National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Modeling Future Forest Conditions at San Juan Island 

National Historical Park 

A Planning Tool for Park Managers and Scientists

Natural Resource Report NPS/NOCA/NRR—2020/2107 
ON THIS PAGE

Top photo: Mariano Amoroso in front of a tree toppled by windthrow in English Camp; Bottom photo illustrates a 

windthrow disturbed stand in English Camp.

Photographs courtesy of University of British Columbia

ON THE COVER

Clockwise from top: Mariano Amoroso coring a tree to determine age; American Camp stand AC-6; visualization of 

American Camp stand AC-6 in 2008.

Photographs and diagrams courtesy of University of British Columbia.
Modeling Future Forest Conditions at San Juan Island 

National Historical Park 

A Planning Tool for Park Managers and Scientists

Natural Resource Report NPS/NOCA/NRR—2020/2107

Mariano Amoroso and Bruce Larson

Department of Forest Resources Management 

Faculty of Forestry 

University of British Columbia 

Vancouver, BC, Canada

April 2020 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Fort Collins, Colorado 
ii

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, 

Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of 

interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural 

resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the 

public. 

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis 

about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. 

The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of 

the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy 

results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. 

This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in 

the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par 

technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily 

reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of 

trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by 

the U.S. Government. 

This report is available in digital format from the Natural Resource Publications Management 

website. If you have difficulty accessing information in this publication, particularly if using assistive 

technology, please email irma@nps.gov. 

Please cite this publication as:

Amoroso, M., and B. Larson. 2020. Modeling future forest conditions at San Juan Island National 

Historical Park: A planning tool for park managers and scientists. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/NOCA/NRR—2020/2107. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS 438/167893, April 2020 
iii

Contents 

Page

Figures.................................................................................................................................................... v

Tables ..................................................................................................................................................viii

Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. x

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... xi

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1

2. Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Sampling Overview .................................................................................................................. 4

2.3 Field Surveys ............................................................................................................................ 7

2.4 Data Analysis - Stand Modeling ............................................................................................... 8

3. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 10

3.1 Overall stand composition and average stand statistics.......................................................... 10

3.2 Stand composition and stand development ............................................................................ 13

Stand AC-1 .............................................................................................................................. 13

Stand AC-2 .............................................................................................................................. 14

Stand AC-3 .............................................................................................................................. 16

Stand AC-4 .............................................................................................................................. 18

Stand AC-5 .............................................................................................................................. 20

Stand AC-6 .............................................................................................................................. 22

Stand AC-7 .............................................................................................................................. 25

Stand AC-8 .............................................................................................................................. 26

Stand AC-9 .............................................................................................................................. 28

Stand AC-10 ............................................................................................................................ 30

Stand AC-11 ............................................................................................................................ 32

Stand AC-12 ............................................................................................................................ 34

Stand AC-13 ............................................................................................................................ 36
iv

Contents (continued)

Page

Stand AC-14 ............................................................................................................................ 38

Stand AC-15 ............................................................................................................................ 40

Stand EC-1 .............................................................................................................................. 42

Stand EC-2 .............................................................................................................................. 44

Stand EC-3 .............................................................................................................................. 46

Stand EC-4 .............................................................................................................................. 48

Stand EC-5 .............................................................................................................................. 50

Stand EC-6 .............................................................................................................................. 52

Stand EC-7 .............................................................................................................................. 54

Stand EC-8 .............................................................................................................................. 56

Stand EC-9 .............................................................................................................................. 58

Stand EC-10............................................................................................................................. 60

Stand EC-11............................................................................................................................. 62

Stand EC-12............................................................................................................................. 64

Stand EC-13............................................................................................................................. 66

Stand EC-14............................................................................................................................. 68

Stand EC-15............................................................................................................................. 70

Stand EC-16............................................................................................................................. 72

Stand EC-17............................................................................................................................. 74

Stand EC-18............................................................................................................................. 76

4. Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 79

5. Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................ 80
v 

Figures 

Page

Figure 1. San Juan Island and San Juan National Island Historical Park.............................................. 4

Figure 2. Stand delineations for English (top) and American Camp (bottom). .................................... 6

Figure 3. Stand composition and total basal area per acre the sampled stands at (top) 

American and (bottom) English Camp. ............................................................................................... 11

Figure 4. Stand AC-1 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 14

Figure 5. Stand AC-2 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 16

Figure 6. Stand AC-3 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 18

Figure 7. Stand AC-4 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 20

Figure 8. Stand AC-5 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 22

Figure 9. Stand AC-6 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 24

Figure 10. Stand AC-7 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 26

Figure 11. Stand AC-8 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 28

Figure 12. Stand AC-9 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 30

Figure 13. Stand AC-10 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 32

Figure 14. Stand AC-11 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 34

Figure 15. Stand AC-12 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 36

Figure 16. Stand AC-13 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 38
vi 

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 17. Stand AC-14 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 40

Figure 18. Stand AC-15 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 42

Figure 19. Stand EC-1 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 44

Figure 20. Stand EC-2 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 46

Figure 21. Stand EC-3 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 48

Figure 22. Stand EC-4 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 50

Figure 23. Stand EC-5 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 52

Figure 24. Stand EC-6 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 54

Figure 25. Stand EC-7 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 56

Figure 26. Stand EC-8 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 58

Figure 27. Stand EC-9 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 60

Figure 28. Stand EC-10 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 62

Figure 29. Stand EC-11 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 64

Figure 30. Stand EC-12 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 66

Figure 31. Stand EC-13 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 68
vii 

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 32. Stand EC-14 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 70

Figure 33. Stand EC-15 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top)and 2068 (bottom). .............................................................................................................. 72

Figure 34. Stand EC-16 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top)and 2068 (bottom). .............................................................................................................. 74

Figure 35. Stand EC-17 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 76

Figure 36. Stand EC-18 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 

2008 (top) and 2068 (bottom). ............................................................................................................. 78
viii

Tables 

Page

Table 1. Number of plots sampled at each stand, stand and site characteristics. .................................. 7

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the sampled stands at the American and English Camp. ............... 12

Table 3. Stand AC-1 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................. 13

Table 4. Stand AC-2 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................. 15

Table 5. Stand AC-3 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................. 17

Table 6. Stand AC-4 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................. 19

Table 7. Stand AC-6 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................. 21

Table 8. Stand AC-6species composition and stand characteristics.................................................... 23

Table 9. Stand AC-7 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................. 25

Table 10. Stand AC-8 species composition and stand characteristics. ............................................... 27

Table 11. Stand AC-9 species composition and stand characteristics. ............................................... 29

Table 12. Stand AC-10 species composition and stand characteristics............................................... 31

Table 13. Stand AC-11 species composition and stand characteristics............................................... 33

Table 14. Stand AC-12 species composition and stand characteristics............................................... 35

Table 15. Stand AC-13 species composition and stand characteristics............................................... 37

Table 16. Stand AC-14 species composition and stand characteristics............................................... 39

Table 17. Stand AC-15 species composition and stand characteristics............................................... 41

Table 18. Stand EC-1 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................ 43

Table 19. Stand EC-2 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................ 45

Table 20. Stand EC-3 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................ 47

Table 21. Stand EC-4 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................ 49

Table 22. Stand EC-5 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................ 51

Table 23. Stand EC-6 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................ 53

Table 24. Stand EC-7 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................ 55

Table 25. Stand EC-8 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................ 57

Table 26. Stand EC-9 species composition and stand characteristics. ................................................ 59
ix

Tables (continued) 

