SPATIAL DATA PARTNERSHIP
PROBLEM STATEMENT/DECISION OPPORTUNITY NOTE
Date: March 2, 2005
Date of previous note:
File: 37000-30/KSDP/Tech
CLIFF/tracking #:
I.
PREPARED FOR:
Tim Salkeld (VRI Technical Applications Coordinator – MSRM Victoria) is
the key person as this is a provincial level issue. Chris Mulvihill is
acknowledged as the Regional Steward.
Issue raised post the January 31, 2005 Kootenay FSP Data Partnership
meeting.
II.
ISSUE/PROBLEM:
Make the VRI digital data easier to use for forest planning and forest
management.
III.
BACKGROUND:
There are multiple issues with the VRI data structure. It was developed to
meet many needs and as such has become very cumbersome to do any
forest management analysis. Some examples are:
1. Legacy FC1 fields (i.e. Non Forest Descriptor, Non Productive
Descriptor) in true VRI datasets are confusing as they are sometimes
populated and other times not. There does not seem to be any
consistent standard. These fields are intertwined with the VRI fields
and are not easily identifiable unless one is highly knowledgeable in
both data structures. Queries or analysis made using the FC1 fields
could result in inappropriate or misleading management decisions.
2. Identifying newly logged NSR, or regenerating stands, that have a
crown closure of less than 10% is difficult, if not impossible. This
identification is necessary for most types of planning assessments &
reviews (i.e. wildlife, visual, patch analyses). If the history fields in the
VRI is kept current then it can be used to help identify logged, but not
yet “treed conifer” polygons. However, history fields are not being
consistently maintained in the VRI data. History data is more efficiently
managed in RESULTS or other forest management software.
It is recognized that “NSR” is a cultural description and VRI was
intended not carry cultural descriptions. However, it is a significantly
Page 1
important description from a forest management perspective. We
should not pursue political correctness to the determent of forest
planning
3. Map labels do not always reflect the database information accurately.
As an example, a stand with age class 8 conifers that has less than
10% crown closure (thus would be considered “shrub low or shrub tall”)
is being labeled as an Age Class 8 treed stand, with a component of
shrub cover. It’s true that if you looked closely at the label, the label
would show the minimal crown closure % but most of the general
public and even operational forestry workers would either not think to
look at this detail or not understand its meaning. Why would this
polygon not be labeled as a “shrub” polygon?
IV.
DISCUSSION:
This provides the context for a decision opportunity
Possible solutions:
1. Legacy FC1 issue:
• Create an FC1 table in the VRI .mdb file to contain non-VRI FC1
fields. If they were separated at least a less knowledgeable person
on the old and new data structures would be able to have better
confidence on the use of the data.
Or
• Strip out the old FC1 fields from the VRI tables. If these fields are
determined to be needed, consciously re-incorporate them into the
VRI tables.
Or
• Develop a query tool which creates new VRI tables that contain
only true VRI fields
And (for all options)
• Complete the VRI data dictionary. The current document is
incomplete (i.e. many of the “Description” fields are blank). It is
understood that the data dictionary was not always recognized as
an important document but as more users are working with the VRI
datasets, a uniform understanding of the attributes is critical.
Page 2
2. Identifying new stands issue:
• Re-incorporate the Non Forest Descriptor field for “NSR” into the
database field structure.
AND
• Consider a stand as TC (treed conifer) if it has leading species
information and is less than 30 years.
Or
• Ensure that the VRI tables and the RESULTS database are
capable of being spatially linked or merged together to identify
information on cutblocks.
Or
• Create an attribute field which identifies whether the polygon is
capable and likely to produce a stand of trees within a reasonable
rotation period. (probably easier to identify whether harvesting has
occurred on this site, if yes, the area is likely capable of producing
another stand).
3. Map label issue:
• Fix the label program to accurately represent what is in the
database fields:
ƒ
We used to have NP on a label, if this is not culturally
acceptable find another method to properly represent site
vegetation information. (i.e. if tree crown closure is less than
10%, do not include the treed portion in the label)
Contact:
Initiator: Kathy Howard
Organization: Canfor-Slocan Operation
Phone: (250) 355-2100
Email: khoward@slocan.com
Alternate Contact:
Name: Chris Mulvihill
Organization: MSRM
Phone: (250) 354-6364
Email: Chris.Mulvihill@gems3.gov.bc.ca
copied to: Project manager and regional data administrator (Per Wallenius), to
be distributed to Partnership.
Approved by: Custodian, (date stamped and cc’d to Steward on deadline
for completion)
Page 3