAT 220 270 2C0 FLAT 230 IFLAT 1270 200 1220 1B0 310 280 270 I 1 I 1 1 TOPOGRAPHY F CC CC N N CC F N ICC CC CC ICC CC CC CC CC 1 1 1 1 1MICRORELIEF (WITHIN PLOT) N F U . N N F U U F F N H U F N Fill! 1 SLOPE GRADIENT (X) <5 10 0-5 12 15 0-5 FLAT 20 10-5 lie 5 15 10 10 10 10 1 II 1 1 POSIT ION ON SLOPE 8 8 8 6 6 8 9 7 9 7 8 7 7 9 8 8 1 1 1 1 1LANOFORM GW CW UW MP HP MP GF CF GF GF MB 1MB MB GF HP MP | | 1 1 1 TEXTURE OF PARENT HATER IAL SI SI SI G G G S G C G G G G S . G G 1 1 1 1 j 1 STAND DESCRIPTION. 1 1 1 1 I — 1 1 1 1 ice* r i UBCF UUCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCF UBCFI I 1 1 1 SETTING SIZE IA.) 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 32.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 16.7 18.7 18.7 18.7 64.0 64.01 1 1 1 1 DATE LOGGED 1970 1970 1970 1967 1967 1967 1965 1968 1968 1968 1964 1964 1964 1964 1959 19591 I 1 1 IOATE SINCE LAST DISTURBANCE 1970 1970 1970 1967 1967 1967 1965 1968 1968 1968 1965 1965 1965 1965 1960 19601 1 1 1 1 AGE OF STAND (YRS. ) 3 4 4 6 6 7 8 5 6 6 8 9 9 9 13 14 I | I I IDATE PLANTEO 1971 1971 1971 1967 1967 1967 1967 1965 1965 1965 1965 1960 19601 1 I 1 1 TYPE UF TREATMENT PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB NONE SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 1 1 1 1 1 BURNING INTENSITY N S N N N N N N 1 1 1 1 [DISTANCE TU SEED SOURCE (FT.) 225 250 100 150 100 200 550 400 100 300 200 250 150 400 300 300 1 I I 1DISTANCE TO SOUTH EDGE (FT. 1 450 500 400 250 1200 1C00 1000 450 600 700 900 1000 1200 1000 600 20001 1 1 1 1 TYPE OF SEEO SOURCEIXI 1 UOUGLAS-FIR 60 60 60 70 70 70 60 10 10 10 30 30 30 30 65 60 1 I 1 I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 25 25 25 20 20 20 30 50 50 50 60 60 60 60 25 25 I | | | I REDCEDAR 15 15 15 10 10 10 10 40 40 40 10 10 10 10 10 15 1 I 1 I 1 SOIL C ORGANIC LAYERS ! ! ' i ' ! 1 SOIL ORDER (CSSC 1970) GLEY GLEY GLEY POOZ POOZ PODZ POOZ POOZ POOZ PODZ POOZ PODZ PODZ PODZ POOZ PODZI 1 I 1 IDEPTh OF ORGANIC LAYERS (IN.) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.5' 1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1 I I | 1HYGROTOPE HG HG HG SHG SHG SHG HG SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG HG HG HG 1 1 I I 1X OF PLOT COVEREO BY! 1 ROCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 I 1 SLASH 10 5 20 10 20 5 30 60 30 30 30 40 30 30 10 20 1 I I I 1 MINERAL SOIL 85- 75 60 30 <5 50 <5 <5 10 10 <5 10 5 20 <5 5 1 1 1 1 1 ORGANIC MATERIAL 5 20 20 60 95 45 65 40 60 60 55 50 65 50 85 75 1 I I I 1 VEGETATION ! ! ! 1 IX OF bRUSH SPECIES: I ! I I 1 Ul OVERTOPPING TREES 10 50 80 5 5 20 5 95 60 60 15 30 70 10 30 20 1 I I I 1 IBI NOT OVERTOPPING TREES 90 50 20 95 95 80 95 5 20 40 85 70 30 90 70 60 1 1 I | 1 STRATA COVERAGEIXI 1 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 35 50 1 I I I 1 BI 15 25 40 85 80 50 90 55 30 50 80 80 50 90 95 95 | I | | 1 62 65 40 70 50 75 60 60 85 60 ' 70 70 80 40 70 15 80 I | | | 1 . C 90 85 95 60 80 95 95 90 95 90 70 90 100 30 10 10 I 1 | | 1 0 30 20 20 15 15 30 40 45 70 80 10 60 20 60 25 50 I I | | 145 PART II. Vegetation Synthesis Tables VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT .TABLE - PART U - RELEVE TABLES COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE, DRY SUBZONE SALAL - DOUGLAS-FIR ASSOCIATION . PAGE 1 PLOT NUMBER 10481 0401 04 11 0421 0*3 104410461 047 105010101 015101610171 0201 Oil I 012 I 0131 014I 0211 ST NO. SPECIES SPECIES SIGNIFICANCE AND SOCIABILITY P MS RS B2 1 ALNUS RUBRA . 1 . . . 1 • . . 1 . . 1 . . .. 5.*l • . • 1 10.5 1-9 •-5 2 BETULA PAPYRIFERA 2. • 3. 4.+ 3.+ 2.* 2.+ 3.+ 4.* 2.* • 3.1 1.+ 3.* • .• 3.* 2.+ 78.9 3.0 «-4 3 TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA | . • 3.* 4.+ 4.1] 6.1 5.1 6.1 6. 1 3.1 4.1 6. 1 7. 1 5.1 5.' 11 68.4 5.1 3-7 4 SALIX SITCHENSIS j . •-. • . + .• 1.+ • 1.1 2.+ 4.5 . 2.* 52.6 1.5 +-4 5 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (ART.) j +, • 7. • 7. • 3.+ 4.* 5.+ 5.+ 5.+ 8.+ . . • . . . . . 47.4 5.0 +-8 6 PSEUDOTSUGA.MENZIESII (NAT.) « + .+ 2.+ • 5.+ 3.+ 2.* 3.+ 42.1 2.3 • -5 7 THUJA PL ICATA | . • 4.1 + .+ 4.1 2.+ 4.+ 3.+ 31.6 2.3 +-4 ALNUS RUBRA j . •f • . • . 2.+ + .• + .• 4.+ 2. • I 31.6 1.4 +-4 e PRUNUS EMARGINATA | . • 3.* • 2.+ 2.+ 2.+ . . 26.3 1.1 + -3 9 ACER CIRCINATUM | . 2. I • • • 3.+ • 3.1 • . 3.1 21.1 1.4 2-3 10 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA ,1 « • • • • . • .+ • 3.+ 10.5 + .4 • -3 11 CORNUS NUTTALL11 ' ' ' 1 • • • • a • 3.+ .5.3 • .4 3-3 12 RHAMNUS PURSHI ANA 1 • • • 3.+ • • • . 5.3 + .4 3-3 13 SALIX SCOULERI ANA 1 . 3. + • • • • • • 5.3 + .4 3-3 14 ACER MACROPHYLLUM • • • • . • • • • . • • • • • • • 5.3 + .0 +-+ 15 GAULTHERIA SHALLON 16. 5 5. 4 9. 7 6.4 5.3 8.5 7.3 8.6 8.6 8.7 4.5 9.6 9.5 6.4 7.6 7.7 8.7 7.7 6. 51 100.0 7.8 4-9 16 VACCINIUM PARVIFOLIUM . '• .13. + 2. 2. 2.+ 3.+ 3.+ 3.+ 3.+ 3.+ 3.+ 5.+ 5.1 5.1 3.1 3.+ 4. 1 5.+ 5.+ 3. 11 100.0 4.4 2-5 TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA | . 2. 1 2. + 3.+ 2.+ 2.+ 6.+ 6.1 3.+ 5.1 5.+ 5.1 4.1 4. 1 5.1 5.1 5. 1 6.1 5 11 94.7 5.1 2-6 17 RUBUS SPECTABILIS 1 . 2. 1 3.4 2.1 2.+ 3.1 2.+ 3.1 4.1 5.1 4.1 3.1 3.1 4.1 4.1 3.+ 3. • 2. 11 89.5 3.7 2-5 BETULA PAPYRIFERA : 1 1. + l! 3. t 5.* 4.+ + . + 3.+ 2.+ . 2.+ 3.+ • 2.* 2.+ 2.* 2.+ 3.+ 2.+ +, • | 89. 5 3.1 +-5 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (NAT.) 1 . + ..• + + .+ 2.+ 1.+ 2.+ 3.+ 2.+ 1.+ • 3.+ 3.* 3.+ 4.+ 4. + 4 +1 78.9 3.0 • -4 IB MENZIESIA FERRUGINEA 12. + 1.* 2.* • 3.1 3.1 3.+ 3.+ 3.+ 5.1 4.1 2.1 . . 3.+ 3.+ 2. 11 73.7 3.2 1-5 19 SPIRAEA D0UGLASI1. 1 . I. I . 3.4 3.1 3.1 2.1 . 3.1 4.1 • 2.1 2.1 4.1 3.+ 3. + 3.+ 2. 11 73.7 3.0 1-4 THUJA PLICATA 1 • . 3.+ 3.+ 2.+ 2.+ 4.1 3.1 2.+ 4.1 2.+ 4.+ 3.+ 2.+ + . +1 68.4 3.0 +-4 20 VACCINIUM OVALIFOLIUM 1 • 2.+ . 2.+ 3.+ 2.1 4.1 4. 1 4.1 3.1 . 3.1 2.+ 3.1 2. 11 63.2 3.0 2-4 SALIX SITCHENSIS I-. • . 1.* 2.+ 2.+ 3.1 . + .+ • 4.1 4.1 4.5 3.+ 3.+ +, +1 63.2 2.8 • -4 21 RUBUS PARVIFLORUS j . 1. • 3.4 3.1 3.5 2.1 2.+ . 3.1 . 1.+ 2.1 . 2.1 . 2.+ 2 11 63.2 2.2 1-3 PRUNUS EMARGINATA 1 . * • 1. • 2.+ « + . • .' • 4.+ 1.+ 2.+ 3.+ 52.6 1.7 +-4 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (ART.) 15. 3. • 4. • 5.+ 5.+ 2.+ .5.* 4.+ 2.* . « . . . 47.4 3.9 .2-5 22 RUBUS LEUC0DERM1S 1 . 4.1 3.1 2.1 . • 2.* 2.1 2.1 • 2.1 1 1.+ 42. 1 2.0 1-4 23 VACCINIUM ALASKAENSE 1 . 2.+ • . 2.* 3.+ 2.1 • • * 2.* 2.+ 2.+ 12.1 .42.1 1.6 2-3 ACER,CIRCINATUM '. 1 '< 2. I . 1.1 3.4 . 3.1 • 4.5 . 2.1 36.8 1.9 • -4 24 RIBES SANGUJNEUM j , • 1.+ 1.1 3.+ . . 2.1 . 3.1 3.1 . 36.8 1.5 +-3 RHAMNUS PURSHI ANA j , 1.+ • • • .+ 2.+ 3.* - . 2.* • • 36.8 1.1 •-3 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA 1 < . • . 1.+ 3.* 26.3 + .8 • -3 25 SAMBUCUS RACEMOSA \ j . • • 2.* 2.* 2.+ • • 15.8 + .6 2-2 26 RUBUS LACINIATUS | , • 2.+ 2.1 - « • • I.* 15.8 + .4 1-2 CORNUS NUTTALLII j , • * . - . 2.+ • 1.+ 15.8 + .1 •-2 SALIX SC OULERI ANA 11 1 • . 1.+ . • 1 ' • 15.8 + .0 +-1 27 RIBES LACUSTRE 1 + .+ • 1.+ • 1 • 10.5 + .0 •-1 28 HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR | • • • + .• • 1 a 10.5 + .0 +- + 29 TAXUS BREVIFOLIA | • . - • I • 10.5 + .0 • -• 30 BERBER IS NERVOSA j • • 3.* • • 1 a 5.3 + .4 3-3 31 LEDUM GROENLAND.ICUM I • • • • 2.1 • • • 1 • 5.3 + .0 2-2 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART II - RELEVE TABLES COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE, DRY SUBZONE . SALAL- DOUGLAS-FIR ASSOCIATION PLOT NUMBER : ST NO. SPECIES I 0481 0401 0411 04210431 0441 0461 047 SPECIES SIGNIF 32 SALIX LASIANDRA • 33 BERBER IS AQUIFOLIUM 34 PYRUS FUSCA ALNUS RUBRA 35 ROSA GYMNOCARPA 36 SORBUS AUCUPARIA ' 37 PTERIOIUM AQUILINUH 38 - EPILOB IUM AUGUST!FOLIUM • TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA 39 BLECHNUM SPICANT 40 RUBUS URSINUS 41 ANAPHALIS MARGARITACEA 42 POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM 43 URYOPTERIS AUSTRIACA THUJA PLICATA PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (NAT.) 44 LINNAEA BOREALIS 45 ATHYRIUM FILIX-FEMINA 46 LYCOPODIUM CLAVATUM 47 CORNUS CANADENSIS 48 HOLCUS LANATUS 49 JUNCUS EFFUSUS 50 HYPOCHAERIS RAD [CAT A 51 LACTUCA BIENNIS 52 LUZULA PARVI FLORA 53 SOL I DAGO CANADENSIS . 54 AGROSTIS SCAORA 55 CALAMAGROSTIS CANADENSIS 56 SCIRPUS MICRUCARPUS 57 HIERACIUM ALB IFLORUH 58 SENECIO SYLVATICUS 59 TRILLIUM OVATUM 60 CAR EX AQUATILIS 61 EPILOBIUM WATSONII ' 62 SCIRPUS CYPERINUS 63 CAREX HENDERSON11 64 TIARELLA TRIFOLIATA 65 TRISETUM CERNUUM 66 CAREX INTERIOR 67 CIRSIUM ARVENSE 68 FESTUCA OCCIDENTALIS 69 GOODYERA OBLONG IF OLIA PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (ART.) 70 URTICA DIOICA 71 HYLOCOMIUM SPLENDENS 72 RHYTIDIADELPHUS LOREUS OH 05010101 0151016101710201 Oil I 0121013 I 01410211 CANCE AND SOCIABILITY P MS RS 1 , • a • • 2.1 • . 1 * 1 5.3 + .0 2-2 1 | • # • | • • l.+ . 1 . 1 5.3 + .0 l-l 1 a a j • • • 1.11 . 1 5.3 + .0 l-l 1 , j , • a | • • 1 • 1 5.3 + .0 +- + 1 | • • | • • . 1 • 1 5.3 + .0 +- + 1 1 < • • • • • • • • .• • 1 • 1 5.3 + .0 I 5 5 7 512 1 5. 1 8.6 5, 1 4, 1 5. 1 6 4 5.6 5.5 17.6 5.1 8.7 7.7 7.6 7.616. 51 94.7 6.3 2-8 13 I 3. 113. 1 4 3.+ 5 5 1. 1 2. • 5.5 3.+ 3. 113.1 3.+ 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.111. +1 94.7 3.8 1-5 1 1 • • +1 . 2 2.+ 1. + 3. + 3. • 3.+ 3.1 2 • 11.+ 3.1 5.1 4.1 4. 1 4.113. +1 89.5 3.4 + -5 12 + j 2 • 3.+ 1 • 4 1 2. + 2 • 2.+ 3.+ 3 + 12.+ 4.1 3.+ 3.+ 2.+ 3.+14. •1 89.5 3.2 1-4 j 2. 114. 4 3.1 3. 1 1 1 4. 5 3.1 4.1 3. 112.+ 1.1 3.1 4.4 4.1 4.512. ll 84.2 3.4 1-4 13 1 3 314. 4 3 1 2.1 2 1 1. 1 3.4 3.4 2 11 5.4 3.4 4.5 2.1 2.11 . 1 78.9 3.3 1-5 | | , 2. • 2.+ 3. + 2. + 2 1 3.+ 2.+ 3 + 13.+ 2.+ 2.+ 3.+ 2.+ 3.+I3. +1 78.9 2.7 2-3 | 1 1.+ 1. 1 2 + 1. 1 3.+ 2.+ 2. 112.+ 2.+ 2.1 3.+ 3.+ 3.+12. +1 78.9 2.3 1-3 1 1 • | , 1 + . 2. + 1 + 2.1 2.+ 2 +1 3.1 3.+ 3.+ 3.+ 3. + I 1. +1 68.4 2.3 1-3 j + ,+ 1.+ • + 1. + 2.+ + .+ j 1.+ 3.+ 1.+ 2.+ 3.+|2. +1 63.2 1.6 •-3 | j , 6. 5 7.6 7.7 5. 418.5 5.4 5.6 . 5.5 5.51 . 1 47.4 5.2 5-8 j , • 1.+ 2.+ 11.+ 1.+ 2.+ 3.+ 1.+ 2.+I1. +1 47.4 1.4 1-3 j , j 1. 1 1.1 4. 4 2. 2 • 2.1 |. 2.1 2.2 2.1 • 1 • 1 42. 1 1.8 1-4 j . 3. 31 3. 3 • 4. 4 3.3 | . 2.3 . 4.4 1 . 1 31.6 2.3 2-4 | 1 < • • 2.t j 1.1 . . 2.1 2.+ 3.+ I , 1 26.3 1.2 1-3 j , j , • • • | 1.+ 1.2 2.3 2.+ 2.11 . 1 26.3 1.0 1-2 | , 1 . 2.+ • 1. + | . 2.+ 1.11 . 1 21.1 + .6 1-2 j , 1.+ j 2.+ 2.+ * 1 • 1 21.1 + .5 +-2 j , • 2.3 2.2 j . * . 11. •1 15.8 + .4 1-2 | , • a. • | 1.+ 2.+ 2.+ . 1 . 1 15.8 + .4 1-2 | a , • j 3.2 2.1 * 1 • 1 10.5 + .8 2-3 j , • • | 1.+ 3.4 « • 1 . 1 10.5 + .6 1-3 | 3. 11 . • a | • . . 1.+ . 1 . 1 10.5 + .6 1-3 | , • • . # j a 2.+ 2.+ . 1 . 1 10.5 + .2 2-2 j , j . a a j • I.* l. + l . 1 10.5 + .0 1-1 j , a # a | + .• « • 1 • 1 10.5 + .0 +- + | , j , • a • j • • 3. + I . ! 5.3 + .4 3-3 j , j , • a • j • 3.+ • a • 1 • 1 5.3 + .4 3-3 | j , a 3. • a • | . a • • 1 • 1 5.3 + .4 3-3 | | , • • • j • 2.2 t • • 1 • 1 5.3 + .0 2-2 j , a a • j • 2.+ • • 1 5.3 + .0 2-2 | j , a # a | • • 2.+ • 1 • 1 5.3 + .0 2-2 | | , 1.+ a • j • • 1 -1 5.3 + .0 1-1 j j , • • | • « 1.+ • • 1 • 1 5.3 + .0 l-l | j • I.* • | a • • 1 • 1 5.3 + .0 l-l | 1.+ I • • • • 1 • 1 5.3 + .0 l-l I + + | . • | a a • • 1 • 1 5.3 + .0 +-• 1 1 • • • 1 • • + .• • • • 1 . 1 5.3 + .0 +-• | 2 21 . 3 3 5.4 2. 2 4. 3 4 3 3 3 4.3 5.3 5 414.4 • 4.3 - » 2.11 . 1 68.4 4.0 2-5 I 1 21 2 2 3.3 3 3 4. 3 3. 3 2.2 3.3 2 212.2 • • 1.11 . 1 57.9 2.4 1-4 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART II - RELEVE TABLES COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONEt DRY SUBZONE SALAL -'DOUGLAS-FIR ASSOCIATION PAGE 3 PLOT NUMBER S.T NO. SPECIES ICHBI 0<VO| 0411 0421 0431 0441 0461 047 I 05010101 015 1016 101710201 Oil 101210131 014102 ll DM OW OR 73 PLAGIOTHECIUM UUDULATUM 74 EURHYNCHIUH OREGANUM 75 ISOTHECIUM STOLON IFERUM 76 RHYTIOIAOELPHUS TRIQUETRUS 77 SPHAGNUM PALUSTRE 78 AULACOMNIUM ANDRUGYNUM . 79 POLYTRICHUH JUNIPERINUM 80 POGONATUM CONTORTUM 81 POHLIA NUTANS 82 CERATOOON PURPUREUS 83 POGONATUM ALP INUM 84 EURHYNCHIUM PRAELONGUM 85 OLIGOTRICHUM ALIGERUM 86 DITR1CHUM HETEROMALLUM 87 DICRANELLA HE TEROMALLA 88 POLYT RIC HUM COMMUNE ' AULACOMNIUM ANOROGYNUM 89 DICRANUM TAURICUM i^PLAG I OTHEC I UM UNDULATUM HYLOCOMIUM SPLENDENS RHYTIDIADELPHUS LOREUS. EURHYNCHIUM OREGANUM 90 RHIZOMNIUM GLABRESCENS ' . 91 RHACOMITRIUM CANESCENS 92 RHACOMITRIUM HETEROSTICHUK POHLIA NUTANS 93 BARBULA SP. OITRICHUM HETEROMALLUM SPECIES SIGNIFICANCE ANO SOCIABILITY 11 11 314 31 11 21 11 I I 112 212 I I 111 13 412 111 11 211 21 21 1.11 1 21.1 213.21' 12.21 13.31 I 2.21 I2!2l 213.213 13.312 14.312 212.21 I • I ll . I 12.31 I . I I . Ii I . I 111 I 12 I 13 I 412 212 21 212 21 21 13 31 1 I . I 212 212 213 11 113 212 312 I 11 I . I 12.31 I . I 12.21 I . I I . I I.I.I I.I.I |4.4|4.3|3 212.314.312 212.212.21 12.21 . I I . 14.31 I . 12 13.31 I . 12.21 I 1.21 . I I . I . 13 I . I I 313. 213. 12, I 3. I 4. 31 . 12. 12. 31 . I . I I . I 316 313 313 21 314 I 21 11 I I 312.112.211.111.11 1 212.211.11 . 11.11 1 211.113.311.11 . II 12.11 .1.1.1 I . I . I . I . I 13.212.213.21 . 13 12.11 . 14.314.41 14.41 .1.1.1 I . I . I . I . I I.I.I. 12.21 13 I 31 312 31 312 I 3 21 112 111 11 I 11 31 P MS RS 26.3 + .4 l-l 21.1 1.7 2-4 10.5 + .2 2-2 10.5 + .0 1-1 5.3 + .4 3-3 5.3 + .0 2-2 89.5 5.7 2-9 47.4 2.3 2-4 36. 8 1.4 1-3 31.6 2.7 2-5 31.6 2.4 2-4 15.8 1.0 2-3 10.5 + .8 2-3 10.5 + .2 2-2 10.5 + .0 1-2 5.3 + .4 3-3 5.3 + .0 1-1 5.3 + .0 l-l 63.2 2.0 1-3 52.6 1.7 1-3 47.4 2.0 1-4 15.a + .4 1-2 5.3 + .0 l-l 36.8 1.6 1-3 31.6 2.0 2-4 5.3 1.1 4-4 5.3 + .0 2-2 5.3 + .0 2-2 00 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART II - RELEVE TABLES COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE, DRY SUBZONE MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK ASSOCIATION PAGE 1 PLOT NUMBER ST NO. SPECIES I 0031 0091 0181 019 1022 1032 I 0391 0351 03610331 03410371 0381 OAS I 0491 SPECIES SIGNIFICANCE AND SOCIABILITY I I I I HS RS Bl B2 1 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (ART.) 1 . a a * . 16. • 14.+ 7.+ 6.+ « .1.1 1.1.1 26.7 4.4 4-7 2 ALNUS RUBRA | . a 4.1 • 1 +• • 1 . . • .1.1 I.I.I 13.3 1.3 + -4 3 SALIX SCOUL ERI ANA a ' . 13. + 1 . 2.+ • a .|.|, I.I.I 13.3 1.0 2-3 4 TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA 1 • • • • • . 1 . 1 • 4.+ • .1.1 I.I.I 6.7 1.2 4-4 TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA 17.5 6.1 7.1 5.1 5.1 6. 1 5 1 7.1 7.114. • 13.• 6.+ •'..1 7.118.+| . | . I.I. 1100.0 6.6 3-8 5 BETULA PAPYRIFERA 12.+ • .+ + .+ 4.+ 3.+I5. + 1 4.+ 3.+ 4.+ 5.*! . 1 I.I.I 66.7 3.7 • -5 6 ACER CIRCINATUM 15.6 • , . + . + 3 3 4.5 6.51 . 14.4 4.5 4.5 a 6.6| . I I.I.I 60.0 4.4 +-6 7 SALIX SITCHENSIS 1 1.+ 3.1 4.1 4.1 a 2.+ . 1 . 12.1 . 4.+ 3.+ +.•1 . 1 . I.I.I 60.0 3.0 • -4 8 RHAMNUS PURSHI ANA | . # « 3 + 4.+ 5.+I+. + 1 2.+ 5.+ 3.+ a +.•1 . 1 I.I.I 53.3 3.4 • -5 PSEUOOTSUGA MENZIESII (ART.) | . a • . . 18. + 1 8.+ 8.+ 9.+ 8.* 8.+ I . I I.I.I 40.0 6.2 8-9 9 THUJA PLICATA 13.1 a a 3.+ 3. + I . 1 + • + 3.+ 5.1 a .1.1. I.I.I 40.0 2.9 +-5 SALIX SCOULERI ANA | . a 3.+ . • 3.* . 1 + . + 1 2.1 3.1 . » . I.I I.I.I 33.3 1.7 • -3 10 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (NAT.) | . + .• 2.+ . + .• 1 . | . . + .+ • J . 1 < I.I.I 33.3 1.4 • -4 ALNUS RUBRA 12. 1 3.1 • .• a a- 2.+ • .+ 1 . | . . a .1.1. 1 . 1 . 1.33.3 1.2 +-3 11 RUBUS SPECTABILIS | . a a . . 18. 61 7.6 4. 1 4.1 .1.1. I.I.I 26.7 4.5 4-8 12 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA 1 . • . a 2.+ . 1 . 1 •.+ 3.+ « •.•1 . 1 I.I.I 26.7 1.0 +-3 13 VACCINIUM PARVIFOLIUM T . . _ • 4.+ . 14. + 1 5.1 . a I.I.I 20.0 2.9 4-5 14 SPIRAEA OOUGLASII | . a a 4.1 . 13. 41 . 2.1 , .1.1. I.I.I 20.0 1.7 2-4 15 PRJNUS EMARGINATA 12.+ • .a a . • 1 • | . •.•1 . 1 < I.I.I 13.3 + .0 +-2 16 CORNUS NUTTALLI I 1 • • • * . • . . 13. + 1 . . • .1.1. I.I.I 6.7 + .6 3-3 17 GAULTHERIA SHALLON 14.6 6.5 7.4 4.4 5.4 6.5 6. 4 6.5 5.513. 114.4 2.1 3.1 4.3 5.31 . 1 . 1100.0 5.4 2-7 VACCINIUM PARVIFOLIUM 13.+ 4.+ 4.1 4.1 3.1 3.+ 3. t 3.+ 3.113. 11 . 1.1 3.* 5.1 4.+I . I . I.I.I 93.3 4.0 1-5 18 VACCINIUM ALASKAENSE I . 2.+ 3.* 2.+ 2.+ 2.* 4. 1 3.1 4.11 3. + 1 2.+ 2.+ 2.* 2.+ 2.* 1 . I . I.I.I 93.3 3.1 2-4 TSJGA HETEROPHYLLA 16.5 5.1 5. 1 6. 1 4.1 5.1 4. 1 4.1 4.11 . I . 3.+ 5.1 6.1 4.11 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 86.7 5.2 3-6 RUBUS SPECTABILIS 13.5 4.4 6.1 5.4 4.1 7.6 6. 5 4.4 5.4| . 1 3.3 . 2.+ 4.1 4.51 . I . I.I.I 66.7 5.1 2-7 THUJA PLICATA ; 12.1 3.+ 3.+ 3.+ 3.1 2.+ 3.+ 3. + I . i . 2.+ 3.* 4.+ 3.+ I.I. 1 . 1 . 1 80.0 3.1 2-4 19 VACCINIUM OVAL IFOLIUM 1 • 3.+ 4.1 3. 1 2.1 2.+ 2.+ 2. + I . 1 2.+ 2.+ 2.+ 2. + I . I . I.I.I 73.3 2.6 2-4 20 SAMBUCUS RACEMOSA 1 I. + 1.+ • .+ 1.+ . 2.+ 1. • . . 13. 113.1 3.1 a 1.+ l.+ l . 1 . I.I.I 73.3 2.0 +-3 SPIRAEA DOUGLASII. 1 3.+ 3. 1 3.1 3.1 4.1 . 2.1 4. 11 . I . 2.1 3.1 3.1 I . 1 . I.I.I 66.7 3. 1 2-4 21 HENZIESIA FERRUGINEA !•.+ . 3. 1 2.+ 3.+ 4 + 3.1 3. + I . | , a 5.1 4. + I . I . I.I.I 60.0 3.3 +-5 22 RUBUS PARVIFLORUS ' 12.1 1.+ . 3.1 2.+ 2. 1 . 1.11 . 1 • . 3.1 3.4| . 1 . I.I.I 53.3 2.0 1-3 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (NAT.) 13.+ 3.+ 3. • 4.+ 2.1 a . . 1 . 1 . a 3.+ 3.+I . I . I.I.I 46.7 2.6 2-4 SALIX SITCHENSIS 12.1 4.1 4. 1 5. 1 3.1 • . + # . 1 . 1 • a a . . I . I . 1 .1 . 1 40.0 3.1 +-5 ACER CIRCINATUM 15.6 a . . ' + .+ 4.4 3, 3 2. + I . 1 . 2.1 .1.1. 1 . 1. 1 40.0 2.9 +-5 PRUNUS EMARGINATA 1 4.+ 2.+ •. 1.+ 3.+ 1.+ . 1 • f . • « .1.1. I.I.I 33.3 1.8 1-4 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA 14.+ • .• +.+ • 1 * 1 . • .1.1. I.I.I 33.3 1.3 +-4 23 RUBUS LEUCODERMIS ' I • 2.+ 2.t 2.+ 2.1  1 • 1 - * . 1 .1 . I.I.I 26.7 1. 1 2-2 SALIX SCOULERI ANA I • • 2.+ . 1.+ • 1 . « • • .1.1. I.I.I 26.7 • .3 +-2 BETULA PAPYRIFERA 12.+ 2.+ . a a 2.+ • . 1 • a a . 1 . ) . I.I.I 20.0 1.0 2-2 RHAMNUS PURSHI ANA . 1 • + .+ a • . • 2! • # • I • j . • a .1 . 1 . I.I.I 20.0 + .1 +-2 24 KIBES SANGUINEUS. 1 3.+ 1.+ a » a . 1 • 1 . • .1.1. I.I.I 13.3 • .9 1-3 25 PICEA SITCHENSIS • 1 • + .• a a # • 1 . 1 . a .1.1. I.I.I 13.3 + .0 + PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (ART.) | . . . a a • 1 " • 1 . • • .• •.•1 . 1 . I.I.I 13.3 • .0 •- + 26 BERBER1S AQUIFOLIUM . 1 2.+ • • • * . 1 . 1 . • . .1.1. I.I.I 6.7 • .0 2-2 -p=. VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART II - RELEVE TABLES COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE, ORY SUBZONE. MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK ASSOCIATION PAGE 2 PLOT NUMBER ST NO. . SPECIES I 00310091018|019|0221032t 039|035 I 03610331034103710381 0451 049 I I I I I SPECIES SIGNIFICANCE AND SOCIABILITY MS RS OH DM 27 RUBUS LACINIATUS • 1. 1 | , • > 1 • 1 . 1 .1.1 6.7 + .0 1-1 28 TAXUS BREVIFOLIA 1 • • .• • . • • • • I.I.I .1.1 6.7 + .0 +-• 29 BLECHNUM SPICANT 1 3.+ 3.* 3.+ 3.1 3.+ 4.+ 4 1 4.1 3.114 1 3 .1 2 1 2 ,+ 4.1 6 .41 . I . . 1 . 1100.0 4.2 2-6 TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA 13.+ 3.1 3.1 3. 1 3.+ 3.* 3 + 3.+ 2.+ 12 + 2 ,+ 2 + 3 • 3.+ 2 • +l .1 . 1 . 1 . 1100.0 3.2 2-3 30 PTERIOIUM AUUILINUM 18.7 5.6 4.+ 4.+ 5.5 2.+ 6 5 4.1 4. 11 2 • 2 + 1 + 2.+ 2 1 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 93.3 5.0 1-8 31 POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM 1 3.+ 2.+ 2.+ 2.+ 2.+ 2.+ 4. + 3.+ 2. + I 3 1 4 1 3 1 •a • 3 ll . 1 . .1.1 93.3 3.2 2-4 32 ORYOPTERIS AUSTRI ACA 12.+ 2.+ 2.+ 2.+ 2.+ 3.+ 4 + 2.1 3.113 + 2 1 2 1 2 +' • 2 1 1 . 1 . .1.1 93.3 3.0 2-4 THUJA PL ICA TA 1 3.+ 3.+ 1.+ 2.+ 2.1 2.+ 2.+ l. + l . 1. + + + 2 • 2.+ 1 + 1.1. .1.1 86.7 2.2 • -3 33 RUBUS URSINUS 1 3.4 4.4 3.+ 2.+ 3.1 5.4 4. 1 3.1 5.4| . 2 + 2.1 3 1 1 . 1 . 1 .1.1 80.0 3.9 2-5 34 EPILOBIUM AUGUSTIFOLIUM 12.1 4.5 4.+ . 2.+ 2.+ 2 + 3.1 3.11 1 • 2.+ 2 .11 . 1 . 1 .1.1 73.3 2.9 1-4 35 ATHYR1UM FILIX-FE MlNA 1 1.+ 2.+ 2.+ 2.+ 1.+ 1.+ I + . | , . 1 1 1 . 1 . 1 .1.1 53.3 1.3 1-2 36 LUZULA PARV IFLOKA 1 • 2.3 2.* 3.+ 2.+ 4.+ 1. Ll . 2 1 1 . 1 . 1 .1.1 46.7 2.1 1-4 37 ANAHHALIS MARGARITACEA 12.1 3.4 3.+ 3.3 . 2.+ | , 3 1 1 . 1 . 1 .1.1 40.0 2. 1 2-3 38 TIARELLA TR IFOLI ATA | . „ 4. 1 3.1 . # 1 3 1 2. 