Page

Table 27. Stand EC-10 species composition and stand characteristics. .............................................. 61

Table 28. Stand EC-11 species composition and stand characteristics. .............................................. 63

Table 29. Stand EC-12 species composition and stand characteristics. .............................................. 65

Table 30. Stand EC-13 species composition and stand characteristics. .............................................. 67

Table 31. Stand EC-14 species composition and stand characteristics. .............................................. 69

Table 32. Stand EC-15 species composition and stand characteristics. .............................................. 71

Table 33. Stand EC-16 species composition and stand characteristics. .............................................. 73

Table 34. Stand EC-17 species composition and stand characteristics. .............................................. 75

Table 35. Stand EC-18 species composition and stand characteristics. .............................................. 77
x 

Abstract 

Coniferous forests cover almost half of San Juan Island National Historical Park’s (SAJH) landscape 

today as they did during the park’s historical period of 1853-1871. However, during the posthistoric 

period (1872 to 1966), large patches of forest were cleared for agriculture in both American and 

English Camps (Agee, 1984). Following the park’s establishment in 1966, many of these fields were 

not managed and dense forest stands established after the fields were released from agriculture. By 

1983, tree densities in some areas ranged from 2,000 to 8,900 stems/acre (Rolph and Agee, 1993). 

These anthropogenic changes altered the historic landscape and increased fired danger in the 

wildland-urban interface between the park and adjacent development. In the early 1990s the park 

worked with Dr. James Agee at the UW CPSU to develop a Vegetation Management Plan for the 

Park (Rolph and Agee, 1994). Following plan recommendations, the OLYM Fire crew initiated a 

program of forest thinning to reduce fire hazards and accelerate the development of healthy forest 

stands. 

Between 2005 and 2008, stands in field surveys were conducted at American and English Camp to 

describe the structure of forest stands and to project future development. Surveys were conducted to 

assist in the future development of silvicultural prescriptions and long-term monitoring programs. 

Stands were stratified into forest cover classes using aerial photos. Following field reconnaissance, 

initial stand delineations were refined to 33 forest stands; 15 at American Camp and 18 at English 

Camp. Field surveys were conducted to quantify species composition, tree size (diameter and height), 

and forest age. Data were entered into the Landscape Management System (LMS) database to project 

stand composition in 60 years. Stand ages ranged from 20 – 165 years indicating that most stands had 

been manipulated following the park’s period of historic significance (i.e., more than 133 years ago). 

The projections of what forest stands will likely look like in the future presented in this study will 

assist managers in developing silvicultural recommendations and tracking of the efficacy of forest 

management. In addition, this documentation of current conditions combined with the future 

projections will facilitate development of an effective long-term monitoring strategy. 
xi 

Acknowledgements 

We would like to thank the staff of San Juan Island National Historical Park for supporting our field 

surveys, Lise Grace for formatting this report, and Anne Braaten and Natalya Antonova for 

developing the maps in this report. We would also like to thank Dr. Steven Acker and Dr. Catharine 

Copass for their reviews of this report. This project was funded by the National Park Service Pacific 

West Region through the Small Park Natural Resource Preservation Program; funding was obligated 

to University of British Columbia by the Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit 

Cooperative Agreement No. CA9088A0008 and managed by Regina M. Rochefort, PhD. 
1 

1. Introduction 

Coniferous forests are an important component of the landscape in San Juan Island National 

Historical Park (SAJH). Although the forests were manipulated during the historic military time 

period (1853 to 1871), significant and widespread alterations occurred during the posthistoric period 

of 1872 to 1966 (Agee, 1984). At that time, patches of forest were cleared for agriculture in both 

American and English Camps. Following the park’s establishment in 1966, many of these fields were 

not managed and dense Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) 

stands became established. By1983, tree densities ranged from 2,000 to 8,900 stems/acre (Rolph and 

Agee 1993). In the early 1990s the park worked with Dr. James Agee at the University of 

Washington (UW) National Park Service Cooperative Studies Unit (NPS CPSU) to develop a 

Vegetation Management Plan for the Park (Rolph and Agee 1993). The plan recommended the 

management of historically forested areas in such a manner as to accelerate forest development to a 

produce in healthy, dynamic forest. 

Over the next decade, the Olympic National Park (OLYM) fire crew thinned the dense forest stands 

in American Camp and removed down and dead trees along road edges in English Camp. Some of 

the densest stands were thinned from 8,900 stems/acre to 300 stems/acre. Monitoring of these 

activities was limited to reporting required by the NPS Fire Management Program (i.e., location and 

dates of operations, number of stems removed, volumes of chipped trees, burn piles). Often, the Fire 

Crew coordinated with the North Coast and Cascades Exotic Plant Management Team (NCCN 

EPMT) to control Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) that invaded bare ground resulting from burned 

slash piles.

By 2004, SAJH park staff and OLYM fire crew felt that stands in both camps needed to be assessed 

with respect to current composition, stand densities, species composition, and fuel loads to determine 

how close they were to the park’s desired future condition for these communities. Silvicultural 

prescriptions were needed to guide future forest management to attain management goals for these 

stands. Additionally, the evaluation would aid the park in developing a long-term monitoring 

program to evaluate the coniferous forests with respect to short-term management goals and longterm ecological status of the park. Both SAJH and OLYM Fire staff felt that permanent plots were 

needed to effectively monitor and guide future management actions. Although the North Coast and 

Cascades Network (NCCN) had identified SAJH forest monitoring as a need for long-term 

monitoring, it was not identified as a funding priority within the NCCN Long-term Monitoring 

Program (Weber et al. 2009). 

In 2004, Dr. Regina Rochefort (Science Advisor, North Cascades National Park Service Complex 

(NOCA)), Dr. Bruce Larson (Silviculturist, University of British Columbia (UBC)), Bill Gleason 

(Chief of Resource Management, SAJH), and OLYM Fire Managers Larry Nickey and Todd Rankin 

developed this project to address the park’s need for an assessment of forest conditions and to 

provide a baseline for management prescriptions. The project was submitted and received funding 

through the NPS Pacific West Region’s Small Park funding program. The goals of this project were 

to assess the status of dense, coniferous forests in San Juan Island National Historical Park, provide 
2 

insights to guide future forest management plans, and to communicate information about the forests 

and their management to the park staff. 
3 

2. Methods

2.1 Study Area

San Juan Island National Historical Park is located on San Juan Island, the second largest island in 

the San Juan archipelago. The San Juan Islands are located off the northwest coast of Washington 

state (US) and south of Vancouver Island (Canada). This group of islands, and their Canadian 

counterpart known as ‘Gulf Islands”, represent a unique ecosystem since they are located in the rain 

shadow of the Olympic Mountains and Vancouver Island. These geographic barriers generate a dry 

climate that supports a landscape characterized by open woodlands and forests mainly composed by 

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Pacific madrone or Arbutus (Arbutus menziesii), and Garry Oak 

(Quercus garryana) (Franklin and Dyrness 1988, Meidinger and Pojar 1991). 

San Juan National Historical Park is composed of American Camp on the south end of the island and 

English Camp on the north tip (Figure 1). Mean annual precipitation ranges from 737 mm in the 

northern end of the island (English Camp) to 508 mm in the southern end (American Camp). About 

70 percent of the annual precipitation falls between October and April (US National Park Service 

2009). The mean annual temperature is 9.5 °C, with means of 3.3 and 15.5 °C for the months of 

January and July respectively (Western Regional Climate Center 2007). Soils are mainly glacial in 

origin and contain a group of series that range from poorly drained to excessively-drained soils (Agee 

1987). 
4 

Figure 1. San Juan Island and San Juan National Island Historical Park. English Camp is at the northwestern end of the island American Camp is at the southern end.

