Coding for seral status and vegetation structure may be used separately or combined 

together as a description of current stand conditions. They also may be attached to a 

PNC association code. A detailed discussion of coding is in appendix 5. 

Seral Status and 

Vegetation 

Structure Coding 

Seral Status Codes - 

Vegetation Structure 

Codes 

Combined Coding 

Metric Equivalents 

A complete discussion of seral status codes is contained in appendix 5. These codes 

are keyed to a PNC series where each life-form layer may be rated for its seral status' 

as being at PNC (P), late seral (L), mid seral (M), or early seral (E). A single 

successional rating is provided. 

An example would be rating a Douglas-fir/ninebark/meadowrue association for seral 

status: a Douglas-fir PNC is coded CD, seral status is either estimated (E) or classified 

by use of an investigation or study (C), tree layer might be late seral status (L), shrub 

layer at mid seral (M), and an herb layer at PNC (P). The seral status code would be 

CDCLMP. It a single seral status rating is desired, rate the tallest life-form (the tree 

layer) as follows: CDCL. 

A complete discussion of vegetation structure codes is contained in appendix 5. 

Codes are keyed to a PNC series where each life-form layer may be described by size, 

canopy cover, and evenness of vegetation heights in the layer. Coding may be 

assigned to one or all layers in a plant community. An example would be to code the 

Douglas-fir/ninebark/meadowrue association rated for seral status: a Douglas-fir PNC 

is CD, trees are large in diameter (LT; 21 to 29 inches d.b.h.) of moderate cover (M; 40 

to 70 percent) and uneven heights (U), the shrub layer is dominated by tall shrubs (TS; 

6.5 to 16.5 feet tall) of moderate canopy cover (M; 10 to 26 percent) and uneven (U) 

heights, and the herb layer (HE) is dense in canopy cover (D; more than 67 percent) 

and uneven (U) heights. The coding would be CDLTMU-TSMU-HEDU. 

All coding, PNC, seral status, and vegetation structure, may be combined as

discussed in appendix 5. Order of listing is PNC/seral status/tree structure-shrub 

structure-herb structure. An example is CDS721/CLMPALTMU-TSMU-HEDU, which is

read as Douglas-fir/ninebark/meadowrue association as described by Steele and 

others (1981). CDS721 has been classified (C) by use of a successional investigation 

(Steele and Geier-Hayes 1989) as to late seral (L) tree layer, mid seral (M) shrub layer, 

and PNC (P) herb layer that is currently in large-diameter trees (LT), of moderate (M) 

canopy cover and uneven (U) tree heights, with a shrub layer of tall shrubs (TS) of 

moderate (M) canopy cover and uneven (U) heights, and an herb layer (HE) of dense 

canopy cover (D) and uneven (U) heights. 

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Pounds 0.453 Kilograms 

Acres 0.405 Hectares 

Pounds per acre 1.1288 Kilograms per hectare

Inches 2.540 Centimeters 

Feet 0.305 Meters

Cubic feet 0.028 Cubic meters

Cubic feet per acre 0.07 Cubic meters per hectare

Square feet per acre 0.2296 Square meters per hectare 

°F 5/9 (°F-32) °C 

20 
Allen, Barbara H. 1987. Ecological type classification for California: the Forest 

Service approach. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-98. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 8 p. 

Arno, S.F.; Simmermann, D.G.; Keane, R.E. 1985. Forest succession on four 

habitat types in western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-177. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range . Experimental Station. 74 p. 

Bailey, R.G. 1980. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. Misc. 

Publ. 1391. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

(app. 3). 77 p. 

Brown, E.R. tech. ad. 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of 

western Oregon and Washington. R6 F&WL 192-1985. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 

Brown, E. Reade, tech. ad. 1981. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in 

forests of western Oregon and Washington. Part 1-Chapter narratives. 

R6-FSWL-1921985. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 332 p. 

Busby, F.E.; Buckhouse, John C.; Clanton, Donald G. 1994. Rangeland health: 

new methods to classify, inventory, and monitor rangelands. Washington, DC: 

Committee on Rangeland Classification, Board on Agriculture, National 

Research Council; National Academy Press. 182 p. 

Cain, Stanley A. 1939. The climax and its complexities. American 

Midland Naturalist. 21: 147-158. 

Clary, Warren P.; McArthur, E. Durant; Bedunah, Don; Wambolt, Carl L. 1992. 

Proceedings-symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub 

communities; 1991 May 29-31; Sun Valley, ID. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 232 p. 

Crowe, Elisabeth A.; Clausinitzer, Roderick R. 1996. Mid-mountain wetland plant 

associations of the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. 

R6 NR TP-09-96. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region.