1 . 3 3 1 . 1 . 1 .1.1 33.3 2.2 2-4 39 LYCOPODIUM CLAVATUM | . 1. 1 3.3 3. 1 3.3 | , 3.1 j . | . | .1.1 33.3 1.9 1-3 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (NAT.) • 1 . 2.+ 2.+ + .+ • | 1.* • + 1.1. .1.1 33.3 + .8 •-2 40 TRI LLIUM OVATUM 1 •.+ . + , • • , • I.I.I .1.1 26.7 + .0 • - + 41 LINNAEA BOREALIS | . 5.6 5.4 3.3 . a | • . 1 . 1 - 1 .1.1 20.0 3.1 3-5 42 TRISETUM CERNUUM 1 . • 1.+ 3. 1 • 1 1 • * ,|.|. .1.1 20.0 1.0 1-3 43 CAREX DEWEYANA 1 2.21 • 2.1 2.1 | , i . 1 . .1.1 20.0 1.0 2-2 44 CORNUS CANADENSIS | . # * 3.3 3. 1 • j a > 1 • 1 . I .1.1 13.3 1.2 3-3 45 GALIUM TRIFLORUM 12.2 • • 1.+ • j , • j.l. .1.1 13.3 + .2 1-2 46 LACTUCA BIENNIS | . i.+ • 1.+ • | , # I.I. .1.1 13.3 + .0 1-1 47 POA PRATENS1S 1 • 3.1 • • • j , • I.I. .1.1 6.7 + .6 3-3 48 VIOLA SEMPERVIRENS 13.3 • * j , 1 . 1 • I .1.1 6.7 + .6 3-3 49 CALAMAGROSTIS CANADENSIS | . 2.3 • a « j , I.I. .1.1 6.7 + .0 2-2 50 CAR EX INTERIOR 2.2 m * j , • |.|. .1.1 6.7 + .0 2-2 51 HYPERICUM PERFORATUM | . • 2.1 | , • I.I.I .1.1 6.7 + .0 2-2 52 POA PALUSTRIS j . 2.1 j , I.I.I .1.1 6.7 + .0 2-2 53 TRIENTALIS LATIFOLIA 12.1 • j , 1 . 1 . .1.1 6.7 + .0 2-2 54 DICENTRA FORMOSA 1 1.+ « | , j.l.j .1.1 6.7 + .0 1.-1 55 GYMNOCARPIUM DRYDPTERIS j . 1.1 j , I.I. .1.1 6.7 + .0 1-1 56 EOUISETUM ARVENSE I+.+ • • • • • • 1 • • I.I.I .1.1 6.7 + .0 + -+ 57 RHYTIDIADELPHUS LOREUS 13.3 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 3.2 3 2 2.2 2.21 2. 2 2 2 3. 2 2. 2 4.3 4 3 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1100.0 3.2 2-4 58 HYLOCOMIUM SPLENDENS 13.3 5.5 5.4 3.3 4. 3 4. 4 4.4 5.416 4 3 3 3. 2 3 2 5.A 5 31 . 1 . 1 .1.1 93.3 5.0 3-6 59 PLAGIOTHECIUM UNUULATUM 12.2 . . . 1. 1 * 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3.3 3 21 . 1 . 1 .1.1 46.7 1.8 1-3 60 EURHYNCHIUM OREGANUM 1 1.1 2. 2 1.2 2.21 . 1. 1 2. 2 I.I.I .1.1 40.0 1.2 1-2 61 EURHYNCH1UM PRACLONGUM | . • # | , 2. 2 j.l.l .1.1 6.7 + .0 2-2 62 ISOPTERYGIUM ELEGANS * j , 1 1 I.I.I .1.1 6.7 + .0 1-1 63 ISOTHECIUM STOLONIFERUM J • • • • • • • 1 1. 1 • I.I.I .1.1 6.7 + .0 1-1 64 POLYTRICHUM JUNIPERINUM ' 12.2 5.3 5.5 3.3 4.4 3.4 2. 2 3.4 12. 3 2 2 2 2 5.3 4 31 . 1 . 1 .1.1 86.7 4.1 2-5 65 POGONATUM CONTORTUM 1 . 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.2 | . 2 2 2. 2 2. 2 5.3 3 3 1 . 1 . 1 .1.1 60.0 3.1 2-5 66 POGONATUM ALP INUM ••I • .» 2.2 4.4 2.3 2. 2 3.3 2.212. 2 2.2 I.I. .1.1 53.3 2.2 2-4 67 POHLIA NUTANS 1 . * • 3.3 1.1 1 . 2.2 I.I. .1.1 20.0 1.1 1-3 On O VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT .TABLE - PART II - RELEVE TABLES COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE, ORY SUBZONE MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK ASSOCIATION PAGE 3 PLOT NUMBER ST NO. SPECIES 10031 009101 SI 0191 022 I 032 I 0391 035 10361 033 I 03410371 038 I 04510491 SPECIES SIGNIFICANCE AND SOCIABILITY HS RS DW 68' DICRANELLA HETEROMALLA 69 POLYTRICHUM COMMUNE 70 CERATODON PURPUREUS EURHYNCHIUM PRAELONGUH 71 AULACOMNIUM ANDROGYNUM 72 DIT RI CHUM HETERUMALLUM i ISOTHECIUM STOLON IFERUK 73 POGONATUM URNIGERUM PLAGIOTHECIUM UNOULATUH HYLOCOMIUM SPLENOENS RHYTIDIADELPHUS LOREUS EURHYNCHIUM OREGANUM 74 RHIZOMNIUM GLABRESCENS PLAGIOMNIUM INSIGNE OR 75 76 RHY TIDIADELPHUS TRIOUETRUS 77 RHACOMITRIUM CANE SCENS I 11 I 11 3 112 212 I 11.111 31 . I I . I I 1.11 I . I I . I 312.212 213.212 11 3.212 I I.II I . I I.I 11 11 I 213 312 211 I 11 312 112 112 212 311 112 I I 211 212 21 I 11 212 312 11 I . I I . I . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . I.I. . 1 • 1 13.3 • .0 l-l . 1 • 1 . 1 . 1 . I.I. • 1 • 1 6.7 + .6 3-3 • 1 • 1 . 1 . 12. 21 . 1 . . 1 > 1 6.7 • .0 2-2 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . I.I. . 1 . 1 6.7 • .0 2-2 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . I.I. • 1 • 1 6.7 + .0 1-1 . 1 • 1 . 1 . 1 . I.I. . 1 • 1 6.7 + .0 1-L . 1 . 1 . 1* « .11. 11 . 1 . . 1 . 1 6.7 • .0 l-l • 1 • 1 . 1 . 1 . I.I. • 1 . 1 6.7 + .0 1-1 2.212. 112. 211. 211. 11 . 1 . . 1 . 1 93.3 2.3 1-3 . 1 • 1 . 12. 212. 21 . 1 . . 1 • 73.3 2.1 1-3 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 12. 21 . I . . 1 . 53.3 1.8 1-3 3.21 2. 111. 111. 11 . 12.21 . • 1 • 40.0 1.3 1-3 . 1 . 12. 212. 21 . I.I. . 1 • 13.3 + .5 2-2 . 11. 11 . 1 . 1 . I.I. • 1 • 6.7 + .0 l-l . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . I.I. • 1 . 6.7 + .0 1-1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 11.11 . . 1 . 6.7 + .0 l-l VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART II - RELEVE TABLES COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE, DRY SUBZONE SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR ASSOCIATION \ PAGE 1 PLOT NUMBER ST NO. SPECIES I 0051 0301031100110061 0231 007 10081 0271 0281 0021 0241 0251 0261004 I 029 I I SPECIES SIGNIFICANCE ANO SOCIABILITY I I HS RS Bl 1 ALNUS RUBRA; 2 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (ART.) 3 SALIX SITCHENSIS 4 SALIX SCOULERIANA 5 PRUNUS EMARGINATA .6 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA ALNUS RUBRA •:• SALIX SITCHENSIS PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (ART.) POPULUS TRICHOCARPA 7 TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA PRUNUS EMARGINATA 8 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (NAT.) 9 ACER CIRCINATUM SALIX SCOULERI ANA 10 BETULA PAPYRIFERA 11 RUBUS SPECTABILIS 12 RHAMNUS PURSHI ANA 13 RUBUS PARV1FL0RUS. 14 CORNUS NUTTALLI I 15 PICEA SITCHENSIS 16 SAMBUCUS RACEMOSA 17 RUBUS DISCOLOR B2 RUBUS SPECTABILIS . IB SPIRAEA DOUGLASII RUBUS PARVIFLORUS TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA SALIX SITCHENSIS ACER CIRCINATUM 19 GAULTHERIA SHALLON PRUNUS EMARGINATA POPULUS TRICHOCARPA . 20 RIBES SANGUINEUM 21 RUBUS LEUC00ERM1S 22 THUJA PLICATA BETULA PAPYRIFERA . SAMBUCUS RACEMOSA 23 VACCINIUM PARVIFOLIUM • • PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (NAT.) ALNUS RUBRA 24 RUBUS LACINIATUS PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (ART.) SALIX SCOULERI ANA 25 SALIX LAS IANDRA - 1— —————— 1 1 • 1 . I.I. 1 . 15.1 I.I.I. 1 ft i • I.I. 12. • 14.II .1.1.1 1 • 1 . 1 • I.I. I.I. I.I.I. 1 ft i • I.I. 1 6.+ 15.+| .1.1.1 1 • 1. • 1 • I.I. I.I. I.I.I. f • I • I.I. 1 3.+ 16.11 .|.|.| 1 ft • • 1 • I.I. I.I. I.I.I. 1 * ' i » I.I. 12.+ 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 • 1 • 1 " I.I. I.I. I.I.I. 1 • i • I.I. 1 1.+ 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 I • I . ' • I.I. I.I. I.I.I. I • i • 1 • 1 . I ft +.+I .1.1.1 15.1 16.1 16.1 16.113.1 15.+14.1 13.+|4.1|+.+ 1 3.1 16.1 16.114.1 14.1 l+.+l .1.1.1 I • 1 . . 1 + .• 13.115.5 12.116.1 12.+| . I . 1 6.6 13.1 I4.U4.1 1 6.1 5.11 .|.|.| I • 1 . 1 + .+ 18. + I7.+ I6.+I7.+ I.I.I. 1 7.+ 17.• I5.+I9.+ 15.+ 6.+I .l.|.| 1 ft 1 . 12.• 1 . 13.• I4.+I4.+ 12.+1 . I+.+ 1 2.+ E • 1 . 12.1 14.+ +.+I .1.1.1 1 • 1 • 1 . 13.11 . 13.11 . 12.11 . 1 . 1 •.+ | • 13.11 . 1 2.+ +.+I .1.1.1 1 • 1 • 1 • I.I. 1 l. + l 3.+ I3.+I+.+I . ' • 1 • l+.+l . 1 1.+ 3.11 .1.1.1 I • . 1 * 1 . 1 +.• . 13.+ 1 . 12.+1 . • .+ l + . + 1 . 11.+ „ +.+I .1.1.1 1 • 1 • 1 . 1 . I+.+ 1 . 15.5 15.71 . |5.5 4.5 I.I. .1.1.1.1 1 • 1 . 1 . I.I. 12.113.1 I.I.I. • 1 . 12.1 12.1 3.11 .1.1.1 I • • \ • I.I. . |6.+ 14.114.116.5 # I.I. .1.1.1.1 I • 1 • 1 • I.I. 1 . 15.5 I.I.I. • | • . 1 . 9.8 S.6| .|.|.| 1 • 1 . . . 1 . . 12.• 2.+I . 1 . • 1 • I.I. • .+ .1.1.1.1 1 , • • . 1 . . 13.1 .1.1. • 1 • I.I. 5.1 .1.1.1.1 f • • • . 1 . . 1 . 2.11 . 1 . • 1 • -I.I. ft .1.1.1.1 1 • • . 1 . . 1 . .1.1. 2.+ • . 1 . ft .1.1.1.1 1 ft • • . 1 . . 1 . .1.1. • • . 1 . 2.+ .1.1.1.1 1 • • . . 1 . . 1 1.+ . 1 .1 .. • • . 1 . • .1.1.1.1 13.1 5.3 4.4 4.613.1 4.114.5 5.114.114.1 5.6 4.3 5.517.5 4.6 3.41 .1.1.1 13.1 3.3 3.3 I.+13.1 3.113.1 3.113.112.1 2.+ 3.+ 3. II5.4 3.11 2.11 .l.|.| 14. 1 4. 1 5.4 1.114.1 3.113.1 4.113.113.1 3.1 3.1 4.1| . 3.11 4.11 .|.|.| 1 • 3.+ 2.1 4.11 1.+ 3.+I2.+ 3.1 13. 112.+ 1.+ 3.+ 2.+I3.1 + .+ +.+I .1.1.1 14.4 4.1 3.1 4.1|6.6 3.1I2.+ 2.+ | l. + |2.1 3.4 4.1 . 12.+ 13.3 1- 1 3.4 l.+l3.3 . 14.5 5.613.114.3 2.1 6.6 . 1 . l. + l ' 1 '. 1 '. 1 . 1 1 . . . 3.51 1.1 3.113.3 3.314.114.3 2.3 6.6 4.41 1.1 # 1.11 .1.1.1 13.• 3.1 2.+ 2.+I3.1 2. + I 2.+ 5.+I2.+I3.+ 2.+ 3.+ . 1 . .1.1.1.1 15. 1 4.1 4. 11 2.+13.1 5.1I2.+ 2.+ 12.11 . # ft . 1 +.• + . + I 1 3.+ 3.+ 2. 11 l.+l3.+ . 1 . 4.1 |4.1| 3. 11 1.+ 3.11 . • i • i • i ! i 13.1 2.1 3.3 . 12. II 2.112.11 3.112.113.1| 2.1 2.11 . M 1 . i . i '. i ." i 1 • + • + • 1 1. + I2.+ + . + I l. + l 2.+ 12.11 . | * + .+ l.+l3.1 2. + I .I.I.I.I 1 . 1 4.+ 4. + I • l + .+ l +.+I3.+I 5.114.115.+ | + .+ + . + I . ^ 1 .I.I.I.I 12. + 4.1 2. 1 . 12.+ 1 . 12.+1 3.11 . |2.+ | - • 1 . 2.+Il.+l 1 1 3.11 .|.|.| 1 l. + l . 1 . 1 1.+ 1 1.+ 1 2.+I4.+I 3.+ 12.11 . | 3.+ I 3. + I .1.1 l. + l .1.1.1.1 12.+ ! . l. + l 3.+I2.+I 3. + I . 1 .1.1.1 3.+ : 3.+ 3.*l+.+l ^ 1 15.1 4.1 1 . ! 4.114.11 4.+I . 1 2.+I .1.1 • i 3. + I 2.11 . I # j .1,1*1*1 1 • 1 l.+ l . 1 . 12.+ | 1.+I2.+I 2.+I . 12.11 . I + . +1 l.+l . 1 ^ 1 • I.I.I.I 14.+ | 4. + I 3. + I 2.+I . I +.+I . 1 .1.1.1 # i ^ +.+I . 1 ^ 1 • I.I.I.I 13.11 2.11 3. 1 1 .1.1 2.11 . I . 12.11 . 1 • i l. + l • I.I # | • 1.1.1*1 12. 11 2.11 2. + I 3.11 . 1 2.11 . 1 .1.1.1 . i . i • l.l • | '. i ! i .' i ', i 18.8 12.5 12.5 6.3 2.5 3.2 2.8 + .0 6.3 +.0 I 6.3 +.0 • 2- 5 5-6 3- 6 2-2 1 100.0 75.0 68.8 •-6 +-6 +-9 5.2 4.8 6.0 62.5 2.8 +-4 43.8 1.8 +-3 1.6 1.1 3.5 1.5 3 43.8 43.8 31.3 31.3 25.0 18.8 18.8 12.5 2.2 6.3 +.0 6.3 +.0 6.3 +.0 4.5 + .5 On ,(N> 6.3 100.0 100.0 93.8 93.8 81.3 75.0 75.0 75.0 68.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 62. 5 62.5 62.5 56.3 50.0 50.0 37.5 37. 5 31.3 •-3 • -3 • -5 2- 3^ 8 4-6 5-91 +-2 3- 5 2-2 2-2 2-2 +.0 1-1 5.0 3.5 4.0 1 3.0 • 3-7 1-5 5 4 3.9 1-6 3.9.1-6 3.7 3.1 3.5 3.0 2.4 1- 6 2- 5 +-5 1- 4 2- 3 1.6 +-3 3.5 +-5 2.4 1-4 2.4 1-4 2.2 +-3 3.4 1.3 2.2 1.6 2-5 +-2 +-4 1-3 1.4 2-3 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT- TABLE - PART II - RELEVE TABLES COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE, DRY SUBZONE SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR ASSOCIATION PAGE 2 PLOT NUMBER ST NO. SPECIES 10051030103110011 006 I 0231 0071 008 SPECIES SIGNIF 26 ACER MACROPHYLLUM I.I m m 2.+ 2. + I 2.+ I + .+ l.l. 1 . 1 25.0 + .9 •-2 RHAMNUS PURSHI ANA | . « • i.+ 2.+ 2.+ . • • » l.l. 1 . 1 18.8 + .6 1-2 CORNUS NUTTALLI I 1 • 2.1 • 2.* • l.l. 1 . 1 12.5 + .4 2-2 27 OPLOPANAX HORRIDUM | . « • . . - 1.+ • 2. 1 l.l. 1 . 1 12.5 + .1 1-2 28 LONICERA INVOLUCRATA 1 * • • 1.1 » • l.l* 1 . 1 12.5 + .0 •-1 29 PYRUS FUSCA | . +.• • l.l. 1 . 1 12.5 + .0 30 MENZIESIA FERRUGINEA . • 2.+ • l.l. 1 . 1 6.3 + .0 2-2 31 ACTAEA RUBRA | . 1.+ • • l.l. l.l 6.3 + .0 1-1 32 ROSA GYMNOCARPA | . . 1.+ • « « l.l. l.l 6.3 + .0 1-1 33 HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR I • + .• * • l.l. 1 . 1 6.3 + .0 +-+. 34 POPULUS TREMULOIOES 1 • • .• • • 1 . • • • • • • • l.l. l.l 6.3 + .0 +- + 35 POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM 13.1 3.* 3.1 4.* 3.+ 2.+ 4.+ 4.+ 5.4 2.+ 3.+ 3.+ 5. • 3 + 3.+ 4 + 1.1. 1 . 1100.0 4.2 2-5 36 EPILOBIUM AUGUSTIFOLIUM 13.1 2.* 2.+ 1.+ 1.+ 2.+ 2.1 2.+ 3.1 3.+ 3.1 4.1 3. 1 I • l.l. 1 . 1 93.8 3.0 1-4 37 ANAPHALIS MARGAR1TACEA |4.4 4.4 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.+ 2.1 3.1 3.1 3.4 2.1 2. 1 1 l.l. 1 . 1 87.5 3.2 1-4 TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA 13.1 2.+ 2.+ 3.+ 2.+ 2.+ 1.+ 3.+ 2.1 2.+ 2.1 . 3 1 2.+ • . + 1.1. 1 . 1 87.5 2.5 +-3 | ' 3B PTERIOIUM AQUILINUM 12.1 3.1 3. 1 6.6 4.5 8.6 5.5 6.6 8.6 6.5 2.1 5.4 9. 7 . l.l. 1 . 1 81.3 5.8 39 BLECHNUM SPICANT 1 2.+ 2.+ 2.+ . 3.+ 2.+ 6.1 2.+ 1.+ . 2.+ 3.1 4 • 2.+ 2 + 1.1. 1 . 1 81.3 3.4 40 LUZULA PARVI FLORA 13.+ 3.+ 2.+ . 3.+ 2. 1 3.+ 2.2 2.+ 2.+ • 1. 1 4 1 1.+ 2 • l.l. 1 . 1 81.3 2.8 1-4 41 LACTUCA BIENNIS 12.+ 3.1 2.1 3.1 2.+ 2.+ . 3.+ 3.1 3.1 1.+ 1.+ 2.+ 1. + 1.1. 1 . 1 81.3 2.5 1-3 42 ORYOPTERIS AUSTRIACA . 13.+ . 2.+ 1.+ 2.* 1.+ 1.+ 3.+ . . 2.+ 2.+ 3 + 2 • 1.+ 2 + 1.1. 1 . 1 81.3 2.3 1-3 THUJA PLICATA j . 2.+ 2.* 2.+ 2.1 2.+ 2.+ 3.+ 3.+ 2.+ . 1.+ 1. + 2 ,+ 1.+ l.l. 1 . 1 81.3 2.2 1-3 43 ATHYRIUM FI LIX-FEMINA. 12.• 2.1 2.+ 1.+ 1.+ 1.+ 2.* . . 2.+ 1.+ 1.+ 2 ,+ 1.+ 2 + 1.1. 1 . 1 81.3 1.8 1-2 44 RUBUS URSINUS j . • . 1.+ 5.5 2.1 3.1 5.6 5.1 5.5 5.4 3.4 5.1 4. 4 2 1 . l.l. 1 . 1 75.0 4.5 1-5 45 GALIUM TRIFLORUM . 17.7 4.2 5.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.1 . 1.+ • 3. 1 2 + « I + 1.1. 1 . 1 68.8 4.0 1-7 46 HOLCUS LANATUS 12. 1 3.3 1.+ . • 3.1 2.2 4.3 4.3 2.3 2.* 1 + I l.l. 1 . I 68.8 2.7 1-4 47 TRIENTALIS LATIFOLIA | . 3.1 3.1 2.+ 2.1 2.+ 3.3 3.1 4.1 . 2.+ 2 1 1 + 1.1. 1 . 1 68.8 2.7 1-4 48 TIARELLA TRIFOLIATA 13.2 . 3.1 1.1 2.1 4. 3 3.3 2.+ . • 1.1 2.+ 1 + 2.1 l.l. 1 . I 68.8 2.5 1-4 49 HYPOCHAERIS RADICATA 12.+ 4.+ 3.1 3.+ 4.1 2.+ • 2.+ 2.+ 4. 1 • * l.l. 1 . 1 56.3 3.0 2-4 50 EPILOBIUM WATSONII 12.+ 2.+ 2.* . 2.+ . • 2.+ 2.1 1.1 1.+ « I.* l.l. 1 . 1 56.3 1.5 1-2 51 VIOLA SEMPERVIRENS I • 3.3 • 1.1 • 2.2 2.2 3. 1 2.2 2.1 • 2 .2 • l.l. l.l 50.0 1.9 1-3 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII (NAT.) 12.+ 1.+ 3.+ 2.+ + .• . . + .• • • l.l. 1 . 1 50.0 1.2 +-3 52 CIRSIUM ARVENSE 13.• 4.1 2.+ 1.+ • • 1.+ 2.+ 1.+ • • • l.l. 1 . 1 43.8 2.0. 1-4 53 SOLIDAGO CANADENSIS 1 » 3.4 . 2.1 1.+ • 1.1 1.+ 3.3 1.1 l.l. 1 . 1 43.8 1.5 1-3 54 JUNCUS EFFUSUS 16.1 4.+ 6.4 4.1 4.3 • . 1.+ * • • l.l. 1 . 1 37.5 4.0 1-6 55 AGROSTIS SCA8RA 13.5 4.1 2.* * . • 2.* 2.1 • • 2.1 • • l.l. 1 . 1 37.5 2.0 2-4 56 EOUISETUM ARVENSE 15.5 . 7.6 • • 2.1 • • • • 1.* > 1 .1 . 1 . 1 31.3 3.5 1-7 57 CIRSIUM VULGARE 14.1 + .• 4.+ • • • • • « + • 1 • 1 1 . 1 25.0 1.9 • -4 5B FESTUCA OCCIDENTALIS | . 3.+ 1.1 • • • 3.3 2 .1 • • 1 * 1 1 . 1 25.0 1.3 1-3 59 LINNAEA BOREAL IS 1 . • l.l * 1.+ • 3.3 3.4 • • • > 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 25.0 1.3 1-3 60 CIRCAEA ALP INA . 11.1 • • 2.2 2.1 * • • + 1.1 1 . 1 25.0 + .7 +-2 61 GALIUM TRIFIDIUM 1 • • • • 1.1 • l.l « • 2.1 1 .11 . 1 1 . I 25.0 + .6 1-2 62 SCIRPUS MICROCARPUS 15.4 2.+ 4.3 • * • • • • • • • l.l 1 . 1 18.8 2.5 2-5 63 DICENTRA FORMOSA 1 . « 1.+ • * • 2.* 4 .31 . 1 1 . 1 18.8 1.4 1-4 64 CAREX ROSSII 1 . 2.+ • 3.3 3.1 * • • l.l 1 . 1 18.8 1.3 2-3 65 CORNUS CANADENSIS 1 * . • 3-1 • • 3.3 • 2.3 * • • l.l 1 . 1 18.8 1.3 2-3 66 CALAMAGROSTIS CANADENSIS I . 2.1 • • 3.1 2.3 • • • • l.l 1 . 1 18.8 1.1 2-3 67 TRISETUM CERNUUM 1 * 2.+ 2.* • 2.+ • • • l.l •l.l 18.6 + .9 2-2 6B CAREX DEWEYANA I . . 1.+ • • • 1 . +1 . 1 I . 1 18.8 + .1 l-l 0271 0281C021024102510261 004 I 0291 I I CANCE AND SOCIABILITY MS RS PAGE 3 PLOT NUMBER ST NO. SPECIES 69.SENECI0 SYLVATICUS 70 CAREX hENOERSON11 71 VERONICA AMERICANA 72 DIGITALIS PURPUREA 73 AGROSTIS EXARATA 74 CAREX INTERIOR 75 EOUISETUH PALUSTRE 76 PHALARIS ARUNDINACEA 77 RUMEX ACETOSELLA 7B TRILLIUM OVATUM 79 LYCOPODIUM CLAVATUM 80 CAREX AQUATILIS 81 GEUM MACROPHYLLUM 82 ACHLYS TRIPHYLLA 83 CREPIS CAPILLARIS 84 DANTHONIA SPICATA 85 JUNCUS ENSIFOLIUS 86 JUNCUS TENUIS 87 OENANTHE SARMENTOSA 88 POA PALUSTR1S .89 SCIRPUS CYPER1NUS 90 VIOLA TRICOLOR 91 CAREX MERTENS11 92 ERIGERON ANNUUS 93 LUZULA CAMPESTRIS 94 VERONICA SERPYLLI FOLIA 95 LYSICHITUM AMER IC ANUM 96 MONTIA SIBIRICA I 0051 03010311 001|C0610231 00710081 0271 0281 0021024102510261 00410291 I I I SPECIES SIGNIFICANCE AND SOCIABILITY 108 POLYTRI CHUM JUNIPERINUM .13. 3 4 3 7. 4 4. 4 4 3 5. 4 3.414 414. 3 109 CERATODON PURPUREUS 13 3 2. 2 2 2 2 1 3. 2 . 12 21 . UO MNIUM LYCOPODIOIDES 1 . 2 2 3 .2 4. 3 . 12 212 2 111 POGONATUM CONTORT UM 14. 3 2 2 2 2 3.31 13. 3 EURHYNCHIUM PRAELONGUM 12 1 3 3 2. 2 1, 1 . 1 1. 111. 1 112 POGONATUM ALP INUM | , . 1 3 31 1 . 113 DITRICHUM HETEROMALLUM 1 . 2. 2 . 1 . OH 97 EURHYNCHIUM OREGANUM 1 . 1 . 1 1.2| . 2.112 2 1.2 13. 213.3 . 12.112.113.31 4 .31 . 1 . 1 . 1 98 EURHYNCHIUM PRAELONGUM 1 . 11.11 . 1 2 .2 . 1 3. 3 . 11. 11 . 1.21 . 1 . 12.213 2 I.I.I.I 99 PLAGIOMNIUM INSIGNE I.I.I.I 2 2 « 1 . . 1 . 1.21 . 1 . 1 . 12 .3 6 51 . 1 . 1 . 1 100 RHYTIDIADELPHUS LOREUS I.I.I.I 1.111. 1 1.11 . • I.I.I.I I.i.i.i 101 LEUCOLEPIS MENZIESII I.I.I.I • 1 . . 1 . j . .1.1.1.12 2 2 21 . 1- . 1 . 1 102 CLAOPODIUM CRISPIFOLIUM I.I.I.I 1 2 . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . 1 . 1 . 12. 2 I.I.I.I 103 HYLOCOMIUM SPL END ENS. I.I.I.I. . li. 1 . 1 . . 1 . 11.11 . 1 I.I.I.I 104 ISOTHECIUM STOLON IFERUH I.I.I.I 1 2 • I . . 11. 11 . • I.I.I.I i.i.i.i 105 RHIZOMNIUM GL ABRE SCENS 1 . 1 . 1 . 13 3 • 1 < . 1 . j . • I.I.I.I. i.i.i.i 106 ISOPTERYGIUM ELEGANS ' ' . 1 • 1 . 1 • 12. 2 • I . . 1 . .i.i.i.i i.i.i.i 107 MNIUM SPINULOSUM I.I.I.I 1 2 • 1 . . 1 . • i . i . i . i i.i.i.i DM 12 I 31 21 I 1 + P MS RS 18.8 • .1 1-1 12.5 + .8 1-3 12.5 + .8 1-3 12.5 + .4 2-2 12.5 + .1 1-2 12.5 + .1 1-2 12.5 + .1 1-2 • 12.5 + . 1 1-2 12.5 + .1 1-2 12.5 + .0 +-2 12.5 + .0 1-1 6.3 + .5 3-3 6.3 + .5 3-3 6.3 + .0 2-2 6.3 + .0 2-2 6.3 + .0 2-2 6.3 + .0 2-2 6.3 • .0 2-2 6.3 • .0 2-2 6.3 + .0 2-2 6.3 + .0 2-2 6.3 + .0 2-2 6.3 + .0 l-l 6.3 + .0 l-l 6.3 + .0 l-l 6.3 + .0 1-1 6.3 + .0 6.3 + .0 62.5 2.4 1-4 43.8 1.6 1-3 25.0 2.8 1-6 18.8 + .1 l-l 12.5 + .4 2-2 12.5 + .1 1-2 12.5 + .0 1-1 12.5 + .0 l-l 6.3 + .5 3-3 6.3 + .0 2-2 6.3 + .0 1-1 87.5 5.3 3-8 50.0 2.0 2-3 43.8 2.5 2-4 43.8 2.2 2-4 43.8 1.4 1-3 18.8 1.1 2-3 6.3 + .0 2-2 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT-TABLE - PART II - RELEVE TABLES COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE, DRY SUBZONE SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR ASSOCIATION PAGE 4 PLOT NUMBER I 0051 03010311 0011C06I 0231 0071 008 102710281 002102410251 0261 0041 0291 I I I ST NO. SPECIES SPECIES SIGNIFICANCE AND SOCIABILITY P MS RS ! . 114 OLIGOTRICHUM ALIGERUM 12.31 m 1 . 1 I.I.I.I. 1 . .1.1 .1.1.1.1.1.1 . 1 . 6.3 • .0 2-2 PLAGI OMNIUM INSIGNE 1 . 1 1 . 1 I.I.I.I. 1 . .1.1 . 1 . 12.11 .1.1.1 .1 . 6.3 • .0 2-2 115 POL YTRI CHUM COMMUNE 1 . 1 12.21 I.I.I.I. 1 . .1.1 . 1 . 6.3 + .0 2-2 116 DICRANELLA HETEROMALLA j.j 1 I.11 I.I.I.I. 1 . .1.1 .1.1.1.1.1.1 . 1 . 6.3 • .0 l-l 117 LEPTOBRYUM PYRI FORME 1 . 1 1 . 1 11.21 .1.1 1 . .1.1 . 1 . 6.3 + .0 1-1 LEUCOLEPIS MENZIESI I j . j 1 . 1 I.I.I.I. 1 . .1.1 . 1 . 11.11 .1.1.1 . 1 . 6.3 + .0 l-l 118 OW POHLIA NUTANS •- 1 . 1 I.I.I.I. 1 . . 11.11 . ! .. 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 6.3 + .0 1-1 HYLOCOMIUM SPLENDENS l-l # 1 . 1 I.I. 12.213. 313.2 2.21 . 1 . j 3.31 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 31.3 1.7 2-3 119 PLAGIOTHECIUM' UNDULATUM • 1 . 1 1 . 1 I.I. 11.211 ll . .1.1 . 11.11 . 1 . II.11 . 1 . 1 . 25.0 + .3 l-l EURHYNCHIUM OREGANUM l.l 1 . 1 1 . 1 . 1 . 12 31 . .1 . 1 • 1 * 1 • 1 • 1 • I • 1 . 1 . 6.3 + .0 2-2 RHYTIDIADELPHUS LOREUS 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 . 1 • 12 11 . .1.1 • I«|«|»|>|«l . 1 . 6.3 + .0 2-2 EXECUTION TERMINATED SSIGNOFF 156 PART III. Tree and Stand Description VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT.TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR PLOT NO.: 1 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 I •7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 I 14 ! 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 1260 I 8101 2001 401 | 101 10| 101 | | 501 1 1 | | | | 1 1 1 1 WESTERN REDCEDAR . 1 2101 501 j | | I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INATURAL DCUGLAS-FIR 1 nol 1201 801 201 j 201 j I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPAPER BIRCH 1 . 1 1 | | | | | I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 IVINE MAPLE 1 501 401 | j 201 I j 101 j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ICASCARA 1 1 1 j | | | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BITTER CHERRY 1 701 201 2301 1301 . | | I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 1 901 1001 1001 301 | | 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IRED ALOER 1 301 50| 901 401 701 60! 201 201 301 101 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IWILLOW SPP. 1 1 201 1601 2901 1601 2901 100| 9C| 201 101 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 . 