Disturbances, both natural and anthropogenic, have been important factors in the development of the 

structure of forest stands within the Park (Agee 1984, 1987; Hetsch 2005; Amoroso and Larson 2006). 

Fire has a long history beginning with low intensity fires used by the native peoples to maintain open 

woodlands (Agee 1984). After the arrival of European settlers, in the mid 1800’s (Hetsch 2005), logging 

became the predominant anthropogenic influence on park forests until the mid 1960s. 

2.2 Sampling Overview

Prior to conducting field surveys, forests were stratified based on their stand characteristics (species 

composition, tree size, and stand density) in a two step process. First, we used high-definition photos 

in combination with soil maps of the park (NRCS 2006) to delineate broad groups of forest stands. 
5 

This stratification yielded 45 stands, 19 at American Camp and 26 at English Camp. The second step 

consisted of extensive field verification of the preliminary stand delineations. We surveyed transects 

across all preliminary stands in both Camps, recording stand characteristics systematically every 100 

meters. As a result, some of the initial stand delineations were revised, combining stands with similar 

dominant species composition, age, and structure. Following field review, the forests across both 

areas were stratified into 33 stand-types (Figure 2). Stratification by stand type was performed to 

reduce the number of plots needed to later accurately depict the forest types and to account for 

variability, making sampling more efficient and effective. 
6 

Figure 2. Stand delineations for English (top) and American Camp (bottom). Shading denotes stands that 

are at least 100 years old.
7 

2.3 Field Surveys 

A total of 269 plots was established across all stands in the Park. The number of plots used to sample 

each stand was determined based on stand size and variability of vegetation within stands. The 

number of plots ranged from 5 to 20 per stand but was generally in the range of 6 to 9 (Table 1). 

Table 1. Number of plots sampled at each stand, stand and site characteristics.

Stand Plots Site Index Age (years) Slope % Aspect°

A-1 8 75 162 13 295

A-2 8 71 154 16 60

A-3 7 99 75 18 324

A-4 6 65 77 12 30

A-5 8 68 151 10 10

A-6 7 88 112 11 98

A-7 5 84 160 10 42

A-8 8 100 87 0 360

A-9 7 82 81 0 360

A-10 8 87 20 0 360

A-11 8 95 28 2 146

A-12 6 88 88 2 110

A-13 7 83 90 0 360

A-14 8 79 101 1 330

A-15 10 110 27 0 360

E-1 17 91 106 4 296

E-2 10 90 102 7 280

E-3 20 88 95 11 257

E-4 5 109 46 1 268

E-5 9 94 48 1 294

E-6 6 91 103 7 305

E-7 8 92 110 4 97

E-8 6 108 46 0 360

E-9 6 91 95 8 66

E-10 5 99 90 6 269

E-11 7 83 134 12 256
8 

Table 1 (continued). Number of plots sampled at each stand, stand and site characteristics.

Stand Plots Site Index Age (years) Slope % Aspect°

E-12 7 81 106 4 300

E-13 5 94 64 5 230

E-14 4 93 91 8 253

E-15 8 80 165 13 100

E-16 10 89 77 13 211

E-17 15 77 77 18 203

E-18 10 82 165 12 227

Plots were systematically located using a 32-m sampling grid. Plots were first located on a map, and 

later established in the field. Plots were circular and 0.02 ha. in size (7.98 meters radius). At each plot 

all trees taller than 1.3 m. (breast height) were sampled. The following information was recorded for 

each tree: species, diameter at breast height (DBH), strata (A-emergent, B-main dominant canopy, Cmid strata, D-lower strata), and crown class (D-dominant, C-co-dominant, I-intermediate, Ssuppressed). Strata and crown class were assigned using the classification described by Oliver and 

Larson (1996). Up to 5 trees per plot were cored using increment borers at a height of 30 cm from the 

ground. Cores were used to estimate age of the stands and site index (SI). (Site index is a term used 

to describe the productivity or quality of a site for tree growth.) Generally, 1 to 3 cores in each plot 

were used to determine the site index. For this, where available, dominant, healthy Douglas-fir trees 

were selected. To determine the lower age-class limit, 1 to 2 young and small or suppressed trees 

were also cored. Finally, a healthy individual of each prominent species in the stand was selected and 

cored, to obtain an estimate of the ages of the various species. All cores were mounted and sanded, 

and age was estimated by counting the rings. The heights of the site index trees were measured using 

a digital hypsometer. 

2.4 Data Analysis - Stand Modeling 

Forest growth models can be important tools used to support management decisions and answer 

research questions. They can forecast future forest conditions under different scenarios, and 

therefore, help to predict outcomes of management practices and test hypotheses. We used the

Landscape Management System (LMS) for all data analysis. It is a modular system that coordinates 

the activities of other programs (projection models, visualization tools, etc.) as a way of making 

growth estimates and producing output in visual, graphical, and tabular forms (McCarter et al. 1998). 

LMS was designed to assist in landscape level analysis and planning of forest management 

alternatives as it facilitates data manipulation and inventory update simulation (McCarter et al. 1998). 

The age of each stand was estimated using tree age data from all plots assuming that the trees regenerated 

following a stand replacement disturbance. Within stands, minor differences in age between plots were 

ignored, because tree ages do not actually influence how the growth model predicts tree growth (Dixon 

2007). Where data was available, the site index of each plot was calculated using TIPSY v.4.1 (Table 
9 

Interpolation Program for Stand Yields, BC Ministry of Forests and Range 2007), using the ages and 

heights of the dominant Douglas-fir trees. For plots without site index data, the average stand site index 

was used in stands with little variation between plots; in stands with more variation between plots, the site 

index from the most similar plot (with regards to species composition, stand density, slope and aspect) 

was used. 

All the stand level and inventory information was entered in MS Excel and later imported into the 

Landscape Management System (McCarter et al. 1998). The Landscape Management System (LMS) is, in 

essence, a framework that coordinates separate programs, such as forest growth models and visualization 

tools, as a way of making growth estimates and producing output in visual, graphical, and tabular forms 

(McCarter et al. 1998). Due to the location of the study area, the Pacific Northwest variant was chosen for 

the growth model in LMS. Once all the information (stand level, site index, tree inventory) was imported 

into LMS, new portfolios were created, and the inventory was restored. In this last step, the growth model 

predicts tree level information necessary to grow trees in the future and additionally generates the stand 

level information. MLS was run as a ‘plot-by-plot’ and later on the information was averaged at the 

‘stand’ level. For this, each plot per stand was entered into LMS as though it were a complete stand. 

Variation between plots with regards to site conditions such as slope and SI, and variation in stand 

conditions such as density and species composition were therefore retained. Stands were projected 60 

years to predict future stand conditions. Once the plots had been projected, all of the plots in each stand 

were averaged together, to obtain entire stand estimates. Stands were also visualized in LMS using Stand 

Visualization System (SVS) (McGaughey 1997), a stand visualization tool, to aid in identifying the key 

differences.
10 

3. Results 

3.1 Overall stand composition and average stand statistics

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) is the dominant species in the Park and is present in nearly all 

stands (Figure 3). Red alder (Alnus rubra) grand fir (Abies grandis), and western red cedar (Thuja 

plicata) were also found at both camps, but several species were restricted to American or English 

Camp. Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) were only 

documented in American Camp. Western hemlock was common in stands near Mount Finlayson and 

lodgepole pine was found primarily on dry, flat sites at the interface between the forest and 

grasslands. Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and Garry oak 

(Quercus garryana) only grew in English Camp. Pacific madrone was only present in small 

proportions, but it was present in most stands in English Camp. 