Daubenmire, R. 1952. Forest vegetation of northern Idaho and adjacent 

Washington and its bearing on concepts of vegetation classification. Ecological 

Monographs. 22:301-330.

Daubenmire, R.; Daubenmire, Jean B. 1968. Forest vegetation of eastern

Washington and northern Idaho. Tech. Bull. 62. Pullman, WA: Washington

State University, Washington Agricultural Experimental Station, College of 

Agriculture. 104 p. 

Diaz, Nancy M.; Mellen, T. Kim. 1996. Riparian ecological types-Gifford 

Pinchot and Mt. Hood National Forests/Columbia River Gorge National 

Scenic Area. R6 NR TP-09-96. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 

References 

21 


Naiman, Robert J. 1992. Watershed management: balancing sustainability 

and environmental change. New York: Springer-Verlag. 524 p.

Padgett, Wayne G.; Youngblood, Andrew P.; Winward, Alma H. 1989. Riparian 

community type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. R4 ECOL-8901. 

Ogden, UT:, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Region. 191 p. 

Paulson, Richard W.; Chase, Edith B.; Roberts, Robert S.; Moody, David W., 

comps. 1991. National water summary 1988-1989-hydrologic events and 

floods and droughts. Water-Supply Pap. 2375. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 191 p. 

Pfister, R.D.; S.F. Arno. 1980. Classifying forest habitat types on potential 

climax vegetation. Forest Science. 26: 52-70. 

Pielow, E.C. 1991. After the ice age: the return of life to glaciated North 

America. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 366 p. 

Raedeke, Kenneth J., ad. 1988. Streamside management: riparian wildlife and 

forestry interactions. Contrib. 59. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, 

Institute of Forest Resources. 277 p. 

Simpson, M.; Zalunardo, D.; Eglitis, A. [and others]. 1994. Viable ecosystem 

management guide, Ochoco National Forest. Prineville, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ochoco National Forest. 131 p. 

Steele, R.; Geier-Hayes, K. 1989. The Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type in 

central Idaho: succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-252. Ogden, 

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station. 65 p. 

Steele, R.; Pfister, R.D.; Ryker, R.A.; Kittams, J.A. 1981. Forest habitat types of 

central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-114. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental 

Station. 138 p. 

Tallman, Barbara; Cortner, Hanna J.; Wallace, Mary G. [and others]. 1993. 

Riparian management: common threads and shred interests: a western 

regional conference on river management strategies; 1993 February 4-6; 

Albuquerque, NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-226. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 419 p. 

Thomas, Jack Ward. tech ad. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the 

Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agric. Handb. 553. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 512 p. 

Thomas, Jack Ward; Maser, Chris. tech ads. 1986. Wildlife habitats in managed 

rangelands-the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

[Series]. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant handbook. 

Washington, DC. 535 p. Available from: Clearing House for Federal Scientific 

and Technical Information, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991. Ecological classification 

and inventory handbook. Handb. Amend. 2090.11-91-1. Washington, DC. 20 p. 

24 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Service-wide range 

analysis and management handbook. WO Amend. 2209.14-82-1. Washington, 

DC. 9 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. Excerpts from forest 

ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment 

(FEMAT report). Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 139 p. 

'U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. A Federal agency guide 

for pilot watershed analysis. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 150 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994a. PLANTS: 

alphabetic listing for Oregon. Rep. 5. Vascular listing of 29 Mar 94. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 177 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994b. PLANTS: 

alphabetic listing for Washington. Rep. 5. Vascular listing of 29 Mar 94. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 149 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1969. Sheet 90, (one 

map). Washington, DC.

Whitlock, Cathy. 1993. Postglacial vegetation and climate of Grand Teton 

and southern Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Monographs. 63(2): 

173-198. 

Williams, C.K.; Lillybridge, T.R. 1983. Forested plant associations of the 

Okanogan National Forest. R6 Ecol 132-1983. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 76 p. 

Wykoff, W.R.; N.L. Crookston; A.R. Stage. 1982. User's guide to the stand 

prognosis model. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-133. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experimental Station. 112 p. 

Youngblood, Andrew P.; Padgett, Wayne G.; Winward, Alma H. 1985. 

Riparian community type classification of eastern Idaho-western 

Wyoming. R4 ECOL-8501. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 78 p. 

25 


























































LALY-OKA CAC1 OKA 

PICO-PIAL/PELA CLC1 11 FRE 

PICO-PIAL-PIMO/ARCO2 CLC1 12 FRE 

MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK/FORB, 

COOL (CMFC) 

Mountain hemlock (TSME) occurs in the canopy. Shasta red fir (ABMAS) is 

common. Moist sites indicate that herbs occur in understory: foam flower (TIUN), 

dwarf bramble (RULA). Cold sites with deep, persistent snowpacks. Soils moist 

throughout growing season. Tree regeneration is very difficult to establish, and 

tree growth is very slow. 