1 j j j | j I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 1 | | | | | | I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 1 1 10 I 101 401 701 501 401 401 2CI 1301 301 801 501 201 101 501 . 1 ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE I INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS I 1730 112001 8601 6201 290| 3901 1701 2001 1001 601 1001 201 1301 301 801 501 201 101 501 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I On ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I WESTERN HEMLOCK I WEST ERN REOCEDAR I NATURAL DUUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH I VINE MAPLE ICASCARA IDITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWCOD I RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR ILOOGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 20 10 23901 2601 3501 I 1201 I 4501 3201 4201 11501 I I 6801 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 201 101 I 61401 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STANO AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - ORY SUBZONE - U.O.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SWORDFERN -•WESTERN REDCEDAR PLOT NO.: ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 0 I I I 2 1 3 1 A I 5 16 1 7 1 8 | 9 | 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I WESTERN HEMLOCK (WESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD I RED ALDER I WILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 1 601 401 301 401 401 201 301 401 10| 10| 501 101 101 301 101 101 101 I ! ] j j | j 301 301 801 101 601 901 1401 1401 1601 101 120 1 201 201 1601 | 501 101 . 501 101 201 101 10 1 | j . J j | 301 301 . 3CI 701 101 601 401 101 101 201 101 1 601 1101 901 1801 901 140| 1601 1701 1601 1701 2501 301 1201 201 1101 701 201 101 30 1 101 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 60 On OO NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 | 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 | 36 I 37 | 38 I 39 I TOTAL I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK I 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1101 (WESTERN REDCEDAR 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 j I I j II 1 I 1 1 1 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1.1 1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1201 IPAPER BIRCH 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I II 1 IVINE MAPLE 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 j 1 1 1II 1 1 1 1 1 2201 ICASCARA I 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 II IBITTER CHERRY 1 III II 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 I 1 1 401 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 | II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 1 RED ALDER I 301 1 I II 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 | | 1 1 901 1 WILLOW SPP. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 10901 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE I II 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD | j II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3501 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 301 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 •1 1 ILCDGEPOLE PINE 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR I III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 ISITKA SPRUCE I 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 601 I || I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20601 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT- TABLE - PART II! - STANO AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE — DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK PLOT NO.: NC. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 1 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 B10I 7901 3901 4201 2801 4001 1801 1401 401 401 201 1 1 III II 1 1 1 WESTERN REDCEDAR 1 6901 280) 801 101 101 I I 1 201 201 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 101 1301 501 201 101 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II II IPAPER BIRCH 1 1 1 1 201 1 I I 101 1 101 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 VINE MAPLE 1 901 1 1 1001 401 501 701 301 20| 401 101 1 1 401 1 1 1 III 1 1 ICASCARA 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 BITTER CHERRY 1 201 301 100 t 601 401 401 101 101 1 10| 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 1 501 401 101 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IRED ALDER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 101 1 1 1 l.l II 1 1 1 1 IWILLOW SPP. 1 401 501 1201 901 601 50| 1 1 201 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II II 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS 11660 114301 8201 6801 4701 5201 2101 2001 1001 801 201 4C| 1 1 101 1 1 1 1 1 On ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 | 26 I 27 | 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I I WESTERN HEMLOCK I WESTERN REDCEDAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH I VINE MAPLE ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 10 35101 11101 2201 401 4901 I 3301 1001 201 4301 I I INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS I 101 62501 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STANO ANO TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATIONS SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR PLOT NO.:' 4 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HE IGHT CLASS ISPECIES I0| I I 21 31 41 51 6 I 7 I 81 9 | 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 1001 1 101 1 1 , | 1 101 1 1 1 | | | 1 WESTERN REDCEDAR 1 50 1 201 1 j | j | | | I | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR j | | | 1 1 j j I I I j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PAPER BIRCH | | 1 1 1 1 | | | | I | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVINE HAPLE j | | j 1 201 | | 1 | 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ICASCARA 1 1 | j 1 1 j j I j 1 I 1 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BITTER CHERRY | | | | | | 1 1 1 1 1 I | 1 1 1 1 101 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD j j j j | j 1 101 j j 1 101 1 1 1 1 1 201 101. 1 1 RED ALDER | | j | j j | j 1 10| 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IWILLOW SPP. 1 1 | | 1 1 j | 1 201 1 1 1 401 101 101 301 901 301 60 1 301 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE j j 1 1 II 1 1 ' 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD | | j | | | j | I | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR | | | | | | | I I 1 1 1 101 1 1 1 1 301 201 1 LODGE POLE PINE | j 1 | I I 1 j I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR | | | | | | 1 | I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE I | 1 I 1 j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 1501 201 I 301 101 I 301 101 I 70| 101 101 401 1101 701 801 30 1 O ISPECIES NC. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 j 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I I WEST E RN HEMLOCK I WESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY IBLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DCUGL AS-FIR I LODGE POLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE i j | j | i | | | | | | | | | 1 101 1 101 101 101 | i j i | 201 101 1C| | I I I I 1 | 1 801 10 1 | i 201 j 101 | i j | 101 1CI | I | 101 I I I 1 1201 1 | i | 10| 201 201 i 301 301 101 | 30 1 101 I I 401 1 101 1 2201 701 301 401 501 301 101 301 501 301 10| 201 4C| 301 301 201 201 | | ! 1 8301 1 1 301 301 j ! 101 201 201 ICI 201 401 201 I! 1 1 1 2601 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 1101 401 801 80| 4C| 401 5C| 601 601 801 701 7C| 801 401 60| 301 601 I 101 I 17301 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT. TABLE - PART III - STAND ANO TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCECAR PLOT NO.: NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS _ "o'""""~Y~\~'V~\~~~"~V"'l I 7 1 B I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 3501 1 II | | | | 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 1 WEST ERN REDCEDAR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! I I II 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 501 201 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ' , ! , ! j ! i I IPAPER BIRCH 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' i 1 VI NE MAPLE 1 201 701 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ' ' ! ICASCARA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ' I I ! I! I IBITTER CHERRY 1 201 901 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 III i j I 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 220 1 7701 4101 301 1 1 1 1 1 1 201 1 II 1 1 1 1 i j IRED ALDER 1 390 1 7901 4601 401 501 601 501 601 501 IWILLOW SPP. 1 1460 123301 20801 10501 30| 101 1 1 1 ' ' ' ' 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 II']] 1 PLANT ED DCUGLAS-FIR 1 1 901 1901 901 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 l.l 1 1 1 1 1 1 llj] IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I i ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 11,111  I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS 1 251014 16013160112101 901 701 501 601 501 1 201 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I—>. ON NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS TSPECIEI "Yo'VTl'TTfTTi"^ '\ 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALOER IWILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR I LODGE POLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 3501 I 701 I 1001 I 1201 14301 19701 69601 3801 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI II III I I I I I I I I ' I 1113801 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STANO AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION! SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR PLOT NO.: NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 I 14 1 15 1 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 2201 101 1 1 101 | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WESTERN REDCEDAR 1 1B0I 1 1 1 1 1 1 101 1 1 1 1 • INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 80 1 201 301 101 1 301 1 1 1 c' 1 PAPER BIRCH 1 I 1 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVINE MAPLE 1 101 601 601 1 101 101 101 1 1 1 j ICASCARA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 101 1 1 1 1 IBITTER CHERRY . 1 | 201 1001 901 301 1 1 1 201 1 1 101 101 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 101 501 401 901 1301 701 101 101 201 201 1CI 1 1 I RED ALDER 1 1 401 501 401 501 30| 401 201 1 201 601 301 201 401 IWILLOW SPP. 1 2101 1601 2601 2601 3901 4501 2201 2801 200 1 2101 301 IEIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ] [ IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 401 5CI 301 701 701 601 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 101 1 ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L ^. - .-fTT — ——— — — —— —— — ——— ————— 1 NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI V) 0 1 3faC I 4501 5501 480| 53 C1 5 2 C | 2701 3101 2401 2/01 s c 100 [ 1101 901 1001 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 1 10 70 50 50 10 80| 701 501 101 ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS _ T2o"~21~T~22~"23~7 24 I 25 126 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 |TOTALI ON t-o I WESTERN HEMLOCK I WEST ERN REOCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER I WILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 20 40 20 10 10 2401 1801 ISOI 101 1601 I 2501 4701 3501 28401 I I 5901 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 601 201 101 101 I 52701 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR PLOT NC.: 7 NC. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 0 I 1 I 2 1 3 1 4 I 5| 6 1 7 I 6 I 9 | 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I IB I 19 | IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 401 501 201 10| | IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 50| 101 | 101 j 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR | | | | 1 | IPAPER BIRCH | | | 201 201 601 60 IVINE *APLE | | 101 301 101 20| 70 ICASCARA | | | | | 101 1 B ITT E R CHERRY 1 1 | 101 | 101 10 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD | | j 10| | | IRED ALDER | j | 1 | j IWILLOW SPP. | | | 301 101 101 20 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 j | | 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD j j j j | 1 1 PL ANT tD DOUGLAS-FIR | | | | j 1 ILCOGEPOLE PINE | | j j | 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR | j j j j 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 j 1 I I I 120 140 10 80 180 30 101 101 | 2CI 10 1 | 601 601 1801 901 1201 201 101 40 401 701 50 1 2CI 101 | | I 1 | 1CI 1 | | | 201 101 101 101 | 201 101 101 10 I 2C| 201 101 10| 10 101 1 301 1 101 301 301 20 201 401 1 70| 2CI 1 901 1 701 701 80 ! 1 1 j 1 1 1 1 101 401 30 I 30 10 50 20 10 30 40 10 30 10 20 30 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 901 701 1201 60| 1101 1601 2701 2901 1501 2101 3501 19CI 2701 1401 1801 1801 1101 80 1 401 601 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I IWESTERN HEMLOCK (WESTERN REOCEOAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH I VINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOO I PL AN T ED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 10 70 40 10 30 20 20 10 10 20 20 20 10 30 30 10 10 10 10 1201 701 501 9801 6501 201 100! 1701 1901 7601 ' I I 4101 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 1201 401 401 101 30| 40| 40| 301 101 101 I 1CI 101 | | | | | | | 35201 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT- TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR PLOT NO.: 8 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES 1 0 I 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 I 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 1 17 18 1 19 I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 5201 2601 601 301 | | 1 | | | | | | | 1 201 io r i IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 920 1 1101 1 1 j j . 1 j . | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 | | 1 | | I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPAPER BIRCH 1 501 801 2701 3801 4101 2401 4101 19CI 1201 701 601 1CI 101 II 1 1 1 1 1 VINE MAPLE 401 1201 701 801 301 201 101 401 10 1 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ICASCARA 1 101 101 101 101 10| | 201 101 | I 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IBITTER CHERRY 1 901 1701 1301 1201 601 4CI 701 301 101 | 1C I 1 101 I I I 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 101 20| 101 j 101 1 10| I j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IREO ALDER 1 201 1 101 j 101 | 101 | 1 101 201 101 201 1 101 1 IWILLOW SPP. 1 101 1 | | 201 I 1 I 1 201 101 I 1 1 1 1 IEIG-LEAF MAPLE 201 101 1 j j 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 101 101 201 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 101 201 1 1 1 1 1 1 I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR I SITKA SPRUCE I I INC. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI1590I 7101 6601 6401 5701 3201 550| 2501 190| 801 701 4C| 601 401 101 . 20| 201 I 201 ON NC. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 | 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 ITOTALI I WESTERN HEMLOCK (WESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY' I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER I WILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 9001 10301' I 23001 4 301 901 7401 601 1201 601 '301 801 I INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI I I I I I II I I I II I I II I I I I 58401 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT. TABLE - PART 111 - STANO AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK , PLOT NO.: ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 1 0 1 11 2 1 3 1 110501 7001 5501 4501 1 3901 1901 901 201 1 301 201 101 401 1 1 | 1 101 1 101 •; i 1 • ! i j I 101 1 1 1 . 1 I 1 601 2101 1 1301 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 I 60 8 I ioo 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 | 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I I WESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD I RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE. PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR I SITKA SPRUCE 60 200 10 50 230 10 30 10 10 40 20 10 60 30 40 10 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 14801 9701 8701 6501 6201 2601 2701 701 1501 301 901 501 701 101 I 101 101 I 101 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 | 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 | 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I 201 101 10| CT on ISPECIES IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD I RED ALOER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE I PACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT£D DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 10 39601 6901 1801 201 101 I 101 I 401 76QI INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 301 101 101 56701 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FORESTiASSOCIATION: SALAL - DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.: 10 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 1 SPEC!ES 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 4301 2801 1801 1101 1701 1901 401 501 40| 201 301 5CI 301 201 201 301 101 401 201 1 IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 BOI 401 201 | j 101 301 301 10| 1 1201 1 10 1 1 1 1 II 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 40 1 20| 301 10| 301 j 101 | | j 1 1 101 1 1 1 1 I 1 PAPER BIRCH 1 1 j | 101 j 101 101 j j | | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 VINE MAPLE 1 1 j j 1 j | | | | j j | | | | 1 II 1 1 ICASCARA 1 | | 401 101 1 1 | | | | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IBITTER CHERRY ! | | | | 1 | | | j | II I 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD | | | j 1 | j | | j | 1 II | | 1 1 1 1 1 IRED ALDER II | | 1 j j j j j j 1 II | | 1 1 1 1 1 IWILLOW SPP. | | 101 601 501 201 101 | j 101 | I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE | | | | | . | 1 | | 1 | II 1 | | 1 1 1 II IPACIFIC DOGWOOD | | | | 1 | | | | 1 II | | 1 1 1 1 1 (PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR | j | j | | 1 j | j | 1 1 1 | | 1 1 1 1 1 ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 | j j ': j 1 j | j j 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 II IPACIFIC SILVER FIR | | j j j . j j j j | | || | 1 1 II 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 5501 3901 3001 1801 2201 2101 7C| 801 801 301 30 1 501 601 201 301 301 101 401 20 1 I NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 'S!fCIfL I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 | 27 |. 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I I WESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR I LODGE POLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI I | III II I II II I I I I I I I I 24001 1760 250 150 30 50 160 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - ORY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL - DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NC.: 11 ISPECIES NG. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 0 1 11 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 1 14 1 15 I 4820117601 59CI 2301 1101 40) 301 101 101 1 1 201 1 201 301 101 4801 1501 201 | 101 101 1 1 1 101 1 1 1 2801 2101 1101 301 20| 101 II 1 10 1 1 1 1 10  201 1 201 101 101 II II ! 