Overall, stands at both Camps exhibit a wide range of ages, ranging from 27 to 165 years (Table 2). 

According to our estimates, almost one half of the stands in the Park are at least 100 years old. These 

stand ages should be considered slight underestimates since we did not adjust them for the number of 

years it took for trees to grow to coring height (~ 30-40 cm). Therefore, we expect these stands to be 

several years older than the ages presented here. Additionally, the stand age was estimated assuming 

stand-replacement origin; therefore, ages do not represent the average age of the sampled trees but 

refers to the onset of the establishment following a major disturbance.

Densities, expressed as trees per acre (TPA), ranged from 21 to 664 reflecting variability in site 

quality, the wide array of ages, and stand composition. As shown in previous studies (e.g. Oliver 

1981), mean diameter did not provide a good representation of a stand age as for similar diameters 

(i.e. 15 inches) trees can present dissimilar ages and/or stand density. 
11 

Figure 3. Stand composition and total basal area per acre the sampled stands at (top) American and

(bottom) English Camp.
12 

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the sampled stands at the American and English Camp.

Stand Age

Density

(trees/ acre)

Mean Diameter

(inches)

Basal Area

(square feet/acre)

Mean Height

(feet) 

A-1 162 262.5 9.2 225.8 52.9

A-2 154 312.5 10.3 259.1 55.1

A-3 75 237.4 11.6 242.3 65.9

A-4 77 193.1 10.1 187.2 54.2

A-5 151 470.0 6.5 274.3 33.6

A-6 112 163.0 15.1 254.0 66.8

A-7 160 164.0 12.6 243.3 54.1

A-8 87 230.0 8.2 114.6 56.5

A-9 81 128.7 15.9 210.2 79.6

A-10 20 542.5 3.3 53.9 15.7

A-11 28 215.0 6.2 90.1 30.2

A-12 88 176.5 14.6 285.3 64.8

A-13 90 172.7 14.7 244.8 69.1

A-14 101 205.0 8.5 127.8 46.0

A-15 27 532.0 2.6 39.2 15.8

E-1 106 476.7 6.7 188.8 34.6

E-2 102 278.0 12.2 295.4 67.5

E-3 95 247.0 11.6 242.2 62.9

E-4 46 664.0 5.9 174.9 27.1

E-5 48 401.8 8.0 179.8 59.1

E-6 103 279.7 13.8 368.3 73.6

E-7 110 375.0 6.5 187.5 29.8

E-8 46 356.3 7.2 141.1 37.2

E-9 95 206.5 12.7 248.4 60.3

E-10 90 280.0 9.1 227.5 47.7

E-11 134 205.9 12.8 276.0 65.4

E-12 106 143.0 12.7 165.4 73.9

E-13 64 92.0 14.5 113.8 83.5

E-14 91 225.0 14.5 283.2 82.8

E-15 165 177.5 15.1 323.0 71.4
13 

Table 2 (continued). Descriptive statistics for the sampled stands at the American and English Camp.

Stand Age

Density

(trees/ acre)

Mean Diameter

(inches)

Basal Area

(square feet/acre)

Mean Height

(feet) 

E-16 77 122.0 10.6 119.9 44.9

E-17 77 21.3 12.7 47.6 52.2

E-18 165 54.0 12.3 108.8 44.3

3.2 Stand composition and stand development 

Stand AC-1 

The large scattered Douglas-fir trees in the overstory reflect the stand establishment more than 160 

years ago (Table 3). Other species form part of a second stratum mainly composed of western 

hemlock, western red cedar, and grand fir. 

Table 3. Stand AC-1 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas fir 7.5 27.1 37.6 16.7

Grand fir 40.0 9.5 27.5 12.2

Pacific yew 2.5 3.3 0.2 0.1

Red alder 5.0 12.7 4.4 2.0

Western red cedar 35.0 9.4 27.9 12.4

Western hemlock 172.5 8.3 128.2 56.8

TOTAL 262.5 9.2 225.8 100.0

1 trees per acre 

2 inches 

3 square feet per acre

The growth model predicts no major changes in the species composition over the next sixty years. 

However, there will be some mortality and reduced growth rates of some Douglas-fir trees in the 

upper part of the canopy allowing for faster growth of trees in the smaller diameter classes. The 

visualization depicts a stand with fewer small diameter trees in the lower canopy in 2068 than in 

2008 (Figure 4). 
14 

Figure 4. Stand AC-1 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand AC-2 

Stand AC-2 originated at the same time stand AC-1 did but the site is moister resulting in higher tree 

density and stand basal area (Table 4). Site differences also resulted in different species composition 
15 

leading to an overstory mainly composed by the western red cedar and western hemlock. While there 

were some scattered Douglas fir trees in the stand, none were located in the sampling plots. 

Table 4. Stand AC-2 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Grand fir 5.0 13.4 4.9 1.9

Red alder 5.0 10.4 3.0 1.1

Western red cedar 187.5 8.7 115.5 44.5

Western hemlock 90.0 10.6 73.8 28.5

TOTAL 312.5 10.3 259.1 100.0

1 trees per acre 

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

Future predictions depict a gradual movement of the trees into larger diameter classes and perhaps 

less stratified canopy as some species reduce their height growth rates (Figure 5). 
16 

Figure 5. Stand AC-2 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand AC-3 

Stand A-3 differs from stand AC-1 and AC-2 in that originated about 80 years ago. The overstory of 

this stand is dominated by Douglas-fir and western red cedar with scattered presence of grand fir 
17 

trees (Table 5). Nevertheless, much of the density and BA in this stand is represented by western 

hemlock which occupies lower positions in the canopy. 

Table 5. Stand AC-3 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA 1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas fir 37.2 16.6 59.3 24.5

Grand fir 14.3 17.4 26.2 10.8

Other species 11.4 8.0 4.3 1.8

Western red cedar 31.5 14.9 64.1 26.4

Western hemlock 143.0 9.2 88.5 36.5

TOTAL 237.4 11.6 242.3 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

The complex structure of this mixed species stand will undergo significant changes in the future 

reflected by the changes in diameter classes. Species such as grand fir, for example, will move into 

upper positions in the canopy. Nevertheless, the outcomes are uncertain as the growth of each species 

will heavily be influenced by its immediate neighbors (Figure 6). 
18 

Figure 6. Stand AC-3 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand AC-4 

Stand AC-4 originated in the same fire as stand AC-3, but the lower site quality has resulted in lower 

densities and BA values (Table 6). 
19 

Table 6. Stand AC-4 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 16.7 11.8 22.8 12.2

Grand fir 10.0 3.1 0.5 0.3

Other species 10.0 2.1 0.3 0.2

Red alder 33.3 8.1 13.9 7.4

Western red cedar 33.3 17.1 81.8 43.7

Western hemlock 89.9 9.5 68.0 36.3

TOTAL 193.1 10.1 187.2 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

While no major changes in the forest composition for this stand are expected in the future, 

recruitment in the understory will continue as well as the growth of trees into larger diameter classes. 

This will represent a clear change in the future diameter distribution (Figure 7). 
20 

Figure 7. Stand AC-4 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand AC-5 

Stand AC-5 had its origin at the same time as stands AC-1 and AC-2 and escaped the most recent fire 

in the adjacent stands. This elongated stand contours the northern beaches of the American Camp 

being interrupted only at the Jake’s Lagoon. It presents an irregular Douglas-fir overstory with 
21 

several more shade tolerant species such as grand fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock in 

subcanopy positions (Table 7). 