TSME/RULA CMS5 UMP 

TSMEIRULA • CMS5 . WEN, OKA 

TSME/VAME CMS2 ROR-C 

TSME-ABCO-ABMAS CMC2 ROR-C 

ABCO-TSME CWC9 ROR-C, UMP 

MOUNTAIN HEMLOCKIALASKA 

HUCKLEBERRY (CMSC) 

Mountain hemlock (TSME) and Pacific silver fir (ARAM), often with Alaska-cedar 

(CHNO), occur in tree layer. Cascade azalea (RHAL), fool's huckleberry (MEFE), 

devil's club (OPHO), salmonberry (RUSP), and moist-site herbs occur in 

understory. Cold sites with deep, persistent snow packs. Soils moist through the 

growing season. Tree regeneration is very difficult to establish and tree growth is 

very slow. 

TSME/VAAL CMS2 41 OLY 

TSME/VAAL/ERMO CMS2 42 OLY 

TSME/VAME-VAAL CMS2 44 OLY 

TSME/CLPY/BLSP CMSX MBS 

TSME/TIUN-STRO CMF2 MBS 

TSME/RHAL-VAME CMS3 12 OLY, MBS 

TSME/MEFE-GIP CMS2 21 GIP 

TSME/RHAL CMS3 23 GIP 

MOUNTAIN HEMLOCKIDEVIL'S 

CLUB (CMS4) 

Mountain hemlock (TSME) growing at high elevations with deep persistent 

snowpacks and imperfectly drained soils. Ground vegetation is dominated by wet 

site shrubs such as devil's club (OPHO) and herbs such as marsh marigold (CABI). 

TSME/OPHO CMS4 MBS 

TSME/CABI CMF2 MBS 

Subalpine fir series 

SUBALPINE FIR(PINEGRASSSHRUB (CEG3) 

Subalpine fir (ABLA2) is climax potential and often associated with lodgepole 

pine (PICO). Shrubs, if present, tend to be low in stature with pinegrass (CARU) 

as the dominant species in ground vegetation. This group represents relatively

dry and frosty sites that are difficult to reforest.

84 
ABLA2/CARU-O&C CEG3 11 OKA, COL, WEN 

ABLA2/CARU CEG3 12 WAW 

ABLA2/VASC/CARU-OKA CES4 13 OKA, WEN 

ABLA2NACCI CES3 12 OKA, COL 

ABLA2/VACA CES4 22 COL 

ABLA2/POPU CEF4 11 WAW 

SUBALPINE FIR/WOODRUSH (CEG1) 

Subalpine fir (ABLA2) is the climax potential with smooth woo drush (LUHI) as the 

main herbaceous species. Delicious blueberry (VADE) may dominate the shrub layer. 

High-elevation sites with deep, persistent snowpacks and severe reforestation 

problems. Tree growth is slow. 

ABLA2/LUHI CAG1 OKA, WEN 

ABLA2/VADE CES4 OKA, WEN 

SUBALPINE FIR/AZALEA (CES2) 

Subalpine fir (ABLA2) is climax potential, usually associated with Engelmann 

spruce (PIEN). Sites are not well suited to Douglas-fir regeneration. Lodgepole 

pine (PICO) may dominate some early seral stands. Cascade azalea (RHAL) or 

rusty menziesia (MEFE) are the most abundant shrubs, often with huckleberry 

(VAME) or beargrass (XETE). Environments are cool, moist to wet located at upper 

elevations. Tree growth is poor to moderate. 

ABLA2/RHAL CES2 11 OKA, COL, WEN 

ABLA2/RHAL-XETE CES210 COL 

ABLA2/MEFE CES2 21 WAW 

ABLA2/RHAL-OLY CES212 OLY 

SUBALPINE FIRIHUCKLEBERRY (CES3) 

Subalpine fir (ABLA2) is climax potential often associated with Douglas-fir 

(PSME), Engelmann spruce (PIEN), western larch (LAOC), and lodgepole pine 

(PICO). Medium to tall shrubs such as big huckleberry (VAME) and pachistima 

(PAMY) are common. Soils are well drained. Reforestation may be difficult 

because of shrub competition for available moisture. 

ABLA2/VAME-COL CES314 COL 

ABLA2/XETE CEF111 COL 

ABLA2/PAMY-OKA CES111 OKA, WEN 

ABLA2/VAME-BLUE CES311 OCH, MAL, LIMA, WAX 

ABLA2-PIEN/VAME CEC2 OCH, MAL, LIMA, WAW 

ABLA2/VAME-WALLO CES315 WAW

ABLA2NAME-OLY CES2 21 OLY 

85