1 i II 10| 801 501 201 101 1 ! ill! 1 I 19 I IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD I RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 2701 3101 110 I I 10 10 10 10 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS I 5870 125301 880| 3101 130| 601 501 30| 301 I 101 2C| 20| 201 301 101 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 | 25 | 26 I 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I .38 I 39 | TOTAL I 10 1 101 as ISPECIES. IWESTERN HEMLOCK I WESTERN REOCEOAR INATURAL DCUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH I VINE MAPLE . ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY. I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. I B IG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 77001 6801 6701 701 I I 1701 I 201 7101 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 101 101 | III III I I I I II II I I 1100201 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT. TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATIONS SALAL - DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.s 12 ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 3 1 « ! 5 1 6 1 7 1 B 1 2201 1401 501 1301 401 501 1101 301 201 301 301 101 60| 5CI 1 101 101 201 101 1 101 1 101 1 1 1 1CI 1 1 201 1 101 1 101 1 101 1 101 201 | 201 i 1 1 30| 1 101 | ' I 1001 1 1 1001 1 12CI i 1 1801 50) I 201 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 101 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i i | 201 1 1 ': 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 201 5401 3701 2101 4101 1601 120| I WESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEOAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH I VINE MAPLE ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOO I RED ALDER . IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 750 370 30 50 4601 1601 501 I I I 301 101 I 1101 501 401 20 30 10 20 10 10 IC 10 30 60 10 50 10 30 2C 40 20 601 101 601 301 201 401 201 00 NC. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 | 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 101 1 1 101 I I I I 1 II | 1 II 1.1 1 1 1 24101 IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8901 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 2901 IPAPER BIRCH 1 1.1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 II 1 1 401 IVINE MAPLE 1 1 1 | | j j j II I II 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1CASCAKA j II j III j II 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 II 1 BITTER CHERRY II 1 1.1 j j | j | j II III 1 II II 1301 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 1.1 1 j II | | | | j j 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1001 IRED ALDER 1 II III 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 IWILLOW SPP. 1 y i I II II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8401 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 II 1 1 1 II 1 1 III 1 1 1 I.I 1 1 II IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 II 1 1.1 1 1 1 1.1 II 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 501 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR I 1 1 II j j j j | j || 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LODGE POL E PINE 1 II II 1 1 1 1.1. 1 II 1 1 1 1' 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 II II 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 II 1 II 1 1 II II 1 II II II 1 II I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 101 I . I 101 II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 47501 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT.TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL - DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.: 13 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 a i 12 1 13 1520 10801 4201 2601 2101 2201 4801 1901 1401 100| 2801 601 2101 130 4 30 1301 301 101 101 401 20| 501 501 201 101 2CI 101 10 130 3001 1401 1001 801 601 30 1 101 1 1 . 101 701 401 501 301 201 20 1 101 201 101 1 1CI 1 i 1 i 1 1 10| [ j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | | 101 . j ! 190 1 3901 1 1 901 1 401 20| ••; ! 10| ! i 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DCUGLAS-FIR ILOOGEPOLE PINE I PACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE I 1301 170 80 40 20 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS 122701 19701 7201 4601 3501 3601 560| 2601 2101 1301 290| 90| 2301 1401 1301 1701 801 401 I 201 0\ VO NC. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 1 TOTAL I IWESTERN HEMLOCK I WESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD I RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR ILOOGEPOLE PINE I PACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 57401 8401 8601 2801 101 I 101 7401 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI II I II I I I I I I I I III I I I I 84801 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL- DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO. 14 ISPECIES 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 7801 4101 5101 3601 260 IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 270 1 401 j 10 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 200 1 1601 3101 1401 30 IPAPER BIRCH 1 1 401 | | IVINE MAPLE 1 1 201 301 101 20 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 4|5| 61 71 81 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 20 I 16 I 17 | 18 I 19 I ICASCARA • IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD •' IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIF IC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE . IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE I 1601 130 I I 20 30 160 10 310 10 70 10 10 50 20 20 20 30 10 20 10 5C 2C 70 20 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI1250I 830| 9801 5301 3501 1701 3201 90! 701 40| 701 701 701 201 201 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 | 26 | 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I 10 O ISPECIES IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR •. INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOO I RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR . I SITKA SPRUCE 3130 320 850 . 60 140 390 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 101 II I I I I I I I I I I II I II I I *890| VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STANO AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK' ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL -DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.: 15 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES 10 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 I 13 1 14 I 15 1 16 1 17 I 18 1 19 I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 2501 3701 2401 2501 2501 601 ICO I 4CI 301 201 50| 501 701 301 101 101 1 101 301 101 IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 120 1 1901 1001 1101 501 101 1 10| I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 101 101 201 101 | j 1 I 101 201 j I 10 1 101 1 101 II 1 1 IPAPER BIRCH | | 1 301 101 201 | 401 | I | I 101 1 101 1 1 101 . 1 1 1 IVINE MAPLE | j 101 201 1 201 101 201 j j | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ICASCARA 1 201 101 301 301 | 20| 201 | 101 j 101 1CI 101 1CI 1 1 1 1 1 1 IBITTER CHERRY 1 101 401 ' 901 701 40| 1 401 1 101 401 ' 101 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 II I BLACK COTTONWOOD IREO ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE I 101 I I 20 I 10 10 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 4101 6301 540| 4801 4C0| 1001 2201 501 601 801 701 8C| 1001 601 101 201 101 101301 101 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 |TOTAL| ISPECIES IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER 8IRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY -I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IEIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR I LODGE POL E PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 20 101 20 10| 10 19501 5901 1101 1301 801 180 I 3501 I I 501 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 201 101 201 • I I. 10) 101 I I 111 II I I I I I I 34401 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND-!AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U,>.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL'- DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT. NO.: 16 :NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I OI 11 21 3141 51 61 71 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY . IRLACK COTTONWOOD I RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF HAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR I SITKA SPRUCE 440 400 160 160 280 40 40 240 40 160 160 80 40 16C 80 80 40 80 80 40 120 120 120 120 80 40 40 40 40 80 80 |N0. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 8401 3201 3601 2801 1601 2801 2401 1201 200| 2401 1201 I 1201 801 40| 801 I 401 801 eel NC. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I IWESTERN HEMLOCK | 1 801 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 III 1 1 25601 (WESTERN REDCEDAR I | I | -II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 loaol INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 j | II II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 801 IPAPER BIRCH 1 11.11 II 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II IVINE MAPLE 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 II II 1 1 1 1 IIICASCARA I 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 IBITTER CHERRY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 III III  1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 RED ALDER 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 401 IWILLOW SPP. I 1 II ill 1 1 1 1 1 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 . II II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWCOD 1 | | III 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 PLANT EO OOUGLAS-FIR ,1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 II 1 1 I 1 II 1 1 II ILOOGEPOLE PINE 1 II 1 1 1 II 1 1 l.l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111111 ' INC. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 1 SO I I I I II I 'l I II I I I I I I I 137601 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL -DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.: 17 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 0 I 11 2 1 3 1 4 1 5| 6 I 7 1 8 I 9 I IC I 11 I 12 I 13 | 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 1201 2401 801 801 2401 1201 401 2001 801 | 1 1201 1 1 | | 1 401 1 IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 1 801 401 | | | | | j | j 1 1 | | I I 1 1 1 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 | | j j j 1 401 1201 401 1 80 1 1 401 I I 1 1 1 IPAPER BIRCH j j | j 401 j 401 j 1 401 j I I j 1 I 401 1 1 1 1 IVINE MAPLE 1 1 801 j 401 2801 801 401 1 1 I 401 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 ICASCARA II 1 | | | | 801 j | | | | | | | I I II 1 IEITTER CHERRY 1 1 1 401 | | j j 1 1 j j 1 801 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 1 1 j j j j | | j | | 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 IRED ALDER ij | | | j | | j | | | | | 1 1 1 1 II 1 IWILLOW SPP. 1 II j 401 | j j j | 401 j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE j j | j j | j | 1 I | | | | I j 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 1 | | j | j j | j | | | I | I I 1 I 1 1 PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 I 1 | | | j | 1 1 | | j j I I I | 1 II ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 1 j | | j j | j j I II j | 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 1 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE II 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 1201 4001 16012001 5201 1201 24C| 401 2801 2401 801 I 2801 I 401 401 I I 40 1 OJ NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 138 I 39 I TOTALI 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK II II 1 1 1 l.l 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 13601 1 WESTERN REDCEOAR I 1 I 1 I II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1201 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I II II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 3201 1 PAPER BIRCH || III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III III 1 I 1 1601 IVINE MAPLE 1 1 1 II 1 III 1 1 1 III 1 1 II 1 1 5601 ICASCARA I I I I I II 1 1 1 1 II II 1 II 1 1 1 801 1 BITTER CHERRY I | | | II 1 1 1 1 1 III II 1 II 1 1 1201 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 l.l 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 IRED ALDER 1 II II II 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WILLOW SPP. II 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 I 1 1 801 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 l.l 1 1 PACIFIC DOGWOOO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANT ED DCUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III II 1 1 1 1 1 1 ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR I II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 SITKA SPRUCE 1 III II II 1 1 1 III 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 II III II 1 1 II I 28001 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK PLOT NO.: 18 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES 1 0 I 1 I 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 a l 9 1 10 I 11 1 12 I 13 I 14 15 I 16 17 18 19 I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 9601 6401 6801 5201 2401 2001 2C0I 2001 801 1201 1201 8C| 1201 401 | IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 1601 4401 j | 1 j | | | INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 401 401 40| 40| 401 | 1 | | | | | | | 1 PAPER BIRCH 1 1 1 | | | | | | 401 | | | | | | | 1 VINE MAPL€ 1 1 1 j j j | | | | | | | | | ICASCARA 1 1 1 j | j j j | | j | j | IBITTER CHERRY 1 1 1 | j | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 1 1 j j 40| j j | | j j | j | | j IRED ALDER II 1 | j | j | | | | | | | 401 1 | IWILLOW SPP. | | | 801 1601 801 2801 801 801 | 401 | 1 | | 401 1 | IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 1 | | | | | | | | | | j j | | IPACIFIC DOGWOOD j | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | • 1 1 | 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 | j j • j. | | j | | | -1 | | ILODGEPOLE RINE | II | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 II | | j j j | | | | | | | 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS 11120110801 8401 7201 40O| 5201 320| 2801 1201 1601 1201 8 C | 1201 401 I 801 | 1 1 1 ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 | 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 | 38 I 39 I TOTAL I 401 •P* IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT EO DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 42401 6C0| 2001 40| 401 401 8401 I 401 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 401 I. I I. I I I I I III II III I I I6C40I VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PARTIII - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: MOSS - WESTERN HEiiLOCK PLOT NO.: 19 ISPECIES i NG. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS | 0 I 11 jM 3 1 4 I 5 16 1 7 1 8| 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I H I 15 I 16 I 17 18 19 IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1256011520 IWESTERN REDCEDAR I 9601 200 I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I 2401 80 I PAPER, BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA . I BITTER CHERRY I I 40 I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 10401 8001 400 801 . I 160 1 2001 I I 80 401 401 401 401 4001 6C0 I I I 280 200 560 320 80 520 80 240 360 160 120 40 40 40| 40 |N0. OF. TREES/HT. CLASSI376011840113601148011080110401 920| 3201 3601 2801 401 I 401 I .401 401 ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I IWESTERN HEMLOCK I WESTERN REDCEDAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH IVINE WAPLE ICASCARA IBITTEK CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD I RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 7280 1240 1040 120 40 2880 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI I I I I I I I I I I II I I I II I I I 126001 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STAND ANO TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION! SALAL - DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.V 20 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HE IGHT CLASS I SPEC IES I 0 1 I I 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 I 7 I 8 1 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1240011440113601 640| 6001 3201 2001 801 801 401 1 1 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IWESTERN REDCEDAR I2600 t 1200) 6001 2401 40| j | I I I I 1 1 1 II 1 1 II INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1601 2401 1601 401 401 | 1201 801 I 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 IPAPER BIRCH 1 1 1 1201 801 | 801 401 401 401 1 I 1 III  1 1 1 1 IVINE MAPLE 1 1 1 1 1 | | I .1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1CASCARA 1 1 1 1 401 | | I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BITTER CHERRY 1 1 801 401 401 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 1 801 401 1 I 401 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IRED ALDER 1 1 II 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IWILLOW SPP. 1 1601 2401 3601 4001 1601 20CI 80| 1 801 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 II 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 1 1 | I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 LODGE POL E PINE 1 1 II 1 I 1 j I 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111111 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS 153201328012680 I 1480 I 8401 6401 4801 2001 2001 801 1 1 401 1 II 1 1 1 1 ON NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 1 25 I 26 | 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 i TCTALI IWESTERN HEMLOCK | II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 72001 1 WESTERN REDCEDAR 1 1 III II 1 II 1 II III 1 1 1 1 1 46801 INATURAL DCUGLAS-FIR 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8801 IPAPER BIRCH | I I II I II 1 1 1 1 III II 1 1 II 4C0| 1 VINE MAPLE 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1CASCARA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | | | I I I I 1 1 1 1 401 1 BITTER CHERRY II III  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 II 1601 1 BLACK COTTONWOUD I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- II II 1 1 1 1 1 2001 1 RED ALDER 1 1 1 1 '1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 IWILLOW SPP.  II 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16801 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR I III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 II ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR I I III 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE I I 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS I I III I I I III I I I II I II I 1152401 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL - DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.: 21 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 0 I 11 2 1 3 1 4| 5 1 6 I 7 I 8 1 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I IWESTERN HEMLOCK . 1 1040 12001 5601 4001 2401 24CI 2401 2001 2001 1201 1 12C| 401 1 801 1 | 1 II IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 80 401 | j j j j j | i i i i i i i i i i 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 240 2401 2801 401 401 II 1 1 1 i i i i i i II i i IPAPER BIRCH j 401 j 1 1 1 II 1 i j i i II i i i i IVINE MAPLE j 1 | III 1 1 1 i j i i i i i i iICASCARA | 1 | II 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i i i i i IBITTER CHERRY | 1 j 1 II 1 1 1 i i j i i i II i i 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD | 1 | II i 1 1 1 j j j ii i i II i IRED ALDER | 401 j j | III 1 40| I j i i i i i i i IWILLOW SPP. j 401 j iii i i i i i i i i i i i i i IBIG-LEAF MAPLE j 1 | i i i i II i i i I.I i i i i i IPACIFIC DOGWOOD | 1 j i j i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR j 1 | j ii i i i i j j i ii i i II ILODGEPOLE PINE | 1 | i i i i i i i i j i i.i i i i i IPACIFIC SILVER FIR | 1 j i i i i i i i i i i i i II i i ISITKA SPRUCE 1 II i i i i i i 1 i II i II i I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS I 1360116001 8401 440| 280| 2401 2401 2001 2001 1201 401 1201 401 I 801 I I I NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I 4680 120 840 40 120 40 |No'. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 401 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 58401 I WESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE HAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IREO ALDER I 401 IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - StAND ANO TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. . FOREST ASSOCIATION: MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK PLOT NO.: 22 ISPECIES I 0 I 11 2| 3 1 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 4 I 5 1 6 1 7 1 8| 9 | 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I I WESTERN HEHLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR (NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE " IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 1320 320 40 680 440 40 80 280 240 40 80 40 200 80 40 40 1201 120 40| 40| I I I 401 401 I 401 120 160 80 80 80 80 40 40 40 40 80 40 4C 120 40 40 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS I 1680112401 6801 3601 3201 2401 2401 2401 801 801 120 I 401 2001 I I NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 | 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 | 38 I 39 I TOTAL I 00 I SPECIES IWESTERN HEMLOCK . IWESTERN REDCEDAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD I RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE. 40 40 40 401 401 40 33201 11201 5201 I 401 I 2401 401 I 4601 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 401 I 401 401 I 401 401 401 I I I I I I I I | I I | 57601 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STANO ANO TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - ORY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR PLOT NC.: 23 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 14 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 1 IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 8601 2001 1 1 40| 401 401 401 | | I 1 1 1 1 1 IWESTERN REDCEDAR . 1 640 1 1 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INATURAL DUUGLAS-FIR 1 401 401 401 1601 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II IPAPER BIRCH | | 1 1 1 1 401 1 1 1 1 40 I . 1 1 1 IVINE MAPLE | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III'' ICASCARA I j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BITTER CHERRY | j 801 601 401 • | 1 801 1 1 1 1 I- 1 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD | j 801 2001 2001 4401 1201 4401 1201 1201 1 4CI 801 401 1 1 II IRED ALDER 1 40 I 80| 1201 1201 2001 801 2001 801 801 1201 2401 4CI 401 401 IWILLOW SPP. 1 440| 6001 6801 5201 2001 1601 4401 401 40| 401 120 1 1 1 1 1 1 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE j I 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ' ' I IPACIFIC DOGWOOD | | 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 401 401 1 II 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR | j 1 1 1 I 401 401 801 801 401 401 8CI 200 1 ILCDGEPOLE PINE II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '•''!! IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ___! 1 1 __' 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS 120401 12801 1160110401 880| 480|1240| 3601 3201 1601 3201 1601 4801 I 801 801 401 I.I I NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I .24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 40 12401 6801 2601 801 I I 2801 18401 15601 34801 I I 7201 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI II I I I 401 I I II I I I I I II I I 1101601 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STANO AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR • PLOT NO.: 24 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 0 I I I 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 I 7 I 8 1 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I IWESTERN HEMLOCK I 401 401 40| 401 1 40| , 40| | 401 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 II 1 WESTERN REDCEDAR 1 1601 401 I 1 1 1 1 1 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 . II 1 1 1 ' 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 401 40| 401 1 801 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • i IPAPER BIRCH I | | | I I 1 401 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 j I VINE MAPLE 1 I 401 801 801 1601 110801 1 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' J ICASCARA I | | I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 BITTER CHERRY 1 j j I 801 1201 1 401 1 1 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 | | | | I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1201 1 1 1 RED ALDER 1 | | . | j | 1 6CI I 1 401 2C0I 1 1 1 1201 1601 1 IWILLOW SPP. | | j I 801 1201 401 401 801 801 1 1 II 1 1 1 ' ' ' IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 | | I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 401 1 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 401 1 1 40| 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 ' IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 ' II 1 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 2001 1601 .1601 2001 4801 120113601 801 1601 1601 2801 I 1 1 12CI 2C0I 401 12CI 1 1 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES. I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 ITCTALI IWESTERN HEMLOCK l" 1 | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 l.l 1 II 1 1 1 1 2801 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 2001 II I 1 III 2401 II I II 1 401 IWESTERN REDCEDAR | j I | 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR j j | | I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 II IPAPER BIRCH 1 1 j | | | II 1 1 II 1 1 IVINE MAPLE j | 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 III II 1 III 1 14601 1CASCARA 1 I 1 .1 I 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 I II 1 1 1 1 1 III 2801 1 BITTER CHERRY | | I j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 BLACK COTTONWOOO | | | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 7601 1 1 1 1 1 II 4401 1 RED ALDER | | 1 401 I 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 WILLOW SPP. j | I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE | | I | I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 j 1 I 1PAC!F IC DOGWOOD | | 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 3201 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 40 I I j 401 401 401 1 1 1 1 II 1 ILOOGEPOLE PINE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l.l t 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR | | | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 401 I .401 401 401 401 l.l II I I III I I I I I 40401 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEOAR PLOT NO.: 25 ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 0 I 1 I 2 1 3| 4 1 5| 6 | 7 18 1 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I I WESTERN HEMLOCK I WESTERN REDCEDAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER I WILLOW SPP. IEIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC OOGWOOO I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR I LODGE POL E PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 80 40 40 40 80 40 40 40 40 40 40 401 40 120 80 80 40 80 4C 80 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 801 1201 801 60| 1201 I 401 I 401 3201 1601 1601 801 401 801 401 I 401 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS. ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I IWESTERN HEMLOCK I 20 IWESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWCOD I RED ALDER I 40 IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE I PACIFIC DOGWOOD IP LANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR I 40 ILODGEPOLE PINE I PACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 1001 40 2601 1201 1601 801 I I 801 I 4801 2001 2401 I 401 16201 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR PLOT NO.: | 26 ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 3| 4| 5 1 6 I 7 | 8| 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I IB I 19 | I 0| 11 2 1 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 110401 1601 1 801 401 I 4CI | | , | | | . | | | | 1 1 | IWESTERN REDCEOAR 1 5601 401 j || | I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 40| 1 1 1 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPAPER BIRCH 1 II 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •I 1 1 IVINE MAPLE II 1 1 1 II I I | 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ICASCARA : III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IBITTER CHERRY i II 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD . 1 II 1 1 1 401 | 401 1 1 401 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RED ALDER II 1 j | j | j | | j | 1 401 401 401 401 1 1 1 1 IWILLOW SPP. 1 40 1 1 1 1 1 401 j 801 1201 801 2C0I 4CI 1201 401 1 1201 401 1 401 1 1 BIG-LEAF, MAPLE II 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 II 1 1 1 1 | I | I I 1 1 1 1 . ' 1 1 1 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR j II 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I | 1 1 401 1 1 601 1 1201 401 1LODGEPOLE PINE II 1 1 1 1 1 | | | I | I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 II 1II 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE j 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI16401 2001 I 80| 401 801 801 1201 1201 801 2801 4C| 1601 1201 401 1601 1201 I 1601 401 ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 | 35 | 36 I 37 | 38 I 39 I TOTALI IWESTERN HEHLOCK I WESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD-IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 40 80 200 40 40 40 40 80 40 13601 600| 801 I 1201 2401 104OI I I 7201 CO INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 3201 401 401 401 401 80| 401 I II I I I I I I I I I I 41601 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SWORDFERN - WESTERN RECCEDAR PLOT NC.: 27 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 ISPECIES 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 . 5 I .61 71 81 91 IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 4401 7201 6801 4001 401 401 1 1 1 1 IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 8001 1201 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR | | 1 1 1 1 BOI 1 l.l IPAPER BIRCH 1 401 BOI 4401 3601 240| 2001 2801 401 BOI 401 IVINE MAPLE | | 1 1201 1201 1 1 1 1 1 ICASCARA j j 401 1 1 401 II 1 1 1 BITTER CHERRY ; 1 .1 401 401 401 1 1 1 1 401 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD, 1 1 1 1201 401 1 1 1 1 1 IRED ALDER | | 1 1 1 1 III 1 IWILLOW SPP. | | 401 2401 801 401 1 1 1 1 1 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE I I 401 801 401 1 1 1 I' I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I IPACIF IC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILOOGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR I SITKA SPRUCE 40 80 40 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS I 1280 110801 1720 110801 320| 2801 3601 401 801 80 I 401 801 I I 401 CO ISPECIES NO'. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 | 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 | 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I I WESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS—FIR ILOOGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 23201 9201 801 18001 2401 801 1601 1601 1601 4001 1601 I I INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI II II I I I I I I I II I I I I I. I I 64801 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR PLOT NO.J 28 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES 10 1 112 1 3 1 A I S I 6 I 7 1 B I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 2B0I 2401 | | , , 1 1 , , 1 1 1 11,11 1 1 IWESTERN REDCEOAR 1 4801 1 j j j | j 1 1 | j j j | 1 1 II 1 1 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 401 1 | j j j j j | j j 1 1 1 j | j | j | IPAPER BIRCH 1 2801 4401 5201 4401 4801 2001 80 I 1 401 401 1 1 2001 I 1 4001 1 1 1 1 1 VINE MAPLE 1 1 1 | 801 120| 1201 5201 | | 1 1 1 1 1 | j | | j j ICASCARA 1 1 1 | j | j j | | j | 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 BITTER CHERRY 1 401 2001 2801 1601 j 401 j | | | | II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 1 1 | | | | 40| j j | j { | j III  1 1 IRED ALOER 1 1 1 | | | j j 1 . 40 I | | 1 II | j | | j j IWILLOW SPP. 1 1 801 401 | j j j j | | | j | | 1 1 1 1 II IBIG-LEAF HAPLE 1 120 1 1 | | j j j j | j | II 1 | | j | | | IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 801 801 j j | j | | | j 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 PLANTED OOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 | j | j | j | | | 1 II 1 II 1 II ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 1 j j j j | | j | j 1 II | j | j j | IPACIFIC.SILVER FIR 1 1 1 j j j j j j j | | j 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 I 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS 11240 110401 9201 6801 6001 3601 6401 1 801 401 I 1 2001 1 1 4001 1 1 1 1 OO NC. OF THEES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I SPEC IES . I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 | 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I IWESTERN HEMLOCK | | I | 1 II 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 5201 IWESTERN REDCEDAR .1 I I I II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 4801 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 401 IPAPER BIRCH III  1 1 III 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 II 1 31201 IVINE MAPLE | II 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 8401 1CASCARA II I I I I I | II 1 III II 1 1 II 1 1 IBITTER CHERRY II 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7201 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 401 1 RED ALDER II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 401 IWILLOW SPP. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1201 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE II 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1201 1 PACIFIC DOGWOOO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 . 1 II 1601 1 1 II 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR I III 1 1 1 1 1 1 ILODGEPOLE PINE I II I 1 I.I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III  1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR I II I II I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE - | III 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI II I I I I | I I II | I I | | | | | | 62001 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR PLOT NO.: 29 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 0 I 11 2 1 3 1 4| 5 1 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 | 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 | | 1 WESTERN REDCEDAR' 1 • 1 401 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 1.1 II 1 II II 1 . 1 IPAPER BIRCH 1 '" 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVINE MAPLE | | 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ICASCARA j j | j | j 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 " ' 1 IBITTER CHERRY | | 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 1 II 401 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 1 1 1 1.1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IRED ALDER 1 1 j j|| | 1 1 1 I j I II II 1 1 1 I 1 IWILLOW SPP. | j | | | j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 1601 1201 2001 160 1 1 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE | j 1 1 1 1 j | | j | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1PACIFIC OOGWOOD j | 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR | | III! 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 40| 1 401 I ILODGEPOLE PINE | j 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 I IPACIFIC SILVER FIR | | j j | j 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1. 1 I.I 1 I.I.I  1 1 1 II 1 1.1 1 1 1 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 401 401 I III I I 801 I II I I 401 1601 1601 20C| 2401 . I CO NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 j 26 I 27 | 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 | 38 I 39 |TOTAL I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK | | | | 1 1 1 401 | | II 1 | | | 1 | 1 1201 IWESTERN REDCEDAR j j | | 1 1 1 j | | 1 1 II 1 j | | I I 1 401 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR. j | j j 1 1 1 | j | j | 1 1 1 I j 1 1 1 1 401 IPAPER BIRCH | | | | II 1 j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I | I I 1 1 1 IVINE MAPLE 1 1 | | 1 1 1 j | | 1 1 1 1 1 | | | | | 1 1 ICASCARA 1 1 j j 1 1 1 | | | | j 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 IBITTER CHERRY 1 801 | | 1 1 1 | | | I | II 1 | | I 1 1 1 1201 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD j | 401 j III | | | j | || | j | I I | 1 401 IRED ALDER | | | | 1 1 401 | j | | | 1 1 1 j j 401 801 I 1 1601 1 WILLOW SPP. 1 2001 1201 2001 1601 1601 2801 j 801 I 1 1201 1 401 1 | | I j 1 1 20401 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE | | | | j | | | | | | j 1 1 1 | | I I I 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD j | j | II 1 j | | 1 1 1 1 1 | j I j 1 1 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR | | 401 401 1 1 401 401 1 1 | | 1 401 1 1 401 I I 80 1 1 4001 ILODGEPOLE PINE | j | j .1 1 1 j 1 1 | | 1 1 1 j I 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR | | | j 1 1 1 j | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 2801 200) 2401 1601 1601 36CI 8C| 801 I I 1201 I 801 I I 4CI 401 801 80 1 I 29601 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SWORDFERN. - WESTERN REDCEDAR PLOT NC.1 30 ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 0 1 I I 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6| 7 1 8 1 9 | 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 3601 7601 2401 1 | 1 | | | II II 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 WESTERN REDCEDAR 1 4401 401 I I I 1 1 I | 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1201 I II | j | I | 1 1 1 1 1 1 l.l 1 II 1 PAPER BIRCH 1 40011800119201 2001 j 1 j j j II II I 1 1 III 1 IVINE MAPLE 1 1 801 I I j I i I j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ICASCARA 1 II II I 1 1 j I 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 BITTER CHERRY 1 1601 5601 5201 401 | 1 i I | I | 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 64011960121601 4401 80| 401 I I | 1 1 II 1 1 1 II 1 1 IRED ALDER 1 1 401 80| 1201 80| 401 80| 801 1201 1 1201 1 801 1601 I 1 1 II 1 IWILLOW SPP. 1 280I2440I2680I1040I 3201 801 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIBIG-LEAF MAPLE ''• 1 1 1 1 1 | | I | | I I II 1 1 1 1 II 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOO 1 1 1 I 1 | | j I | I | 1 1 1 1 l.l 1 1 1 (PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 1201 2601 2eol 801 1 I | | | 1 1 1 1 1 II l.l ILODGEPOLE PINE . 1 1 1 1 1 I j j j | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 1 1 I 1 I I | I | 1 | II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 II INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS I 2400 I 76801 77201 21201 7601 2401 801 8C| 1201 1201 I 801 1601 00 as NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I SPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 i 26 I 27 I 28 | 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 | 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I IWESTERN HEMLOCK I WESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD I RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 13601 4801 1201 43201 - 801 I 12801 53201 10001 68401 7601 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1215601 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: SWORDFERN - WESTERN REDCEDAR PLOT NO.: ISPECIES 31 NC. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 0| 11 21 31 Al 51 61 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 1A I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 2A0I 2801 1 1 1 | | . | | 1 1 1 1 I, 1 1 1 l.l IWESTERN REDCEDAR . 1 200 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III ; 1 . 1 II 1 INATURAL DCUGLAS-FIR 1 AO) AOI 1 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 II IPAPER BIRCH 1 160| 1201 7601 6801 801 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . IVINE MAPLE 1 1 1 1 1 6001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II ICASCARA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 j 1 BITTER CHERRY 1 1 1 801 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 I.J 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 1 801 5201 4801 2401 801 1201 1 1 1 1  1 1 II 1 1 1 1 801 1601 1601 1601 1 III 1 1 IRED ALDER 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 16CI 1 801 801 IWILLOW SPP. 1 1601 840116401 18401 15601 72CI 4801 1201 1 1 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 III IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 1 401 401 1201 401 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 II 1 LODGE POL E PINE 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 1 ~\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 |NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 8001 136013C001 30801 25201 9201 800| 1201 801 801 1201 16CI-160I 1601 I I CO ISPECIES NC. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 7~20~7~2l I 22 | 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 3C I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 ITCTALI IWESTERN HEMLOCK I T" "III II i i II i II i i i i 1 1 1 5201 1 1 1 2001 1 1 1 1201 I 1 1 1B00I II 1 6001 1 WESTERN REDCEDAR 1 i III i i i i i i i II i i t INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 i II i III 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 IPAPER BIRCH ' I i i i i I.I i 1 1 1 III ' IVINE MAPLE 1 II i i i i i 1 l 1 1 1 II 1 , 1CASCARA ' i i i i t i I 1 1 1 1 j II 1 801 1 II 15201 1 1 1 880! 1 II 74001 I 1 1 1 IBITTER CHERRY 1 i i i i i i i 1 I.' ' ' ' ' ' 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 II i i i i i 1 l 1 II. 1 1 I l 1 RED ALDER 1 IWILLOW SPP. I!!!!!! I ! ! !!! I 1 I' i IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 i II i i i i 1 I ! i 1 I I I! i 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOODii II i i i III 1 1 II 2401 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 i i i i i i i i II II i. i i ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 i ii i i i i I.I II II i i i ! !! I IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 i II i i i i 1 1 III 1 1: 1 1 1 I i ISITKA SPRUCE 1 i II i i i i 1 II III 1 1 1 1 III 1 NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI i i i III i 1 1 II 1 1 t . 1 1 1 1 1 1133601 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLdCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK PLOT NO.: 32 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 t 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 14 . 15 1 16 I 17 18 1 19 1 IWESTERN HEMLOCK 12040 16801 12801 9201 5201 2801 240 I 1201 801 401 801 801 401 401 80 1 1 IWESTERN REDCEDAR- 1 360 120 1201 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 - I 1 1 1 1 1 4CI 1 ' IPAPER BIRCH j I 1 1 401 801 1 1 1 1 IVINE MAPLE I 2801 4401 8401 1601 40 I 1 1 1 ICASCARA 1 1 1 1 1 401 1 1 J IBITTER CHERRY. | 1 1 80| 1 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IRED ALDER | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IWILLOW SPP. | 1 1 401 1 1 1 1 j 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! ' J 1PACIFIC DOGWOOO | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J ' 1 PLANT ED OOUGLAS-FIR | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ILODGEPOLE PINE . j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PACIFIC SILVER FIR I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I SITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 |NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS 124001 180011680114C0I14801 4801 3601 160| 801 401 801 401 801 I I 401 401 NG. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES | 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 ITOTALI IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA . IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWCOO IRED ALDER I WILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE I PACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT tO DOUGLAS-FIR I LODGE POLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 75201 6401 I 1601 17601 401 801 I 401 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI I I I II I I I.I II I II II ' I ' 1 lC"°l VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT .TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - U.B.C.R.F. FOREST ASSOCIATION: MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK PLOT NO.I 33 ISPECIES IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEOAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH I VINE MAPLE ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILOOGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 0 I 400 11 2 1 3 1 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 4| 5| 6| 7| B I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 16 160 ao 80 80 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 4001 I 2401 2001 1201 801 401 I 19 I 4CI 401 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEICHT CLASS I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 | 38 I 39 I TOTAL I OO VO ISPECIES IWESTERN HEMLOCK | | 1 1 1 1 | II 1 1 | | ' 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 8001 IWESTERN REDCEDAR j | j j j | I | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1601 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR | j 1 1 | j j I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 IPAPER BIRCH 1 801 401 1 1 401 j 40 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I .1 .1 1 1 1 1 2B0I IVINE MAPLE | | 1 1 | j | I II 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ICASCARA | | 1 1 j | j | 1 1 1 1 | | I 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 401 1 BITTER CHERRY | | 1 1 | I j j 1 1 1 1 1 1 j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD . 1 1 1 1 | | | | 1 1 II 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IRED ALDER 1 1 j j 1 1 j | 1 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 401 401 IWILLOW SPP. j j | j 1 1 j I 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 401 1 1 401 1 1201 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE | j | . | | | | | 1 1 1 1 | | I II 1 1 I 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 801 j | | | | | I 1 1 1 | | I 1 1 1 I I • 1 aoi 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1601 2001 1201 1201 1601 401 401 1 801 1201 1601 4CI 1601 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14001 ILGDCEPOLE PINE | j | j | | | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR j | j | | j | I 1 1.1 I I j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 3201 240| 120| 1201 2001 40| 601 | 801 1201 1601 4C| 1601 401 I 401 I I 401 401 29601 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND ANO TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - ORY SUBZONE - MISSION TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATION: MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK PLOT NO.: 34 ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 0 1-11.21 31 4 I 51 6| 7181 9 I 10 I ll I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 IWESTERN HEMLOCK I WESTERN REDCEDAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE . ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 240 120 120 120 40 80 40 40 80 40 40 120 160 1 801 1 1 801 | 1 1 | | | . | 1 1 j 1 40 1 • 1 j J [ j j . 1 j J 1 i ! 1 801 | 1 601 401 1 401 .. | 1 801 401 1 401 1 B0| | I j j 1 I 1 j 1 401 1 40| j 1 [ 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 401 1 ! i 1 1 1 1 1 1 j j | 1 401 1 1201 401 j J j 1 801 ! ! ! i " 1 1 2401 1 1601 401 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 3601 240| 1201 801 801 801 2801 1601 40| I 2C0I I 4001 401 I 3201 401 I 2801 401 VO O NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 | 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I ISPECIES IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD I RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 40 200 80 80 80 40 80 120 80 80 80 4C 80 8401 4001 I 2801 4401 80 I I 401 I 2801 I I 14801 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 240| 801 801 801 401 801 1201 601 801 I 801 4CI 801 III I I I I 38401 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE .- PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSION TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATION: MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK PLOT NO.: 35 ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 10 1 11 2 1 3| A I 5 1 6 1 7 18 1 9 | IC I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOO I RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC OOGWCOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR I LODGE POLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 2280 720 1240 560 640 320 400 160 440 80 40 160 40 120 40 40 240 40 40 80 40 40 400 40 80 160 40 eo 40 20C 80 80 360 40 200 40 80 40 80 40 80 40 40 401 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 80 40 |N0. OF TREES/HT. CLASS 13000118001 9601 5601 5601 2001 2001 3201 6801 2001 1201 36CI 6401 240! 1601 1201 1601 401 1201 vo NC. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 | 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 ISPECIES 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 ITCTALI 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 401 1 401 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 II II 1 1 1 1 68001 IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 1 | j 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 I 1 1 1 II 19601 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR j j | | | | II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 IPAPER BIRCH | | 1 1 1 40| 401 1 | . I 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2801 1 VINE MAPLE j j | | | | | | j | 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4401 ICASCARA . 1 1 j I j j 1 1 1 1 1 1 II, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6001 IBITTER CHERRY 1 1 1 1 | | II 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II II 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD j j | | 1 1 | j | j II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1601 IRED- ALDER | | j | | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 1 1 401 1 1 1 1 1601 IWILLOW SPP. | | j j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2801 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE .. | j j | | | 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 | | j | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR j j j j 1 1 1 I 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 ILODGEPOLE PINE j j | j | 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR | j | | j | till 1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SITKA SPRUCE 1 I 1 I 1 j 1 1 II 1 1 I II 1 1 II II 1 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI' 401 I 401 I 401 401 II I I I I 401 I I 401 I I I 1106801 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSION TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATION: MOSS - WESTERN HEHLOCK PLOT NO.: 36 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES OI 11 21 31 41 51 I WESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR I LODGE POLE PINE I PACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 760 80 600 160 160 360 40 120 2C0 40 80 40 80 40 80 6| 7 1 8| 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 2001 80 40 120 EO 40 200 40 80 40 80 160 40 240 520 40 80 120 280 160 160 120 40 80 16C 40 40 40 160 40 60 120 80 80 80 80 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 8401 9201 5201 3201 1601 BOI 2401 3201 3201 3201 8001 2001 6001 2401 4401 2401 801 8C| 1601 NO. CF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 20 I 21 1.22 I 23 I 24 I 25 126 I 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I ISPECIES I WESTERN HEMLOCK I WESTEKN REDCEDAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD I RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 401 40 40 40 40 40 40 3680 640 40 160 1720 920 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 401 401 801 40| 40| I 401 I I I II I I I I I I I I 71601 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSION TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATION: MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK PLOT NO.: 37 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES 10 1 11 2 1 3 4 1 5 1 6 I 7 I 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 I 15 1 16 I 17 I 18 1 19 I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 4801 3201 1601 1201 401 1201 1 401 401 1601 1 1201 1 401 1601 801 1 801 1 1 1201 401 IWESTERN REDCEDAR . 1 401 1 1 80| 40 401 1 40 1 1 1 1 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPAPER BIRCH 1 1 1 | I 1 1 1 1 801 1 8C0| 801 801 1 1 1201 1 1 IVINE MAPLE •ICASCARA 1 1 1 | 801 1 i 1201 401 IBITTER CHERRY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IRED ALOER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 IWILLOW SPP. 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' i 401 1 1 401 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1LCDGEPOLE PINE 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i IPACIFIC SILVER FIR I I 1 1 ' ' 1 ' ! ISITKA SPRUCE 1 II < | 1 1 1 1 ' ' ' 1 1 1 . _- — — — — ———————————— ———— INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 5201 3201 1601 2001 80| 2401 1 401 401 2001 2001 9201 4801 801 280 1 801 -NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES 1 20 1 21 1 22 1 23 24 1 25 I 26 I 27 1 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 32 1 33 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 38 1 39 I TOTAL 1 IWESTERN HEMLOCK I IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 801 401 801 40| 801 401 1 1 1 801 ! 1 81 ! 1 24881 1 3201 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 till IPAPER BIRCH 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 10401 1 4801 IVINE MAPLEICASCARA 1 401 ' j 40| 401 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 i IBITTER CHERRY 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i i ~ i IRED ALDER 1 IWILLOW SPP. I | 401 Iii! 401 801 1 1 i 1 1601 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 i 1 i i i i 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1601 401 401 80 801 401 401 401 40 1601 1 1201 1 1 401 401 1 1C00I ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J ISITKA SPRUCE 1 VO INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 2801 BO I 120 I 2001 2001 80| 40| 401 401 2801 I 2C0I I I 481 401 I I I 54881 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSION TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATION: MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK PLOT NO.! 38 , ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS OI 11 21 31 41 51 7 1 8 1 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 18 I 19 IWESTERN HEMLOCK 12960 14001 6401 4001 2401 1601 3201 401 801 1 1201 1 1201 401 80 J 801 401 1 1601 1 IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 600 1201 401 80| 1 1 200 I 1 801 1 1201 1 2001 1 1 1 1 1 1 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR j ••• 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PAPER BIRCH | | | 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 IVINE MAPLE | j j 1 1 1 801 1 240| 1 4401 1 3201 2601 1 1 1201 1 ICASCARA I 1 1 II 1 1 1 401 1 1 1 1 1 401 1 1 1 1 BITTER CHERRY | 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 80 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IRED ALDER | I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IWILLOW SPP. | 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 401 401 1 401 1201 1 1 401 1 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PACIFIC DOGWOOO | 1 " 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR j j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1601 40| 1 40 1 1 ILODGEPOLE PINE I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS 13560115201 6801 4801 2401 160| 5201 401 2401 I 5201 4C| 8401 401 4401 6401 1201 440 I VO NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 126 I 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37. I 38 I 39 ITCTALI 401 I I l.l 401 I 40 ISPECIES I WESTERN HEMLOCK I WESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD I RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE . IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 40 40 40 80 80 40 120 40 80 40 40 40 80 40 40 80 160 69201 15201 401 801 14801 1201 I 2001 I 2801 I I 10801 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 1201 1201 80| I 1601 1601 801 1601 401 401 eOl I I I I 1601 I I I 1117201 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSION TREE FARH FOREST ASSOCIATION: MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK PLOT NO.: 39 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 0 I 1 I 2 3 I 4 5 16 1 7 8 1 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 16 401 I 401 I 401 I 40| 801 401 I 40 19 . IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEOAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOO IRED ALOER IWILLOW SPP. IdG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PL ANT EO DCUGL AS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 196011320110401 6401 1201 20C 40 40 80 240 160 80 60 2C0 40 80 60 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS I I960 I 1360 I 1080 I 720 I 36C| 4401 3201 I 401 I 1201 I 1201 I 401 601 401 I 401 ISPECIES . NC. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 \ 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 | 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 ITCTALI LO Ln IWESTERN HEMLOCK | I I I II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III II 1 56801 1 WESTERN REDCEDAR 1 1 1 II II 1 II 1 I 1 . 1 1 I 1 1 1 II 1 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 I III 1 1 1 1 1 1 III II 1 1 1 1 II 1 PAPER BlRCH I j I | I I II 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVINE MAPLE 1 II II III I 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7201 ICASCARA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 3201 IBITTER CHERRY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III IRED ALDER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WILLOW SPP. | II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 III II II 1 1 II 1 II II 1 1 1 II IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR | III 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 I III 1 1 II 1 1 III  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR I I II III  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I. I I 67201 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND ANO TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSION TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL- DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.: AO NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 0 I 11-21 31 4 i 51 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I IC I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 401 401 2401 401 | | | | | | | | II 1 1 1 1 II 1 WESTERN REDCEDAR I j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR | | 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 PAPER BIRCH | | I 1 801 I 1 401 1 801 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 II IVINE MAPLE 1 I 1 401 1 1 1 eol 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1CASCARA I | 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BITTER CHERRY | | 1 I 401 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I BLACK COTTONWOOD I | l.l 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II IRED ALDER | | 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IWILLOW SPP. | | ' 1 1 1 1 1 40| 1 801 1 401 I II 1 1 1 II 1 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE j I .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II IPACIFIC DOGWOOD | | 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR | | I j 1201 40| I 1 801 BOI 3601 1201 24CI 801 1 I 1 II II ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR j | 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 401 40| 280| 2801 40| I 1601 801 240| 3601 1601 2401 801 I I II I I NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS °^ ISPECIES .-' I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 III 3601 IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 II II 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-RR II 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 III III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2001 IPAPER BIRCH 1 1 II 1 III 1 1 1 IVINE MAPLE 1 II 1 1 1 1 I'll 1 I  1 1 1 1201 ICASCARA 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 401 IBITTER CHERRY II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 401 IRED ALDER i 401 i r i i II II i IWILLOn SPP. i ii i it i i II i 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1601 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE i i i i i III i ii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD II i i i ii II i i II 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11201 IPLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR II i i ii ii i II ILODGEPOLE PINE II i i i i i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 III II IPACIFIC SILVER FIR i i i i II i i i ii 1 1 1 1 II 1 III 1 ISITKA SPRUCE i i i i i i i II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 401 I I I I II I I I II I III I I I I 20401 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSION TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL- DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.: 41 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS TsPECIES I 0 I 11 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 I 7 1 B I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 1 1 401 401 | 1 1 1 1 | II III 1 1 1 1 IWESTERN REDCEDAR ; 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I II 1 1 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 I I 1 II 1 1 1 PAPER BIRCH 1 II 1 1 801 801 1201 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 IVINE MAPLE 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II III 1 j ICASCARA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 IBITTER CHERRY 1 1 1 1 401 401 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j IRED ALDER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 IWILLOW SPP. 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR I 1 1 1 1201 1201 1201 2801 2401 4401 2401 401 801 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 II 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI I I 401 2001 2401 2001 4401 2401 4401 2401 401 8C| LO NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I I WESTERN HEMLOCK I WESTERN REDCEOAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE I CASCARA. IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOO IRED ALDER IWILLOW- SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILOOGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 80 280 80 40 1680 INO. OF. TREES/HT. CLASSI I II I III II I I I I I I I I ' II 216°l VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT .TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSICN TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL - DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.: 42 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES 10 1 I I 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 | 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 8401 801 1201 2401 eel 401 • | 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 II IWESTERN REDCEOAR 1 1201 | 1 1 | | I I | 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 401 401 1 1 j j 1 I | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II IPAPER BIRCH 1 801 801 1201 1201 4401 4001 460 I 801 1601 1201 401 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 IVINE MAPLE j | | 1 1 | j | I | II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 ICASCARA 1 1 401 401 1 j j I | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BITTER CHERRY | | | 401 401 40| | 401 | | | 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD | | j 1 1 I . j | I | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IRED ALDER | | j 1 1 | | | | | 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 IWILLOW SPP. | j | 1 401 401 I I j 1' 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE | | | 1 1 | | | | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD | j | 1 1 | | | | | 1 1.1 III  1 1 1 1 PLANT LD DOUGLAS-FIR | | | 401 2001 1201 2401 1201 801 401 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 III ILODGEPOLE PINE | | j 1 401 | | I I | 1 1 I'll II 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR | | j 1 1 j | | I | 1 1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI1080I 2401 3601 6801 68C| 7201 6401 1601 2001 120| 401 I II I I II I • VO 00 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS-ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 T 26 | 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 | TOTAL I IWESTERN HEMLOCK I I II 1 1 1 II 1 1 I II 1 II 1 II 1 14001 IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 I III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1201 1 NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 601 IPAPER BIRCH | | II III 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 21201 IVINE MAPLE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III  1 1 II 1 ICASCARA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 601 IBITTER CHERRY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1601 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD II 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IRED ALDER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IWILLOW SPP. j j 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 801 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE I II 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II IPACIFIC DOGWOOD II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR I I till 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8401 ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 1 1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 1 III II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI I I I I I II I I I I . I I II I II I I A920I VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSION TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL - DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.: 43 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 3 1 4 I 5 I 6| 7 1 8 1 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 ISPECIES 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 2801 | 40| IWESTERN REDCEDAR j | | 1 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1201 401 1 IPAPER BIRCH | | 1601 401 1 VINE MAPLE | | | 1 ICASCARA j | | 1 1 BITTER CHERRY | | | 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD | | | 401 IRED ALDER j | | 1 IWILLOW SPP. | | | 401 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE j | j 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD j | j 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR j j j 80| ILODGEPOLE PINE | | | 401 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR j | | 1 ISITKA SPRUCE I | I 1 120 80 240 120 40 40 240 160 120 40 80 40 40 120! 401 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 4001 2001 2801 1601 4401 4401 28CI 401 801 401 401 401 1201 I VO VD NC. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 | 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 ITCTALI IWESTERN HEMLOCK I I III 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3601 IWESTERN REDCEDAR I I I I III II! 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I 1 II 1 1 1 II II II 1 1 l.l 1 1 1 1 1601 IPAPER BIRCH II 1 l.l II II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 8801 IVINE MAPLE 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 801 ICASCARA | | | 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 IBITTER CHERRY I II I j II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 I BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 I II l.l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 801 IRED ALDER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 IWILLOW SPP. II II I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1201 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR I III  II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8401 ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI II 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25601 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSION TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATIONS SALAL - DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.s 44 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I SPEC IES I 0 I 11 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 | 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I 1 WEST ERN HEMLOCK 1 1201 1201 | 401 1 | | | | | 1 1 1 II ,111! IWESTERN REDCEDAR | | | j 1 1 j j | j | II 1 1 1 II 1 II INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR 1 401 401 | j j | | | | | 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPAPER BIRCH 1 1 | | 401 1 1 801 | j | 1 1 II 1 j III I IVINE MAPLE " j j | 1 1 1 j | | | | 1 1 II 1 1 II II 1CASCARA | j | j | j | j j | | | | j | j 1 1 II 1 1 BITTER CHERRY j | | j 40| I | | | j j j j | j | 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOO j | | | II j | | j | | j | | j 1 1 1 1 1 1 RED ALDER j | | j | | j j | | j II 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 IWILLOW SPP; 1 1 | 401 | j j | | j j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II IBIG-LEAF MAPLE | | | | | | | | | | j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 IPACIFIC OOGWOOD j j | j | 1 j | 1 1 | || j II 1 1 II 1 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR | j 401 401 1 1 1 1601 801 1201 801 801 1 III j | | | | ILODGEPOLE PINE | | | . | j j j j | | | 1 1 II 1 j | | | i 1 PACIFIC SILVER FIR | | | j | j | j | | j j | | | | j | j | j ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 .' 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 1601 2001 601 1201 I I 2401 8C| 1201 801 80| . | I | I I I 11 I ——• — • • IS) o o NC. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21. I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 | 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 3.6 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I IWESTERN HEMLOCK I I I | | | | | | II 1 1 1 III III 1 2801 1 WESTERN REDCEDAR | | I | I I | | III INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR II I I I I I 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 II III 801 IPAPER BIRCH 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1201 1 VINE MAPLE II II II 1 1 II 1 1CASCARA I I II 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1GITTER CHERRY II I 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 III 1 1 401 IBLACK COTT0NWC0D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I'll 1 1 1 IRED ALDER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | j | | | | | | | | | 1WILLOM SPP. II 1 I II 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 I'll 1 1 1 1 401 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE . 1 III 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 PACIFIC DOGWOOD I II II II 1 1 II | | | j | | | | | | | 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1 1 1 II 1 6001 ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 1 III 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 |N0. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI II 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 II II II 11601 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSION TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATION: MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK PLOT NO.l 45 ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I WESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. . IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 0 I 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 I 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 I 19 I 1320 10801 9601 6001 5601 5601 8801 3601 2801 3201 2C0I 1601 1601 | 401 1 401 1 1 8 401 7201 2401 2001 1201 401 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 160 1601 401 40| 401 | | I 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 401 1 1 1 i ! 401 801 i 1601 801 1201 1201 j j 1 1 401 1 1 1 1 401 1 ! ! 801 ! ! 4CI 801 j 401 j iii! 1 1 t I 401 1601 801 1201 40 1 801 4CI 360 I 401 401 401 401 1 II 1 40| 1 | { j j j j ! j j iii! INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS 12320120001 1320 I 8401 8001 600|1200| 4401 5601 4401 400| 8C| 7201 2001 801 801 401 401 401 I _ _ ____________ Ix) • ' O .. ' NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 II II 1 II 1 1 75201 IWESTERN REDCEDAR I 1 II 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 21601 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 III  1 1 1 4401 1 PAPER BIRCH 1 1 1 II I 1 1 1 1 1 III II 1 1 1 1 6801 IVINE MAPLE . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 ICASCARA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III  II 1 1 1 1 1 1 BITTER CHERRY 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD II l.l I 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 IRED ALDER 1 II III  1 1 1 1 1 II II  1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 2801 IWILLOW SPP.  1 1 1 ; — 1 l.l 1 1 1 1 BIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10801 1 PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 ILODGEPOLE PINE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 III  1 1 1 1 l.l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR I II II II 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1122001 VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STANO AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSICN TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL- DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.: 46 I SPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGUT CLASS 1 6 I 7 1 8 ! 9 | 10 I 11 I 12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 1 17 18 1 19 I 1 3601 80| 401 1 401 I 1 II 1 1 ! | 1 401 1 1 401 III II 1 1 1 I 1 401 II II I--' / II I'll i I 1 2801 401 401 401 401 1 401 1 1 1 1 i ! IWESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEOAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH I VINE MAPLE • ICASCARA . I BITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOO IRED ALOER IWILLOW SPP. I BIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR ILOOGEPOLE PINE •• IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE I 28601 880 120 2240 760 40 40| 2400112001 401 801 801 401 I I I 401 I I 801 8001 240 401 401 1601 40 I I 80 I 1201 2401 2001 360 INO. OF 7REES/HT. CLASS I 3880 I 30401 2720 I 1640 112401 720| 7201 1201 801 801 801 I 40 1 ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I ts) O K) I WESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEOAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR I PAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALOER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR I LODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 102801 18001 2801 3601 I I I . 401 I 2001 14001 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI II II II I I I I I I I I I I II I 1143601 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSION TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL - DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.: 47 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 0 I 11 2 1 3 1 A I 5 1.6 I 71 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 18A0 1880110A0I 8001 9201 8ACI BOOl 2801 AAOl 120| 801 1 AOI AOI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WESTERN REDCEOAR 1 120 3201 2A0| 80| j AOi 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR | 801 1 | | | | I I I I 1 I II 1 1 1 1 1 1 PAPER BIRCH | 1 1 j 601 801 601 1201 801 801 I 1 801 AO I 1 1 1 II 1 IVINE MAPLE j 1 1 | 2801 1601 1 . | I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ICASCARA | 1 1 AOI | . 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IBITTER CHERRY | 1 • 1 . j | 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD | 1 1 j j 1 j I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 RED ALDER j 1 1 j | | | I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II IWILLOW SPP. j 1 BOI | A0| 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE | 1 1 I I I | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II IPACIFIC DOGWOOD | 1 1 I j 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (PLANTED DCUGL AS-FIR | BOI 1201 1601 1601 1 1601 2001 AOI 801 AOI 1 AOI 1 1 1 1 1 l.l ILODGEPOLE PINE j 1 1 j 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR | r i I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASS I 1960 I 2360 I1A80I 1080 I1A80I 1120110A0I 6001 5601 2801 1201 I 1601 801 I I II II t-o o NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 2A I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 3A I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I IWESTERN HEMLOCK | I II 1 1 III 1 1 II 1 1 l.l 1 1 1 1 91201 IWESTERN REDCEDAR I II 1 l.l 1 II 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8001 INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 801 IPAPER BIRCH | | | II I I II 1 1 1 II 1 II II 1 1 6401 IVINE MAPLE 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A40I ICASCARA 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 1 BITTER CHERRY I 1 I II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II II 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 I 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RED ALDER 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 IWILLOW SPP.  1 II l.l 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1201 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 III IPACIF IC DOGWOOD II 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III  1 II 1 1 1 1 10801 1 PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR I 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 LODGE POLE PINE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR . I I III II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1123201 VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND AND TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - HISSION TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL - DOUGLAS-FIR PLOT NO.: 48 ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 0 I 112 1 3 1 4 1 5| 6| 7| 8 1 9 I IC I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I 1 WESTERN HEMLOCK 1 1601 401 I 1 II II 1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 IWESTERN REDCEDAR 1 801 I j II 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 INATURAL DCUGLAS-FIR j I j j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPAPER BIRCH 1 401 1 1 1 801 I II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVINE MAPLE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1CASCARA | | | | 1 II II 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 BITTER CHERRY || | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1.1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 .1 1 1 II 1 1 1 III  1 1.1 II 1 IRED ALDER | | | | 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 IWILLOW SPP. | I I j II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE j j I | 1 ' 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 IPACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANTED OOUGLAS-FIR 1 401 601 1201 1601 5201 2801 801 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ILODGEPOLE PINE j | I | 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR | | | | 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 ISITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 1 1 II 1111,1111111 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 3201 1201 1201 1601 6001 2801 801 o NG. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 f 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I TOTAL I ISPECIES I WESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA I BITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IEIG-LEAF KAPLE I PACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE I PACIFIC SRVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 200 80 120 1280 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI II I II I I I 11.11 I I I I I I I I 1«>80| VEGETATION-ENVIRONMENT TABLE - PART III - STANO AND TREE DESCRIPTION. COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSION TREE FARM FOREST ASSOCIATION; MOSS - WESTERN HEMLOCK :. PLOT NO.J 49 ISPECIES NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS |Ol 11 21 31 4| 51 61 7| 81 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I I WESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD I RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF HAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 1 6801 52 01 560 I 2401 20O| 1601 4CC 1 401 160 I I 1 1601 1 1201 801 401 1 1 1 1 3201 2001 401 401 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 401 401 40| 1 801 | | I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | | j 4C| 1201 80 401 801 1 160 1 1 801 1 401 : 1 40 1 1 | 1 1 | | 12001 | . 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 j j 401 | 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 | j j j | | j 1 401 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 j 401 j j j { 1 | ] j . 1 1 1 j j J j j j j 1 401 1 | j | i ! I j 401 40 1601 1 2401 1201 1201 401 401 1 801 1 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI1040I 7601 6401 3201 2001 2801 4401 2001 280114401 801 I 6401 1201 3201 1201 1201 I 1201 o on ISPECIES I 20 160 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 r 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 | 36 I 37 | 38 I 39 I TOTAL I I WESTERN HEMLOCK IWESTERN .REDCEDAR INATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH. I VINE. MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY IBLACK COTTONWOOD (RED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPAC IF IC DOGWOOD (PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ILODGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 80 40 40 36401 6001 2401 6801 12001 401 401 401 I 401 9201 INO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 1601 80| I I 801 I I II I II I I I I I I I I 7440| VEGETATION-ENVIRONHENT TABLE - PART III - STAND ANO TREE DESCRIPTION COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE - DRY SUBZONE - MISSION TREE FARH FOREST ASSOCIATION: SALAL - DOUGLAS-FIR , PLOT NC.: 50 NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS ISPECIES I 0 1 112 1 3 14 1 5| 6 1 7 I 8 1 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I IWESTERN HEMLOCK I 80 I WESTERN REDCEDAR I NATURAL DOUGLAS-FIR IPAPER BIRCH IVINE MAPLE ICASCARA IBITTER CHERRY I BLACK COTTONWOOD IRED ALDER IWILLOW SPP. IBIG-LEAF MAPLE IPACIFIC DOGWOOD I PL ANT ED DOUGLAS-FIR ILCDGEPOLE PINE IPACIFIC SILVER FIR ISITKA SPRUCE 40 60 1 801 401 40| 401 40 1 | 401 801 801 1 801 1 1 | | 1 1 1 1 401 | 40| | j j I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | | | 40| j | | I I I | I I 1 1 1 1 1 | | | | | | | 801 | 1 1201 1 1601 | 401 1 1 1 j | j | | | | j 2001 j | I I 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ! 1 401 ! ! ! 1 ! ! i ! ! 1 | ! | i i | J ! | 1 | 401 1 I j | j 401 401 401 401 401 1201 601 401 1201 401 1201 801 401 1 1201 1 I NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 801 1201 1201 40| 1601 1201 BO I 401 1601 2001 4001 4CI 3201 401 2801 801 801 I 1201 I o NO. OF TREES/ACRE/HEIGHT CLASS I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 | 28 I 29 | 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 |TOTAL I I SPECIES IWESTERN HEMLOCK 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6001 IWESTERN REDCEDAR II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1201 INATURAL OCUGLAS-FIR I I I I I 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1201 1 PAPER BIRCH I 1 j I j II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 4001 IVINE MAPLE II 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 2001 ICASCARA II 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 l.l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 401 1 BITTER CHERRY I I I I III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RED ALDER 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 401 IWILLOW SPP.  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IBIG-LEAF MAPLE 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1PACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9601 1 PLANTED OCUGLAS-FIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ILODGEPOLE PINE I I I II 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPACIFIC SILVER FIR 1 1 II 1 1 III 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SITKA SPRUCE 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NO. OF TREES/HT. CLASSI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24801 207 APPENDIX II Checklist of Species found in the Serai Associations 208 This checklist contains the species discussed in the text and vegetation synthesis tables. The nomenclature and identification of the species is according to the following manuals. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Owenby and J. W. Thompson. 1955-1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 5, Compositae, 343 p.; Part 4, Ericaceae to Campanulaceae, 510 p.; Part 3, Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae, 614 p.; Part 2, Salicaceae to Saxifragaceae, 579 p.; Part 1, Vascular cryptograms, Gymnosperms and Monocotyledons, 914 p. Hitchcock, CL. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest - an illustrated manual. University of Washing ton Press, Seattle and London. 730 p. Hubbard, W.A. 1969. The grasses of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum. Dept. of Recreation and Conser vation, Victoria. Handbook No. 9 205 p. Lawton, E. 1971. Moss flora of the Pacific Northwest. The Hattori Bot. Lab., Nichinan, Miyazaki, Japan. 362 p. + 195 pl. Schofield, W. B. 1969. A selectively annotated checklist of British Columbia mosses. Syesis 1:156-162. . 1969. Some common mosses of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum. Dept. of Recreation and Conservation, Victoria. Handbook No. 28. 262 p. Szczawinski, A. F. 1970. The Heather family of British Columbia. Second edition. British Columbia Provincial Museum. Dept. of Recreation and Conservation, Victoria. Handbook No. 19. 205 p. Taylor, T.M.C. 1966. Vascular flora of British Columbia, a preliminary checklist. Botany Dept., Univ. of British Columbia. 31 p. . 1971. The ferns and fern-allies of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum. Dept. of Recreation and Conservation, Victoria. Handbook No. 12. 172 p. 209 Scientific and Common Names to the Tree Species Scientific Name Common Name Abies amabilis (Dougl.) Forbes Pacific silver fir Acer oircinatum Pursh Vine maple Aoev macrophyHum Pursh Big-leaf maple Alnus rubra Bong. Red alder Betula papyrifera Marsh. Paper birch Cornus nuttallii Aud. Pacific dogwood Picea sitohensis (Bong.) Carr. Sitka spruce Pinus oontorta Dougl. Lodgepole pine Populus tremuloides Michx. Quaking aspen Populus trichocarpa T. § G. Black cottonwood Prunus emarginata (Dougl.) Walp. Bitter cherry Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco Douglas-fir Rhamnus purshiana DC. Cascara Salix lasiandra Benth. Pacific willow Salix soouleriana Barratt Scouler willow Salix sitohensis Sanson Sitka wiliow Taxus brevifolia Nutt. Western yew Thuja plioata Donn Western redcedar Tsuga. heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. Western hemlock 210 Vascular Plants Aceraceae Acer circinatum Pursh Acer macrophy Hum Pursh Araceae Ly sichitum amerioanum Hulten § St. John Araliaceae Oplopanax horridum (Smith) Miq. Berberidaceae Achlys triphyIla (Smith) DC. Berberis aquifolium Pursh Berber-is nervosa Pursh Betulaceae Alnus rubra Bong. Betula papyrifera Marsh. Caprifoliaceae Linnaea borealis L. Lonicera involuorata (Rich.) Banks Sambucus racemosa L. Compositae Anaphalis margaritacea (L.) B. § H. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Tenore Crepis capillaris (L.) Wallr. Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. Hieracium albiflorum Hook. Hypochaeris radioata L. Laotuca biennis (Moench) Fern. 211 Senecio sylvaticus L. Solidago canadensis L. Cornaceae Cornus canadensis L. Cornus nuttallii Aud. Cupressaceae Thuja plioata Donn Cyperaceae Carex aquatilis Wahl. Car ex deweyana Schw. Carex hendersonii Bailey Carex interior Bailey Carex mertensii Prescott Carex rossii Boott Scirpus cyperinus (L.) Kunth Scirpus microcarpus Presl Equisetaceae Equiset'um^ arvense L. Equisetum palustre L. Ericaceae Gaultheria shallon Pursh. Ledum groenlandicum Oeder Menziesia ferruginea Smith Vaccinium alaskaense Howell Vaccinium ovalifolium Smith Vaccinium parvifolium Smith Fumariaceae Dicentra formosa (Andr.) Walp. 212 Gramineae Agrostis exarata Trin. Agrostis soabra Willd. Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.) Beauv. Danthonia spicata (L.) Beauv. Festuca occidentalis Hook. Holcus lanatus L. Phalaris arundinacea L. Poa palustris L. Poa pratensis L. Trisetum cevnuum Trin. Grossulariaceae Ribes lacustre (Pres.) Poir. Ribes sanguineum Pursh Hypericaceae Eypevicum perforatum L. Juncaceae Juncus effusus L. Juncus ensifolius Wikst. Juncus tenuis Willd. Luzula campestris (L.) DC. Luzula parviflora (Ehrh.) Desv. Liliaceae Trillium ovatum Pursh Lycopodiaceae Lycopodium clavatum L. Onagraceae Circaea alpina L. Epilobium angustifolium L. Epilobium watsonii Barbey 213 Orchidaceae Goody era oblongifolia Raf. Pinaceae Abies amabilis (Dougl.) Forbes Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Garr. Pinus contorta Dougl. Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. Polygonaceae Rumex acetosella L. Polypodiaceae Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth. Bleohnum spicant (L.) Roth. Dryopteris austriaca (Jacq.) Woynar Gymnocarpium dryopteris (L.) Newm. Polystichum munitum (Kaulf.) Presl Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn Portulacaceae Montia sibirica (L.) Howell Primulaceae Trientalis latifolia Hook. Ranunculaceae Actaea rubra (Ait.) Willd. Rhamnaceae Rhamnus purshiana DC. Rosaceae Geum macrophyllum Willd. 214 Eolodiscus discolor (Pursh) Maxim. Prunus emarginata (Dougl.) Walp. Pyrus fusca Raf. Rosa gymnocarpa Nutt. Rubus discolor Weihe § Nees Rubus laciniatus Willd. Rubus leucodermis Dougl. Rubus parviflorus Nutt. Rubus spectabilis Pursh Rubus ursinus Cham. § Schlecht. Sorbus aucuparia L. Spiraea douglasii Hook. Rubiaceae Galium trifidum L. Galium triflorum Michx. Salicaceae Populus tremuloides Michx. Populus trichocarpa T. § G. Salix lasiandra Benth. Salix scouleriana Barratt Salix sitohensis Sanson Saxifragaceae Tiarella trifoliata L. Scrophulariaceae Veronica amerioana Schwein. Veronica serpy Hi folia L. Taxaceae Taxus brevifolia Nutt. Umbelliferae Oenanthe sarmentosa Presl Urticaceae Uvtioa dioioa L. Violaceae Viola s empervirens Greene 216 Bryophytes Aulacomniaceae Aulacomnium andvogynum (Hedw.) Schwaegr. Brachytheeiaceae Eurhynchium oveganum (Sull.) Jaeg. Eurhynohium praelongum (Turn.) Dix. Isotheoium stoloniferum Brid. Bryaceae Leptobryum pyriforme (Hedw.) Wils. ~Poh.Ha nutans (Hedw.) Lindb. Dicranaceae Dicvanella heteromalla (Hedw.) Schimp. Dicranoweisia civvata (Hedw.) Lindb. Dicranum fusoeseens Turn. Dicranum howellii Ren. § Card. Diavanum tauvicum Sapehin Ditrichaceae Cevatodon purpureus (Hedw.) Brid. Ditvichum heteromallum (Hedw.) Britt. Grimmiaceae Rhacomitrium caneseens (Hedw.) Brid. Rhacomitrium heterostichum (Hedw.) Brid. Hylocomiaceae Hylocomium splendens (Hedw.) B.S.G. Mniaceae Leucolepis menziesii (Hook.) Steer Mnium lycopodioides Schwaegr. 217 Mnium spinulosum B.S.G. Plagiomnium insigne (Mitt.) Koponen Rhizomnium gldbrescens (Kindb.) Koponen Plagiotheciaceae Isoptevygium elegans (Brid.) Lindb. Plagiothecium undulatum (Hedw.) B.S.G. Polytrichaceae Oligotvichum aligevum Mitt. Pogonatum alpinum (Hedw.) Roehl. Pogonatum aontovtum (Menz. ex Brid.) Lesq. Pogonatum uvnigevum (Hedw.) P. Beauv. Polytvichum commune Hedw. Polytrichum junipevinum Hedw. Pottiaceae Bavbula sp. (Hedw.) Rhytidiaceae Rhytidiadelphus loreus (Hedw.) Warnst. Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus (Hedw.) Warnst. Sphagnaceae Sphagnum palustre L. Thuidiaceae Claopodium crispifolium (Hook.) Ren. § Card. 218 APPENDIX III Analysis of Variance Tables 219 Table III-l. Western hemlock. Source of Variation d.f. S.S. M.S. F Associations Treatments/associations Error TOTAL 2 5 42 49 6.6474 5.0200 6.5544 18.222 3.3237 1. 0040 0.15606 3 6 .31 .43 N. ftft S. Table III-2. Western redcedar • Source of Variation d.f. S.S. M.S. F Association Treatments/associations Error TOTAL 2 5 42 49 4.2059 22.146 34.832 61.184 2.1030 4.4291 0.82934 0 5 .47 .34 N. * * S. Table III-3. Douglas--fir. Source of Variation d.f. S.S. M.S. F Association Treatments/associations Error TOTAL 2 5 42 49 2.6443 16.593 38.931 58.168 1.3222 3. 3185 0.92694 0 3 .40 . 58 N. ft ft s. Table 111 - 4. Coniferous trees Source of Variation d.f. S.S, M.S. F Association Treatments/associations Error TOTAL 2 5 42 49 4.6070 5.2935 5.59920 15.893 2.3035 1.0587 0.14267 2 7 .18 .42 N. ft* s. 220 Table III-5. Total number of naturally regenerated trees. Source of Variation d.f. S.S . M.S. F Association 2 0.81854 0.40927 0 .62 N.S. Treatment/associations 5 3.2757 0. 65514 7 . 63 * * Error 42 3.6046 0.085824 TOTAL 49 7.6988 Table 111-6. Deciduous trees • Source of Variation d.f. S.S. M.S. F Association 2 5.4443 2.7221 12 . 52 * * Treatment/associations 5 1.0874 0.21748 1 .70 N.S. Error 42 5.3853 0.12822 TOTAL 49 11.917 Table 111- 7. Established Western hemlock. Source of Variation d.f. S.S. M.S. F Association 2 13.091 6.5454 4 . 59 N.S. Treatment/associations 5 7.1340 1.4268 4 .19 * ft Error 42 14.299 0.34045 TOTAL 49 34.524 Table 111 - 8 . Established Western redcedar. Source of Variation d.f. S.S. M.S. F Association 2 15.623 7.8116 1 .17 N.S. Treatment/associations 5 33.266 6.6532 11 .75 * ft Error 42 23.777 0.56611 TOTAL 49 72.666 221 Table III-9. Established Douglas-fir, Source of Variation d.f. s .S. M .S. F Association 2 2 .4094 1. 2047 0.37 N.S. Treatment/associations 5 16. 112 3. 2224 3.17 ** Error 42 42. 682 1. 0162 TOTAL 49 61. 203 Explanation of symbols used: d.f. - degrees of freedom S.S. - sum of squares M.S. - mean square F - F-ration N.S. - not significant ** - significant at the * - significant at the level level 22 2 APPENDIX IV Correlation Coefficients for Environmental Features DATA SUMMARY OF TREE SPECIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES-CORRELATION MATRIX i ': ROW X 1 1.00000 ROW X 2 0.63350 ROW X 3 .. 0.44256 • ROW X 4 0.97.999 ROW X 5 0.63027 ROW X 6 -0.19872 ROW X 7 0.33959 ROW X 8' -0.00295 ROW X 9 0.06086 ROW X10 -0.26362 ROW Xll... ' -0.13555 ROW X12 0.41400 ROW X13 -0.39824 ROW X14 -0.41738 l.OOCOO ROW X15 -0.08914 -0.19847 ROW X16 0.13831 0.25651 ROW X17 -0.10210 -0.09261 ROW X18 0.28091 -0.31842 ROW X19 0.24024 0.18530 ROW X20 0.36982 -0.27629 ROW X21 -0.23860 0.24060 ROW X22 -0.18175 -0.07541 ROW X23 0.20233 -0.24074 HEMLOCK r CEDAR 1.00000. DOUG-FIR • 0.40542 CONIFERS 0.76565 TOTAL 0.57609 DECIDUOS -0.04542 ALT.ITUDE 0.26374 ASPECT 0.05552 SLOPE 0.10729 POSTONSL -0.10893 SETTSIZE -0.23305 AGE 0.21768 DISTOSS -0.28355 DISTOSOU -0.34609 SSOF -0.05623 I.00000 SSWH 0.06283 -0.94042 SSWRC -0.00045 -0.45518 DEPOFOM 0.19110 0.15347 XROCK 0. 16451 0.26430 SSLASH 0.24480 -0.05918 SMS -0. 10235 0.25647 -0.16559 -0.25113 JOVERBR 0.08 099 -0.14579 1.00000 0.52362 0.33846 -0.10395 0.65327 0.22696 -0.11386 -0.42812 -0.40147 0.20612 -0.29059 -D.29726 0.50333 -0.46005 I.00000 -0.26392 0.12532 0.13682 -0.08947 0.29123 -0.22372 0.12052 0.08679 0.01814 -0.25341 -0.22013 0.20231 0.13900 0.04760 1.00000 0.66198 -0.17805 0.38251 0.02688 0.06527 -0.26970 -0.19147 0.39710 -0.40536 -0.43488 -0.04590 0.09022 -0.10233 1.00000 0.27956 -0.21350 0.25243 -0. 18536 0.36180 -0.05460 -0.21314 -0.08472 -0.20078 0.20296 0.19122 0.30077 1.00000 0.61968 0.08238 -0.09346 -0.14516 0.14376 -0.29579 0.01847 -0.46455 -0.45355 0.06898 -0.10445 0.07225 -0.04860 1.00000 -0.02853 0.13362 -0.04488 0.72398 0.31607 -0.46381 -0.23592 -0.24237 0.30600 0.06748 1.00000 -0.29239 -0. 15084 -0.25893 0.47116 -0.18785 -0.39157 -0.18542 -0.14006 0.13863 -0.23160 0.20201 -0.35655 -0.30178 1.00000 -0.43778 0.14409 0.63815 0.04537 rO.09948 -0.51011 0.20150 -0.02743 1.00000 0.06257 -0.08796 -0.56336 -0.26815 0.24602 -0.22671 -0. 17372 . 0.56335. -0. 39988 -0.59662 0.37582 0.30881 0.34575 1.00000 -0.02508 -0.56695 -0.38484 -0.38955 -0.02490 0.28846 1.00000 0.05488 0.06249 -0.22219 0.11346 0.00526 0.00922 0.07191 -0.11941 0.10287 -0.16052 0.09114 -0.13645 -0.16680 1.00000 0.26718 -0.47412 -0.08825 -0.08371 1.00000 -0.35154 0.43949 -0.19100 0.50318 0.34179 -0.19446 0.19963 0.04463 0.07918 6.08057 0.10528 -0.05089 -0.06455 1.00000 -0.34203 -0.16561 1.00000 -0.20760 0.00288 -0.34388 -0.27136 -0.34002 0.24615 0.34754 -0.28901 -0.70100 -0.33002 -0.02109 0.55192 0.12194 1.00000 1.00000 -0.23567 0.64013 0.55537 -0.42967 0.50859 -0.07814 -0.34296 0.04050 -0.25808 0.28363 -0.07811 -0.26927 1.00000 -0.25777 -0,23741 -0.02984 0. 19286 -0.41800 0.33578 0.07264 0.27179 -0.56578 0.25754 0.15040 :ts) 1.00000 . 0.86343 -0.17013 0.22257 -0.08645 -0.22629 0.20784 , -0.13348 0.22645 -0.19465 -0.32078 ROW X24 SNOTOVER -0.20233 -0.08099 -0.13900 -0.19122 -0.30600 -0.20150 0.02490 0.08825 0.34203-0.12194 0.26927 -0.15040 0.32078 . 0.24074- 0.14579 -0.04760 -0.30077 -0.06748 0.02743 -0.28846 0.08371 0.16561 -1.00000 1.00000 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0075421/manifest

Comment

Related Items