Table 7. Stand AC-6 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 145.0 15.9 234.8 85.6

Grand fir 240.0 1.0 6.2 2.3

Other species 20.0 2.7 1.3 0.5

Pacific yew 7.5 5.5 1.3 0.5

Western red cedar 32.5 6.2 8.2 3.0

Western hemlock 25.0 8.9 22.5 8.2

TOTAL 470.0 6.5 274.3 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

While the model did not predict major changes in the composition and structure of this stand, the 

spatial arrangement of some species may lead to stratified clumps of trees as the shade tolerant 

species grow (Figure 8). 
22 

Figure 8. Stand AC-5 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand AC-6 

Stand AC-6 is a Douglas-fir-dominated forest of medium-to-low density with few sub-canopy trees 

(Table 8). Some small trees of more shade tolerant species are present in the edge with stand AC-5. 
23 

As most of the stands in this part of the American Camp, its uniform composition typifies even-aged 

stands originating after stand replacing fires. 

Table 8. Stand AC-6species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 145.9 16.7 253.5 99.8

Grand fir 2.9 0.2 0.0 0.0

Western red cedar 2.9 4.5 0.3 0.1

Western hemlock 11.4 1.8 0.2 0.1

TOTAL 163.0 15.1 254.0 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

As most density-dependent mortality has occurred already in this mature stand (> 110 years), we 

expect the stand to remain dominated by Douglas-fir, but we expect a doubling of the median tree 

diameter over the next sixty years (Figure 9). 
24 

Figure 9. Stand AC-6 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 
25 

Stand AC-7 

This 160-year stand is one of the smallest units in the American Camp. It presents a unique 

composition and structure with older western red cedar trees emerging above a Douglas-fir 

dominated canopy and a lower stratum of western hemlock trees (Table 9). 

Table 9. Stand AC-7 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 92.0 16.5 180.1 74.0

Other species 12.0 4.0 1.2 0.5

Pacific yew 8.0 5.7 1.4 0.6

Western red cedar 8.0 22.9 40.2 16.5

Western hemlock 44.0 6.0 20.4 8.4

TOTAL 164.0 12.6 243.3 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

Some important stand structure changes are expected in the future as species that are currently in the 

lower strata competing with others (such as western hemlock) will growth faster and start attaining 

larger sizes and reaching the upper canopy (Figure 10). 
26 

Figure 10. Stand AC-7 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand AC-8 

Unlike most of the stands in the western part of the American Camp, stand AC-8 has an overstory 

composed purely of red alder (Table 10). This medium density stand originated about 90 years ago. 
27 

This stand type also includes a small portion of forest between stands A-11 and A-13 (see map in 

Figure 2). 

Table 10. Stand AC-8 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 2.5 0.6 0.0 0.0

Red alder 227.5 8.3 114.6 100.0

TOTAL 230.0 8.2 114.6 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

Over the next sixty years, density-dependent mortality is predicted to continue resulting in a stand 

with a more homogenous canopy and diameter distribution (Figure 11). 
28 

Figure 11. Stand AC-8 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand AC-9 

Stand AC-9 originated approximately at the same time stand as stand AC-8 but developed into a 

mixed Douglas-fir dominated forest (Table 11). These differences might be partially explained by the 

fact that this stand has been subject of selective harvesting over the past years, as well as soil 
29 

differences. Along with Douglas-fir, some lodgepole pine trees are in the overstory and species such 

as red alder or bitter cherry can be found in the understory. 

Table 11. Stand AC-9 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Bitter cherry 5.7 8.1 2.1 1.0

Douglas-fir 103.0 17.2 189.8 90.3

Grand fir 2.9 2.8 0.1 0.1

Lodgepole pine 11.4 15.9 16.8 8.0

Red alder 5.7 6.7 1.4 0.7

TOTAL 128.7 15.9 210.2 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

No major changes in species composition over the next 60 years are expected (Figure 12). 
30 

Figure 12. Stand AC-9 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom).

Stand AC-10 

Stand AC-10 is a large stand composed of two units. This young and dense stand is about twenty 

years old and dominated by a red alder overstory with Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine beneath (Table 

12). 
31 

Table 12. Stand AC-10 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 360.0 2.8 28.0 51.9

Lodgepole pine 77.5 2.4 4.1 7.7

Red alder 105.0 5.7 21.8 40.4

TOTAL 542.5 3.3 53.9 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

Currently there are differences in height and size among species. However, these differences will 

become less pronounced in the future as red alder reduces its height growth and Douglas-fir and 

lodgepole pine reach the upper canopy (Figure 13). 
32 

Figure 13. Stand AC-10 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand AC-11 

This young (~ 30 years), irregular stand varies from dense Douglas-fir – lodgepole pine forests on the 

edges to open grasslands with scattered small trees towards the center (Table 13). Red alder occurs 
33 

with Douglas fir and lodgepole pine in areas extending south from the road resulting in a denser 

canopy. 

Table 13. Stand AC-11 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Bitter cherry 7.5 2.6 0.3 0.3

Douglas-fir 77.5 7.7 61.6 68.3

Lodgepole pine 72.5 5.7 18.4 20.4

Red alder 57.5 5.4 9.9 10.9

TOTAL 215.0 6.2 90.1 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

In spatially irregular stands, such as these, average predictions have limited usefulness. Nevertheless, 

the model predictions may accurately predict future conditions for the dense parts of the stand. These 

areas will likely undergo some degree of density-dependent mortality and height stratification 

patterns in the future (Figure 14). 
34 

Figure 14. Stand AC-11 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand AC-12 

This is the smallest stand at American Camp and its overstory is dominated by mature, spaced 

Douglas-fir trees with some grand fir trees in the lower strata (Table 14). While it might appear that 
35 

this stand is as an extension of the stand AC-11, but there are important differences in stand age and 

species composition. Stand 12 is almost 60 years older than stand 11, and lodgepole and red alder are 

not important components of this stand. 

Table 14. Stand AC-12 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 139.9 17.0 266.3 93.3

Grand fir 36.6 5.5 19.0 6.6

TOTAL 176.5 14.6 285.3 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

As the composition of this stand will remain unaffected, the different growth patterns of the two 

species will result in a reduction of the size and height differences as grand fir moves into the upper 

canopy (Figure 15). 
36 

Figure 15. Stand AC-12 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand AC-13 

Stand AC-13 is composed of a medium-to-low density Douglas-fir overstory with some lodgepole 

pine (Table 15). Although this stand is fairly uniform in the overstory, some changes in understory 

occur as one moves from the northern Park boundary toward stand AC-15. 
37 

Table 15. Stand AC-13 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 126.1 15.7 203.5 83.1

Lodgepole pine 43.3 12.5 40.9 16.7

Other species 3.3 4.7 0.4 0.2

TOTAL 172.7 14.7 244.8 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

The model predicted this spatially homogeneous stand will not undergo substantial structure changes 

in the next 60 years. Nevertheless, as the younger stand AC-15 develops, new trees may colonize the 

stand’s southern boundary providing some structural complexity (Figure 16). 
38 

Figure 16. Stand AC-13 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand AC-14 

This stand represents the western boundary of the American Camp and is perhaps the stand with the 

most anthropogenic influence as it surrounded by multiple neighbors. This stand has substantial 
39 

spatial variation in terms of structure and species composition (Table 16). Old Douglas-fir trees (> 

100 years) dominate the overstory. Most of the diversity of this stand is in the lower strata and the

understory is composed of several broadleaf species of small trees. 

Table 16. Stand AC-14 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 55.0 16.3 90.1 70.5

Grand fir 10.0 7.1 4.7 3.7

Lodgepole pine 2.5 19.4 5.1 4.0

Other species 97.5 5.7 22.5 17.6

Red alder 27.5 4.7 4.2 3.3

Willow 12.5 4.0 1.2 0.9

TOTAL 205.0 8.5 127.8 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

Since this stand includes great spatial variability, future stand development will vary significantly 

and will depend on the spatial arrangement and the life span of the species in the understory (Figure 

17). 
40 

Figure 17. Stand AC-14 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand AC-15 

Stand AC-15 represents the interface of the forest and the grasslands in the western part of the 

American Camp. In this stand, young (~30 years old) lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir are colonizing 

the grassland with an irregular spatial pattern (Table 17). 
41 

Table 17. Stand AC-15 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 220.0 2.5 13.5 34.3

Lodgepole pine 296.0 2.4 21.3 54.4

Red alder 16.0 6.7 4.5 11.4

TOTAL 532.0 2.6 39.2 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

Over the next sixty years, older tree clumps will continue to grow and recruitment of new trees will 

continue resulting in more trees in the larger diameter classes, but no substantial changes in species 

composition (Figure 18). 
42 

Figure 18. Stand AC-15 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-1 

Stand EC-1 represents the most heterogeneous stand in the Park both in terms of species composition 

and spatial distribution. The average stand composition, summarized in the Table 18, provides a good 

representation of the general matrix, an overstory mainly composed by Douglas-fir with groups of 
43 

red alder trees. Nevertheless, proportions and sizes varied greatly among plots as did the importance 

of other species. While the establishment date of this stand might have been more than 100 years ago, 

a wide distribution in ages exists. 

Table 18. Stand EC-1 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Big leaf maple 2.4 4.2 0.2 0.1

Black cottonwood 1.2 1.7 0.0 0.0

Douglas-fir 356.4 7.1 151.1 80.0

Grand fir 7.1 2.2 0.2 0.1

Lodgepole pine 4.7 14.5 5.7 3.0

Pacific yew 1.2 5.9 0.2 0.1

Red alder 88.5 6.1 27.3 14.4

Western red cedar 15.3 3.4 4.1 2.2

TOTAL 476.7 6.7 188.8 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

The model predicts an important change in the structure of the stand. In 60 years, although there will 

still be recruitment as seen in in the large number of trees in the 2” diameter class, a large number of 

trees will have moved from the 4-10” diameter into the 12-26” diameter and canopy structure will 

become more uniform and closed (Figure 19). 
44 

Figure 19. Stand EC-1 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-2 

Although stand EC-2 originated at the same time stand EC-1 did and has similar site conditions, it 

developed very uniformly and has a pure Douglas-fir overstory and a modal diameter distribution 

(Table 19). 
45 

Table 19. Stand EC-2 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Big leaf maple 2.0 11.1 1.3 0.5

Douglas-fir 234.0 13.2 276.7 93.7

Grand fir 6.0 2.4 0.2 0.1

Pacific yew 2.0 1.7 0.0 0.0

Western red cedar 24.0 6.4 9.0 3.0

Pacific madrone 10.0 12.0 8.1 2.8

TOTAL 278.0 12.2 295.4 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

No major changes in composition and structure are expected for the next 60 years, but a gradual 

growth of the trees to larger diameter classes (Figure 20). 
46 

Figure 20. Stand EC-2 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-3 

Stand EC-3 represents the largest stand type in the English Camp. It consists of a medium-to-low 

density Douglas-fir overstory with scattered red alder and pacific madrone trees, and some grand fir 
47 

and western red cedar trees in lower diameter classes (Table 20). It is distributed in several areas of 

English Camp including Bell Point and part of the interface with the Garry oak ecosystem. 

Table 20. Stand EC-3 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Big leaf maple 4.0 4.8 0.8 0.3

Douglas-fir 172.0 13.1 201.9 83.4

Grand fir 21.0 5.4 5.2 2.2

Other species 17.0 14.6 21.3 8.8

Pacific yew 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.0

Red alder 1.0 14.3 1.1 0.5

Western red cedar 26.0 6.0 8.1 3.3

Pacific madrone 5.0 11.5 3.9 1.6

TOTAL 247.0 11.6 242.2 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

As this stand type has a large geographic distribution, modeling future conditions is more 

complicated. In general, the model predicts that the current stand structure will become more 

homogenous as some of the smaller trees grow into the upper canopy. This will represent a moderate 

change in the diameter distribution (Figure 21). 
48 

Figure 21. Stand EC-3 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-4 

This is a very small and dense stand composed of young Douglas-fir trees (~ 50 years old) with some 

scattered red alder and lodgepole pine trees in the upper stratum (Table 21). This stand differs from 
49 

older adjacent stands (i.e., EC-10 and 6) with larger diameter trees and this may reflect recent activity 

in the Park such as logging or land clearing. 

Table 21. Stand EC-4 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 644.0 5.8 158.0 90.3

Grand fir 8.0 0.6 0.0 0.0

Lodgepole pine 4.0 16.3 5.8 3.3

Red alder 8.0 15.8 11.1 6.4

TOTAL 664.0 5.9 174.9 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

The model predicts a gradual movement of Douglas-fir into larger diameter classes and a decrease in 

density as the stand undergoes density-dependent mortality. Additionally, it is expected that red alder 

will lose its importance in the upper part of the canopy (Figure 22).
50 

Figure 22. Stand EC-4 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-5 

Stand EC-5 originated at the same time stand as EC-4 and might have been subject to the same 

disturbance or anthropogenic activity. However, EC-5 differs from EC-4 in that its overstory is 
51 

composed purely of red alder and it has lower overall tree density (Table 22). While this stand has 

numerous Douglas-fir, due to their small they do not comprise much of the basal area. 

Table 22. Stand EC-5 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 106.6 3.4 10.6 5.9

Grand fir 13.3 1.2 0.2 0.1

Other species 2.2 3.7 0.2 0.1

Red alder 262.0 10.6 167.8 93.3

Western red cedar 17.8 2.6 1.1 0.6

TOTAL 401.8 8.0 179.8 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

While some mortality is expected for the next 60 years as the stand develops, it will not be as

pronounced as that in stand EC-4 (Figure 23). 
52 

Figure 23. Stand EC-5 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-6 

Stand EC-6 is another small stand at English Camp composed of large and mature Douglas-fir trees 

(Table 23). Pacific madrone trees are mixed in the overstory in some areas as well as small 

subcanopy western red cedar trees. 
53 

Table 23. Stand EC-6 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 243.1 14.8 351.9 95.5

Grand fir 3.3 5.0 0.5 0.1

Western red cedar 26.6 4.5 3.2 0.9

Pacific madrone 6.7 17.2 12.8 3.5

TOTAL 279.7 13.8 368.3 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

Predictions for the next 60 years suggest height differentiation among species as the range of 

diameters will increase; no significant recruitment is forecast (Figure 24).
54 

Figure 24. Stand EC-6 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom).

Stand EC-7 

Stand EC-7 originated at the same time as stand EC-6with the resulting same overstory dominance 

(Douglas-fir), but there are more species richness in the lower canopy (Table 24). However, it 

regenerated at a higher density having presently 34% more trees and 50% of the basal area of stand 
55 

EC-6. The overstory of this stand is uniform in terms of species composition but there is a significant 

variability in the size of the trees. There are also minor components of other species both in the 

overstory and understory.

Table 24. Stand EC-7 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 315.0 6.9 171.1 91.2

Grand fir 32.5 0.7 0.1 0.1

Lodgepole pine 7.5 11.2 7.5 4.0

Red alder 15.0 7.3 5.1 2.7

Pacific madrone 2.5 16.6 3.8 2.0

Western juniper 2.5 0.9 0.0 0.0

TOTAL 375.0 6.5 187.5 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

Future stand development will include more vertical stratification and a reduction in the number of 

trees in the smaller diameter classes (Figure 25). 
56 

Figure 25. Stand EC-7 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-8 

Stand EC-8 is a long strip of young forest that could have originated at the same time as stands EC-4 

and EC-5. It is mainly composed by an overstory of Douglas-fir with a small proportion of grand fir
57 

in the understory (Table 25). This stand has a considerable spatial variation with higher densities in 

its northern part of the stand. 

Table 25. Stand EC-8 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 313.0 7.6 130.9 92.8

Grand fir 33.3 1.8 0.8 0.6

Lodgepole pine 6.7 10.9 6.6 4.7

Red alder 3.3 12.4 2.8 2.0

TOTAL 356.3 7.2 141.1 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

Similar to the other young stands at English Camp, it is expected that the diameter distribution will 

change to a more uniform, unimodal distribution as the stand develops and density-dependent 

mortality occurs (Figure 26). 
58 

Figure 26. Stand EC-8 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-9 

Stand EC-9 is very similar in composition and structure to stand EC-7 with the only difference that 

has developed into a more open forest (Table 26). More shade tolerant species such as grand are 

present in smaller proportions occupying lower position in the canopy. 
59 

Table 26. Stand EC-9 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 163.2 13.9 227.3 91.6

Grand fir 23.3 9.4 15.7 5.5

Other species 13.3 6.1 3.5 1.2

Western red cedar 6.7 7.4 2.0 0.7

TOTAL 206.5 12.7 248.4 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

No major changes were forecast for this stand, but a gradual growth of the trees into larger diameter 

classes (Figure 27). 
60 

Figure 27. Stand EC-9 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-10

Stand EC-10 originated about 100 years ago and is dominated by Douglas-fir in the overstory and 

Grand fir in the understory (Table 27). Today, both species vary considerably in diameter and height. 
61 

Table 27. Stand EC-10 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 148.0 13.6 209.4 92.1

Grand fir 132.0 4.1 18.1 7.9

TOTAL 280.0 9.1 227.5 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

The model predicted that while the stand will maintain a stratified structure, some smaller trees will 

start reaching the overstory and increase in size as reflected by the changes in the diameter 

distribution (Figure 28). 
62 

Figure 28. Stand EC-10 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-11

This narrow strip of forest differs from the surrounding stands due to its variability in species 

composition and stand structure (Table 28). While in some parts of this stand Douglas-fir is the 

dominant species in the overstory, in other areas, big leaf maple and pacific madrone occur in the 
63 

overstory. More shade tolerant species such as grand fir and western red cedar, while smaller in size, 

are also present in subcanopy positions and dominate the lower diameter classes.

Table 28. Stand EC-11 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Big leaf maple 17.2 13.3 20.3 7.3

Douglas-fir 68.6 18.5 151.7 55.0

Grand fir 77.2 8.8 47.8 17.3

Western red cedar 37.2 9.7 44.6 16.2

Pacific madrone 5.7 18.1 11.8 4.3

TOTAL 205.9 12.8 276.0 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

The model predicted that as species continue stratifying in height in this forest, no major changes are 

expected in the composition and structure. Nevertheless, there is important spatial variation that 

could lead to diverse patterns of development within the stand (Figure 29). 
64 

Figure 29. Stand EC-11 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom).

Stand EC-12 

This stand has the lowest density among the stands at English Camp (Table 29). Douglas-fir shares 

the overstory with lesser amounts of red alder and big leaf maple. Due to the proximity to the original 
65 

encampment, this stand might have been subject to logging or other human activity resulting in the 

variable current structure. 

Table 29. Stand EC-12 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Big leaf maple 5.7 13.7 9.4 5.7

Douglas-fir 71.5 14.1 103.4 62.5

Grand fir 11.4 4.8 1.9 1.2

Red alder 54.3 12.4 50.6 30.6

TOTAL 143.0 12.7 165.4 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

The outcomes of the model indicate that while some species will grow into upper parts of the canopy, 

this will not result in major changes in the stand structure (Figure 30).
66 

Figure 30. Stand EC-12 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-13

Stand EC-13 originated about 65-70 years ago and is characterized by a very low density (Table 30). 

The overstory is dominated by red alder with a few scattered big leaf maple trees. Stands EC-13, AC8, and EC-5 are the only stands dominated by red alder in the Park. 
67 

Table 30. Stand EC-13 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Big leaf maple 4.0 18.4 7.4 6.5

Red alder 88.0 14.3 106.4 93.5

TOTAL 92.0 14.5 113.8 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

While no major changes are be expected for this stand, the predictions for 60 years reveal an increase 

in the number of trees in the larger diameter classes (Figure 31). 
68 

Figure 31. Stand EC-13 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom).

Stand EC-14

Stand EC-14 is the smallest stand at English Camp and it is located at the interface with the Garry 

oak ecosystem. It is composed of mature, well-spaced Douglas-fir trees and, as most stands in this 

area, originated more than 90 years ago (Table 31). 
69 

Table 31. Stand EC-14 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 215.0 14.5 273.0 96.4

Other species 10.0 13.5 10.1 3.6

TOTAL 225.0 14.5 283.2 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

No major changes in the stand structure are predicted as the stand develops (Figure 32). 
70 

Figure 32. Stand EC-14 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-15

Stand EC-15, along with EC-11, is one of the most diverse stands in terms of species composition at

English Camp (Table 32). Its old overstory (> 170 years) is dominated primarily by Douglas-fir but 

also contains grand fir and western red cedar trees in smaller proportions. 
71 

Table 32. Stand EC-15 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Big leaf maple 5.0 15.3 6.7 2.1

Douglas-fir 85.0 17.4 181.2 56.1

Grand fir 35.0 16.1 73.7 22.8

Other species 15.0 6.2 3.1 1.0

Pacific yew 7.5 4.0 0.7 0.2

Red alder 7.5 11.2 5.3 1.6

Western red cedar 22.5 15.9 52.3 16.2

TOTAL 177.5 15.1 323.0 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

As vertical stratification in the canopy will continue over the next sixty years, the model also 

predicted a gradual increase in the number of trees in larger diameter classes and less recruitment 

(Figure 33). 
72 

Figure 33. Stand EC-15 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top)and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-16

Stand EC-16 represents the northern boundary of the Garry oak ecosystem and the interface with the 

pure Douglas-fir forests. While oak was not present in our sampling plots, some scattered trees are 

found in the overstory along with the dominant Douglas-fir and pacific madrone (Table 33). 
73 

Table 33. Stand EC-16 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Big leaf maple 8.0 9.3 4.1 3.4

Douglas-fir 90.0 10.8 93.6 78.1

Pacific madrone 20.0 12.4 22.2 18.5

Western red cedar 4.0 0.7 0.0 0.0

TOTAL 122.0 10.6 119.9 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

As this relatively mature stand (~ 80 years) develops, fewer trees will recruit in the understory and 

stratified patterns in height within the canopy will emerge (Figure 34). 
74 

Figure 34. Stand EC-16 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top)and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-17

Stand EC-17 represents the Garry Oak ecosystem and is located at the driest site in the Park at mid 

and high elevations of Young Hill. This stand is an open mixed Garry oak – Douglas-fir forest 
75 

resembling a parkland (Table 34). While these two species are the largest trees in the area, Douglasfir along with other small trees represents most small individuals.

Table 34. Stand EC-17 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Big leaf maple 1.3 27.4 5.5 11.4

Douglas-fir 13.3 11.4 22.5 47.3

Other species 5.3 2.5 0.2 0.5

Garry Oak 1.3 51.8 19.5 40.9

TOTAL 21.3 12.7 47.6 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

In this type of ecosystem, recruitment is a very low probability event so no recruitment is expected. 

No other major changes are likely to occur either in the near future (Figure 35). 
76 

Figure 35. Stand EC-17 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 

Stand EC-18

Stand EC-18 represents, on the other hand, the southern boundary of the Park and the Garry oak 

ecosystem. This stand is the continuation of the Garry oak ecosystem at lower positions in the 
77 

landscape. Similar to EC-17, it is dominated by Douglas-fir and Garry Oak, but tree density and basal 

area are higher (Table 35). 

Table 35. Stand EC-18 species composition and stand characteristics.

Species TPA1 Mean Diameter 2 Basal Area 3 Relative Basal Area (%)

Douglas-fir 18.0 13.7 59.8 55.0

Other species 20.0 3.8 2.0 1.8

Western juniper 6.0 11.9 4.9 4.5

Garry oak 10.0 27.1 42.1 38.7

TOTAL 54.0 12.3 108.8 100.0

1 trees per acre

2 inches

3 square feet per acre

Future development includes death of some large, old overstory trees and the growth of some 

Douglas-fir trees into larger diameter classes (Figure 36). 
78 

Figure 36. Stand EC-18 visualizations, diameter distribution and species composition in 2008 (top) and 

2068 (bottom). 
79 

4. Summary 

Forests cover approximately 48% of SAJH (McCoy and Dalby 2008) and stands range in age from 

20 years old to 165 years. In this study, we grouped forest stands by dominant species to guide 

sampling. At American Camp, the oldest stands were in the Mount Finlayson area on the eastern and 

northern boundaries of the park. Stands 1, 2, 5, and 7 established between 150 and 162 years ago, 

during the historic time period (i.e. 135 - 157 years before this study). These stands have large 

Douglas fir, Western Hemlock or Western Red Cedar in the canopy with understory species 

composition reflecting available site moisture. Stand 6 is about 112 years old, but still similar to the 

older stands in that is dominated by Douglas fir and is fairly uniform in composition reflecting an 

even age stand that probably established after a fire. Stands 3 and 4 are fairly young – under 80 years 

old and also originated after a fire. These two young stands will undergo the greatest structural 

changes in the Mount Finlayson area as individuals increase in height and diameter and some species 

move into the upper canopy. 

The western portion of American Camp is the area where most of the post-historic period agricultural 

clearing occurred and where the Olympic fire crew conducted forest thinning. Only stand A-14 is 

over 100 years old, the remainder ranging from 20-87 years in age. Stand A-8 is the most unusual as 

it is dominated by red alder. These stands are more spatially variable than the stands on Mount 

Finlayson and as stands develop, the models project increases in tree diameter, some density 

dependent mortality, and continued colonization into grasslands especially near stand 15. 

Eight of the 18 stands in English Camp are older than 100 years old (EC- 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 18). 

EC- 4, 5, and 13 are similar to stand AC-8 in that they also have high components of Red Alder and 

all are young developing stands. Stands 16, 17, and 18 are representative of Garry Oak ecosystems 

although Oak are sparse throughout EC-16; recruitment of all species are low in these stands. 

Continued monitoring of tree regeneration is recommended her to determine if the current fire 

management strategy is encouraging Garry Oak while decreasing recruitment of Douglas fir and 

other conifers.

We recommend that the park and/or North Coast and Cascades Network establish permanent plots 

for long-term monitoring of these forest stands to document trends in species composition, growth, 

and future stand trajectories. Using the current forest stand ages and composition combined with the 

predicted changes presented in this study will allow for efficient sampling and resources but will also 

allow the park to develop and track efficacy of management strategies based on forest growth and 

development. 
80 

5. Literature Cited 

Agee, J. K. 1984. Historic landscapes of San Juan Island National Historical Park. Unpublished 

Report. CPSU/UW 84/2. National Park Service, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forest 

Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 46 pp.

Agee, J. K. 1987. The forests of San Juan National Historical Park. Unpublished Report. Report 

CPSU/UW 88/1. National Park Service, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forest 

Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 83 pp.

Amoroso, M. M., and B. C. Larson. 2006. Determination of present stand structure, natural 

disturbances, and past stand development patterns for three stands at the American and English 

Camps, San Juan National Historic Park. Final Report. US Department of Interior, National Park 

Service. 22pp. 

BC Ministry of Forests and Range. 2007. TIPSY. 4.1. Province of British Columbia, Victoria, British 

Columbia, Canada.

Dixon, G. E. 2007. Essential FVS: A user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. US Forest 

Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Franklin, J. F., and C.T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State 

University Press, Portland, Oregon. 452 pp. 

Hetsch, S. 2005. Reconstruction of stand development - a case study on San Juan Island, 

Washington, USA. Diplom Thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Breisgau, Germany. 50 

pp. 

Larson, B. C., R. Rochefort, and M. M. Amoroso. 2007. Determining the disturbance effect on forest 

development for use in Park management plans. In: Rethinking protected areas in a changing 

world. The George Wright Society Biennial Conference on Parks, Protected Areas and Cultural 

Sites, Conference Proceedings. 

McCarter, J., J. Wilson, P. Baker, J. Moffett, and C. Oliver. 1998. Landscape management through 

integration of existing tools and emerging technologies. Journal of Forestry 96:17-23. 

McCoy, A., and C. Dalby. 2009. Prairie monitoring protocol development: North Coast and Cascades 

Network. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1168, 10 p. 

McGaughey, R. J. 1997. Visualizing forest stand dynamics using the stand visualization system. In: 

Proceedings of the 1997 ACSM/ASPRS Annual Convention and Exposition; April 7-10, 1997. 

Seattle, Washington. American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 4:248-257. 

Meidinger, D. V., and J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests. 330 

pp. 
81 

National Park Service. 2009. San Juan Island National Historical Park. Available online: 

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/naturescience/weather.htm (accessed 3 March 2009). 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006. Soils Survey Map of San Juan County, 

Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Available online: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. 

Oliver, C. 1981. Forest development in North America following major disturbances. Forest Ecology 

and Management 3:153–168. 

Oliver, C. D., and B. C. Larson. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 

New York. 

Rolph, D. N., and J. K. Agee. 1993. A vegetation management plan for the San Juan Island National 

Historical Park. Technical Report NPS/PNRUW/NRTR-93/02. Unpublished report to the 

National Park Service, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forest Resources, University of 

Washington, Seattle, Washington. 86 pp

Weber, S., A. Woodward, and J. Freilich. 2009. North Coast and Cascades Network vital signs 

monitoring report (2005). Natural Resource Report NPS/NCCN/NRR—2009/098. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2007. Western U.S. climate summaries. Available online: 

https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/summaries.php (accessed 3 March 2009). 
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific 

and other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities.

NPS 438/167893, April 2020 
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM