D Classification Review in Seven Locations Across Io

Alaska LANDFIRE Application Project: Map and Classification Review in Seven Locations across Alaska

Tina Boucher, Keith Boggs Lindsey Flagstad, Mike Duffy Alaska Natural Heritage Program CAS, University of Alaska Anchorage 707 A Street, Anchorage, AK 99515 907-257-2784 [email protected]

4°¢¨• Ø¶ #ØÆ¥•Æ¥≥ {Üaa!wò hC CLb5LbD{ LbÇwh5Ü/ÇLhb a9ÇIh5{!//Üw!/ò !{{9{a9bÇ

{ÇÜ5ò !w9! a9ÇIh5{ a9ÇIh5{v Ü![LÇ!ÇLë9 w9ëL9í

{ÇÜ5ò !w9! a9ÇIh5{ w9{Ü[Ç{!//Üw!/ò !{{9{{a9bÇ{

59b![L 9ëÇ a!t

59b![L t[hÇ !{{LDba9bÇ Çh 9/h[hDL/![ {ò{Ç9a

59b![L /[!{{LCL/!ÇLhb

!bL!Y/I!Y 9ëÇ a!t

!bL!Y/I!Y t[hÇ !{{LDba9bÇ Çh 9/h[hDL/![ {ò{Ç9a

!bL!Y/I!Y /[!{{LCL/!ÇLhb w9{Ü[Ç{v Ü![LÇ!ÇLë9 w9ëL9í

òÜYhb!/I!w[9ò b!ÇLhb![ t!wY

Y9b!L CWhw5{ b!ÇLhb![ t!wY

D[!/L9w .!ò b!ÇLhb![ t!wY

D!Ç9{ hC ÇI9 !w/ÇL/ b!ÇLhb![ t!wY

íw!bD9[[!{!LbÇ 9[L!{ b!ÇLhb![ t!wY w9/haa9b5!ÇLhb{ !/Ybhí[95D9a9bÇ{ $ w9C9w9b/9{ $ !tt9b5Ló 9wwhw a!ÇwL/9{

!bL!Y/I!Y 9wwhw a!ÇwLó

59b![L 9wwhw a!ÇwLó !tt9b5Ló

íw!bD9[[!{Ç 9[L!{ 59Ç!L[95 {/w99b {IhÇ{ !b5 Ç9óÇ

{Üaa!wò hC CLb5LbD{

We conducted accuracy assessments for two national park units (the north side of Denali National Park and Aniakchak National Monument) and qualitative assessments in five additional areas representing the major ecological zones across the state including boreal, boreal transition, maritime, arctic, and Aleutian. In each assessment we reviewed the Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) Map and the ecological system classification. In three assessments we also reviewed the results of the sequence table assignment of plots to EVT class. The major findings and recommendations are summarized below.

Mapping: in all areas that were reviewed, we found significant errors in all the widely distributed EVT classes. The types of error included: • Low and tall shrub confused with dwarf shrub • Freshwater marsh and other wetlands mapped extensively on upper mountain sideslopes • Floodplain wetlands mapped extensively outside of the floodplain and on mesic terrain. • Rock mapped as water • Sparse vegetation mapped as barren • Coniferous forest mapped as shrub • EVT classes mapped outside of their range (maritime classes in boreal, e.g.)

To fix these accuracy problems we recommend refining all of the map zones. Some of the improvements will be simple whereas others more complicated. For example, some errors appeared to be related to spectral confusion (like rock vs. water), while other problems can be improved by slope and elevation modeling. The major errors were not between closely related classes. We identified certain classes to collapse, but the major errors should be addressed before collapsing classes. Also, the floodplain and polygonal ground EVT errors can be fixed by first mapping the dominant existing vegetation, and then deriving the appropriate Ecological Systems using masks and models.

Plot assignment to Ecological System: a large percentage of the plots were not keyed to a specific EVT because species data alone was not enough information to accurately classify each plot. We do not know how these plots were used in the map or if ancillary data layers were used in classification. In the plots that were classified, we found that plots were generally classified correctly, but that confusion occurred between closely related types such as low shrub and tussock tundra, or marsh and wet meadow. The errors in plot classification, however, did not occur between the same classes as the mapping errors. Collapsing classes did little to improve map accuracy. The spatial accuracy of the plots appeared to be good; however, we did not review polygon data.

We recommend manually reviewing those plots that were not designed for use in landcover mapping. We found that plots collected for purposes other than landcover mapping were often not suitable for training or accuracy plots because they occurred either in transitions between landcover classes or in small inclusions within a larger class. These plots may be classified correctly, but can lead to confusion when applied as training data.

Ecological System Classification: Typically we interact with the image analyst to identify classes that are difficult to map and either collapse classes or modify the classification. This step was not completed but is something that can still be done to improve the map accuracy. We identified classes that may be difficult to distinguish accurately, and we made recommendations for potential combinations. We reviewed the classification and keys used to produce the sequence tables and identified areas that need clarification or review. For example, we recommend collapsing some of the dwarf shrub classes and revisiting the classification of tussock tundra. Early seral vegetation presented a problem in both classification and mapping because the vegetation indicators and spectral classes do not match those of the later seral stages. We recommend reviewing the treatment of these classes.

LbÇwh5Ü/ÇLhb The Nature Conservancy and the Alaska Natural Heritage Program initiated a project to review LANDFIRE map products associated with the Statewide Alaska map produced by the LANDFIRE mapping team. The original goal was to assess LANDFIRE products, including BPS and FRCC, in Denali National Park, but because the products were not available for review, and because initial reviews from Denali and the north slope (Dan Fehringer, Ducks Unlimited) revealed a high error level in the Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) layer, the focus of the project shifted to a statewide assessment of the EVT layer, the ecological system classification, and the associated plot data.

For our review, we used national park units because they generally had high quality imagery, recent land cover maps, and abundant plot data. Reviewers had on-the-ground experience in the parks reviewed. We conducted two accuracy assessments and qualitatively reviewed five additional park units. The selected parks represent the major ecological zones across the state including boreal, boreal transition, maritime, arctic, and Aleutian.

Our goal was to evaluate the quality of the map and the quality of the information used to produce the map, including the ecological system classification and plot data in the LANDFIRE reference database. The results of this assessment are intended to be used to provide insight into the source of error and provide information that can be used to improve the Alaska map and classification. a9ÇIh5{!//Üw!/ò !{{9{a9bÇ

{ÇÜ5ò !w9! We selected two areas in which to conduct accuracy assessments: 1) north side of Denali National Park and 2) Aniakchak National Monument (Figure 1). We chose Denali because of its location in the boreal portion of the state (map zone 73), and because we had a large existing dataset to use that had not been used in the LANDFIRE mapping process. Aniakchak National Monument is located on the Alaska Peninsula in map zone 76. We chose Aniakchak because we were able to collect accuracy assessment plots in 2009 as part of a project for the National Park

Service. Both areas had 1-meter IKONOS imagery (all of Aniakchak and portions of Denali) and prior landcover maps.

&©ßµ≤• !¨°≥´° °∞∞¨©£°¥©ØÆ ∞≤Ø™•£¥ ≥¥µ§π °≤•° !££µ≤°£π °≥≥•≥≥≠•Æ¥≥ ∑•≤• £ØÆ§µ£¥•§ ©Æ ∞°≤´≥ ≥®Ø∑Æ ©Æ ≤•§ ±µ°¨©¥°¥©∂• ≤•∂©•∑≥ ∑•≤• ∞•≤¶Ø≤≠•§ ©Æ ∞°≤´≥ ≥®Ø∑Æ ©Æ π•¨¨Ø∑ $%.! ÆØ≤¥® ≥©§• Ø¶ $•Æ°¨© .°¥©ØÆ°¨ 0°≤´ !.)! !Æ©°´£®°´ .°¥©ØÆ°¨ - ØÆµ≠•Æ¥ '!!2 '°¥•≥ Ø¶ ¥®• !≤£¥©£ .°¥©ØÆ°¨ 0°≤´ 95#( 9µ´ØÆ(#®°≤¨•π .°¥©ØÆ°¨ 0≤•≥•≤∂• 7 234 7 ≤°Æß•¨¨(3¥ %¨©°≥ .°¥©ØÆ°¨ 0°≤´ +%&* +•Æ°© &™Ø≤§≥ .°¥©ØÆ°¨ 0°≤´ °Æ§ ',"! '¨°£©•≤ "°π .°¥©ØÆ°¨ 0°≤´

a9ÇIh5{ To quantitatively assess the accuracy of the LANDFIRE EVT classes and the reliability of the map we compared known reference plots with the mapped classification. We used an error matrix to provide a category-by-category description of error distribution (Campbell 1987, Congalton 1991, Jensen, 1996). The columns and rows of an error matrix show the number of sample units assigned to a particular map class (classification data) relative to the actual number of sample units that belong to the map class (reference data). From an error matrix the overall accuracy of the classification of a map can be quantified along with both the producer’s accuracy (or errors of omission or exclusion) and user’s accuracy (or errors of commission or inclusion). The overall accuracy is computed as the sum of all the main diagonal cells in the error matrix divided by the total number of sample units used in the error matrix. The overall accuracy shows the proportion of the classification that is correct but it does not indicate how the accuracy is distributed across the individual map classes (Story and Congalton 1986).

The producer’s accuracy is the sum of all correctly classified sample units in a map class divided by the total number of reference data in that map class. It indicates how well members of a particular map are classified, or shows the ease or difficulty with which members of a particular map class are correctly identified, classified or mapped by the mapping methodology. On the other hand, the user’s accuracy indicates the probability that a particular map class (classification data) would represent that map class in the reference or ground truth data. The user’s accuracy, computed as the sum of all correctly classified sample units in a map class divided by the total number of classification data in that map class, is termed a measure of reliability in specific map categories. The error of commission is computed as 100% minus the producer’s accuracy and error of omission is 100% minus user’s accuracy.

We made an effort to account for variation in vegetation cover interpretation. We classified each plot using species composition data, height, structure, detailed soils maps (where available), field photos, and field notes. If a plot could be classified in to more than one EVT assuming a +/- 5% variation in species cover, both classes were listed as potentially correct. If one of those classes agreed with the EVT map, then that class was selected for use in the error matrix.

In Denali, the accuracy data were taken largely from existing datasets, so each plot had to be classified and reviewed to ensure that it represented a large, homogeneous area. 4 datasets were used: LANDFIRE withhold plots, paired fire plots, landcover, and permanent long-term monitoring dataset (mini-grid). The majority of the plots (560 out of 706) were from the mini- grid dataset which was established systematically on a grid pattern, so many of the plots were not in homogeneous vegetation and had to be discarded for accuracy assessment purposes.

In Aniakchak, our accuracy assessment plots were taken from data collected in 2009 for a plant community classification. Plots were collected along transects running perpendicular to the slope whose starting points had been established using a systematic grid. Plots were placed in each major vegetation type along the transect. Plot locations were assessed in the field for potential use in the accuracy assessment, then reviewed again in the office using 1-meter IKONOS imagery and 30-meter TM image (provided by LANDFIRE). We also used the 2007 Ducks Unlimited earthcover map of the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges (Ducks Unlimited 2007) as a reference. Of the original 214 plant association plots, 65 were not suitable for use in the assessment because they either represented a small area (less than 10,000 m2) or occurred on the edge of a landcover class. We created 21 additional assessment plots in ArcGIS by reviewing the IKONOS imagery in classes that were under-represented and easily identifiable, such as open water and snow/ice.

In addition to producing error matrices for the two project areas, we also reviewed the ecological system classification and the plot assignments to ecological system. We reviewed the classification while keying out reference plots to ecological system, and we reviewed the results of the sequence table plot assignments by taking a subset of the LANDFIRE reference database plots and reviewing the plot data manually to see if we would come to the same conclusion. We did not have access to the LANDFIRE reference database for Aniakchak, so the review of the sequence table results were not conducted in that park.

6 a9ÇIh5{v Ü![LÇ!ÇLë9 w9ëL9í

{ÇÜ5ò !w9! In order to assess the LANDFIRE map across a wider range of climate zones, we conducted qualitative reviews of the EVT map in Yukon-Charley National Preserve, Gates of the Arctic National Park, Kenai Fjords National Park, Glacier Bay National Park, and Wrangell-St. Elias National Park (Figure 1). a9ÇIh5{ We reviewed the EVT map by overlaying it on National Park Service landcover maps and digital imagery (30-meter TM, 1-meter IKONOS, aerial photography). For each area, we used reviewers that had specific knowledge of the landscape acquired from conducting work in the field. We reviewed the classification by applying the key to the plot data and assessing which classes could not be consistently separated. We checked a subsample of the plot data for spatial accuracy and for EVT labeling in the reference database (Yukon-Charley and Kenai Fjords). We did not check the spatial accuracy or classification of polygon data. w9{Ü[Ç{!//Üw!/ò !{{9{{a9bÇ{ In both the Denali and Aniakchak review areas, we had an adequate number of assessment plots in the common classes that accounted for the majority of the land area. We often had too few plots in the uncommon classes to make a statistically sound assessment in these classes. Consequently, the accuracy assessments are focused on the common map classes. We made qualitative observations on these classes where possible. Possible reasons for errors and recommendations for improvements area listed with the results for each class.

59b![L 9ëÇ a!t Based on the National Park Service landcover map of Denali National Park (Boggs et al. 2001, Stevens et al. 2001), the most common classes in the project area include the following EVTs: • 2601-Boreal Treeline White Spruce Woodland • 2610-Boreal Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland and 23- Low Shrub Peatland • 2621-Boreal Black Spruce Dwarf-Tree Peatland / 2623-Boreal Black Spruce-Tamarack Fen (one class in NPS map) • Boreal Alpine Dwarf Shrubland (combines 2634-Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland and 2635- Ericaceous Dwarf shubland)

The overall accuracy including all classes with no collapsing was 17.4% (Appendix 1, Denali) Combining classes improved the accuracy as follows: • Combine 2634/2635: 20.1% • Combine 31/2632 :21.4% • Combine 2621/2632: 23.7% • Combine 2620/2610: 27% • Collapsing all closely related types: 30.5%

Collapsing classes yields an overall improvement of 13.1%. This suggests that mapping errors go beyond confusion among closely related classes. Below is a summary of the major areas of confusion in the Denali EVT map:

2610-Boreal Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland / 2634-Boreal Alpine Dryas Dwarf- Shrubland / 2601-Boreal Treeline White Spruce Woodland The confusion among these types represents the most widespread mapping error within the project area. 2634-Alpine Dryas was over-mapped and confused with both 2610-Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland and 2601-Boreal Treeline White Spruce Woodland. 2610-Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland and 2634-Alpine Dryas are compositionally distinct and should also be spectrally distinct. 64 out of 205 2610 reference plots were mapped as 2634-Alpine Dryas, and 23 were mapped as 2620-Low Shrub Peatland, and only 40 plots were mapped correctly. 2601- Treeline White Spruce was also mapped as 2634 (27 out of 41 plots; none were mapped correctly). The understory of 2601 is usually 2610, not 2634.

2628-Low Shrub-Tussock / 2610-Mesic Shrub / 2620 Low Shrub Peatland: These types presented a problem in both mapping and classification. 2628-Boreal Low Shrub- Tussock Tundra, and 2610-Boreal Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland were problematic to classify when the covers of diagnostic species or layers were near the cut-off for that type. 2628- Low shrub-Tussock was mapped correctly on 1 out of 41 plots. It was most commonly confused with 2620-Low Shrub Peatland (15 out of 41) and 2610-Mesic Shrub (7 out of 41). We do not recommend combining 2628-Low Shrub-Tussock with either of these types.

Percent cover of Tussock is determined in different ways depending on plot methods. Plot data often does not include total tussock cover, and certain species (such as Carex bigelowii) are not always tussock-formers. Plot methods also affect the cover value of graminoids—the highest cover values occur in aerial plots and the lowest cover values occur in ground plots that use the point-intercept method. We do not know what the affect of these different methods was across the boreal, however, much of the reference data included in this matrix was collected using the point-intercept method. This means that a higher overall sedge cover was required to attain the 35% tussock cover threshold. 41 plots met the criteria for tussock, but only one of these plots was mapped as tussock.

2610 Mesic Shrub reference plots were mapped as 2620 Low Shrub Peatland on 23 out of 205 plots. These classes often share the same overstory and could be spectrally confused when the plots are borderline mesic-wet. Combining these classes resulted in an overall improvement in accuracy of about 3%. 2620-Low Shrub Peatland was incorrectly mapped in the alpine, but it is defined as a lowland class.

% tree cover for woodland plots: It appears that woodland plots (10-25% tree cover) were often mapped as the understory type or mosaics of shrub and forest. Even open forest (25-60%) was sometimes mapped as a shrub class. Is it possible to pick up 10% tree cover of stunted spruce? If not, we may need to rework legend and plot assignments to reflect a new lower threshold for forest (for example, increase the tree cover threshold to 20% and reclassify the 10-20% the tree-cover plots according to understory).

2604-Mesic Black Spruce Mesic Black spruce forest was mapped correctly on 6 out of 41 plots. Mesic Black Spruce was mapped as 2623-Black Spruce-Tamarack Fen on 8 out of 41 plots. These classes should not be combined. Mesic Black Spruce was also mapped as floodplain on 8 out of 41 plots. The mesic black spruce signature is very distinct on the imagery and may have been confused with water in wetland classes.

2618-Herbaceous Fen: In the Denali lowlands Herbaceous Fen appears to be over represented, but we only had one reference plot in this class so we cannot draw conclusions based on this matrix. This class is common on the Tanana flats, but uncommon in Denali.

Sparsely vegetated types Alpine sites with sparse vegetation were often mapped as barren. It doesn’t appear that sparsely vegetated types can be accurately mapped at the threshold of 10% vegetated. We should work with the mappers to determine what the vegetated threshold should be (Ducks Unlimited Earthcover maps use 20%).

Wet woodlands-consider lumping. 2621-Black Spruce Peatland and 2623-Black Spruce Tamarack Fen were often confused. The fen type is shrubbier with less sphagnum and less water. The signature is “redder’’ on the color infrared image. If they cannot be differentiated consistently, 2621 and 2623 may need to be combined.

Snow and Ice Snow and ice was mapped extensively where the TM satellite image clearly shows vegetation. Late summer imagery should be used to determine where permanent snow and ice occur.

Height mapping: The height definitions in the map do not match the height definitions used in the Ecological System classification. These need to match. We found that Dwarf Shrub EVTs were mapped with a ht of 0.5-1.5m. These classes are exclusive of one another by definition. (Definition for shrub types: if the ht is <.2m, then dwarf shrub, >0.2m then low or tall shrub.)

Floodplains: Flood plains are mapped outside of actual floodplain boundaries. It appears that the model was too liberal, especially in low-relief areas. Floodplain wetlands are mapped on uplands and not connected to other floodplain systems. It appears that a different model was used for floodplain wetlands and non-wetland floodplains.

Problems that are easy to fix: • no Maritime types in Denali: 2643-maritime dwarf shrub, 2645 Alaska Sub-boreal and Maritime Alpine Mesic Herbaceous Meadow, 2648 Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mountain Hemlock Forest

• no large river floodplains in Denali • Use the STATSGO map to verify floodplain classes (due late 2009). • Combine 2632 Alpine Talus and Bedrock and 31 barren • Wet-Mesic slope black spruce should not occur on south-facing slopes • Use elevation limits for trees to search out forested types mapped in the alpine (black spruce, white spruce and birch all mapped above treeline). • Carl Roland has statistics including abundance by elevation for many of the common boreal species summarized from plot data in Denali, Yukon-Charley, and Wrangell- St. Elias.

Classification of burns: It is not clear if mappers attempted to map late seral vegetation or existing vegetation in burn scars. For example, a 1997 burn is mapped as “barren” but the adjacent vegetation is black spruce. The map of a 2000 burn is very pixilated; the classes appear random (floodplain, peatlands, spruce lichen) and don’t correspond to either the adjacent vegetation or early seral vegetation. There is a “recently burned” class, but it is not mapped in Denali, and does not appear to be applied consistently across the boreal region. How were recent burns classified? It would be more useful, and probably more accurate, to classify according to existing vegetation.

59b![L t[hÇ !{{LDba9bÇ Çh 9/h[hDL/![ {ò{Ç9a 50 out of 166 plots checked were unclassified (unclassified herbaceous, unclassified shrubland, etc.). It is not clear if problems in image classification were related to unclassified plots. The problem areas in the map did not correspond to the problem areas in plot labeling. For example, Alpine Dryas Dwarf shrub plots were labeled correctly, but there were very few plots. One out of five Boreal White Spruce plots were labeled incorrectly, and the three Boreal Treeline Spruce plots were labeled correctly.

59b![L /[!{{LCL/!ÇLhb Combine 2635-Alpine Ericaceous and 2634-Alpine Dryas Dwarf shrub. The reference plots often did not key cleanly into one or the other. In many cases dwarf willow was the most common shrub, and there was rarely enough dryas to meet the threshold for 2634-Alpine Dryas. These classes should be combined into one class—Alpine Dwarf Shrub. However, they should not be combined until the confusion between 2610 and 2634 is resolved.

EVT description calls alpine floodplain sparse or barren, doesn’t include tall shrub. Alpine floodplain is not always sparse (can include tall, low shrub, and dwarf shrub). Comment for seral stages: many flood plains have birch (not poplar) mixed with spruce.

A lot of the wet black spruce doesn’t fit dwarf tree woodland. Plots include sphagnum, low shrubs, and trees are often taller than 20m.

It was difficult to differentiate between Dwarf Shrub Summits and Sparsely Vegetated Talus slopes. We recommend combining these alpine classes for a sparsely vegetated alpine class. Alpine Talus with no vegetation should be classified as barren.

!bL!Y/I!Y 9ëÇ a!t The most common EVT classes in the project area included: • Mesic-Wet Willow Shrubland • Mesic Alder-Salmonberry Shrubland • Crowberry-Herbaceous Heath • Mixed Dwarf-Shrub-Herbaceous Shrubland • Sparse Heath and Fell-Field • Barren or Volcanic Rock and Talus

Overall accuracy of the 19 classes with no collapsed classes was 35.9% (Appendix 1, Aniakchak). The only combination considered was Crowberry-Herbaceous Heath and Mixed Dwarf shrub Herbaceous Heath; this combination improved the accuracy to 44.7%. No additional combinations were recommended.

Crowberry-Herbaceous Dwarf Shrub This class appears to be over-mapped in LANDFIRE map, especially in NE quadrant of park. Tall and low shrub classes dominated by willow and alder were often mapped as dwarf shrub. In some cases, Crowberry Dwarf Shrub occurred in the understory of the alder and willow shrub types and may have cause spectral confusion. This class was most commonly confused with Mesic-Wet Willow. Consider combining this class with Mixed Dwarf Shrub Herbaceous Heath.

Mesic-Wet Willow None of the reference plots were mapped correctly for this class. Out of 22 plots, 10 were mapped as Crowberry-Herbaceous Heath, 4 were mapped as Mesic Alder-Salmonberry Shrubland, 3 were mapped as Freshwater Marsh, and 3 were mapped as Floodplain Wetland. This error covers a large area.

Mesic Alder-Salmonberry Shrubland Open and closed alder stands were often mapped as Crowberry-Herbaceous Heath (3 of 16 plots) or Freshwater Marsh (4 of 16 plots). This error covers a large area.

Freshwater Marsh This is an uncommon class that was vastly over-mapped in the project area. On upland slopes it was mapped as a band occurring above dwarf shrub and below alpine rock. In the alpine environment it was confused with volcanic cinder or cryptobiotic soils and sparse vegetation. Freshwater Marsh was also mapped on lowland patterned ground that had a large component of dark rock. The dark color of the rock and the sparse vegetation may have a signature on the satellite imagery similar to water with emergent vegetation. This mapping error covers a large area across the monument and is not restricted to areas of the image obscured by shadow or clouds. Freshwater marsh was mapped on mountain sideslopes dominated by alder. There is no obvious explanation for confusing alder with marsh. The errors in marsh mapping cover a large area across the monument. A slope model could be used to search out incorrectly mapped Freshwater Marsh on sloping terrain.

Floodplain wetlands 11

Floodplain wetlands were mapped far from the riparian zone in lowlands. Floodplain Shrublands were often mapped as Floodplain Wetlands. Flat areas around cinder plains (outside of floodplains) were often mapped as Floodplain Wetlands. The model did not correctly capture floodplains, especially in flat lowlands (error covers large area). We recommend mapping existing vegetation in the floodplains until a better floodplain mask is available.

Mesic Herbaceous Meadow This class often occurs as small patches within and adjacent to shrub classes. It appears to be overmapped on sideslopes and in the alpine, but we had too few plots to make an assessment of this class. On the IKONOS imagery many patches that are mapped as Mesic Herbaceous appear to be alder or willow.

Sparse Heath and Fell-Field This class is often mapped as rock. It appears that is it not possible to map sparse classes using the 10% vegetation threshold. Consider increasing amount of cover required to meet sparse classes. (DU used 20% vegetated for sparse classes in the project area.)

Aleutian Kenai Birch-Cottonwood-Poplar Forest This class is uncommon in Aniakchak, but it is distinctive and of interest to land managers. Poplar stands were not captured in the LANDFIRE map or in the DU map. Both maps were able to distinguish the poplar pixels as different from the adjacent shrub classes, but the pixels were not labeled correctly. (DU: poplar = other shrub within tall willow map class; LANDFIRE: poplar = floodplain.)

Tidal marsh and other coastal classes Tidal Marsh was not mapped in the monument or along the entire coast of the Alaska Peninsula. This class does not cover a large area, but it is significant for land managers. Other coastal classes, such as Beach and Beach Meadow appeared to be under-mapped.

The boundary line used to define the Alaskan coast is too coarse. Across the state, significant portions of the mainland have been truncated. Barrier islands and spits are not mapped, and many near-shore islands were left out.

!bL!Y/I!Y t[hÇ !{{LDba9bÇ Çh 9/h[hDL/![ {ò{Ç9a We did not have access to the LANDFIRE withhold plots for this area, so we did not check the plot labeling or spatial accuracy.

!bL!Y/I!Y /[!{{LCL/!ÇLhb Combine in classification: Aleutian Crowberry-Herbaceous Heath and Aleutian Mixed Dwarf- Shrub-Herbaceous Shrubland. Aleutian Volcanic Rock and Talus: need to clarify the upper limit on vegetation cover. Description header has >10% vascular, but no other information. (Change name to Volcanic Rock and Cinder).

Need better distinction between “Volcanic Rock and Talus” and “Sparse Heath and Fell Field.” “Sparse Heath and Fell Field” description does not mention volcanic processes. Which system should be used for sparsely vegetated cinder plains and slopes? No category for lichen-moss sites, this is an uncommon type, but it occurred in Aniakchak crater. Create an Aleutian class similar to arctic lichen tundra? Racomitrium and dwarf shrub sites can be confused with peatlands when processing data with the key (example composition is 20-25% dwarf shrub dominated by Empetrum nigrum, 60% Racomitrium, 5% lichen), the key actually classifies these sites with less than 25% dwarf shrub as peatlands. (DU mapped as dwarf shrub upland, or sparse.) Cryptobiotic sites are not described in the classification or key (ex: 10% dwarf shrub, 55% crypto). The cryptobiotic mat shows up on the image as vegetation. We should determine whether this is a common class in the Aleutians, and how it should be classified. (The DU map attempted unsuccessfully to map it as a class, but it was mostly mapped with other alpine sparse and dwarf shrub classes). Alder-Salmonberry: modify description to include the regional differences in salmonberry abundance. In the project area, salmonberry occurred only on sites that were near the ocean on the Pacific side. Aleutian Nonvascular Peatland and Aleutian Rocky Headland and Sea Cliff did not occur in reference plots or map. The peatland system is probably uncommon and the coastal headland is common, but possibly too narrow to map. Aleutian Tidal flat is not included in classification. Consider merging Aleutian tide marsh with pacific (but not temperate, so we would need a new north pacific tide marsh for Aleutians and PNW) w9{Ü[Ç{v Ü![LÇ!ÇLë9 w9ëL9í

òÜYhb!/I!w[9ò b!ÇLhb![ t!wY [&'()*+ C,-.)/-( General comments: A true color aerial photo mosaic (1-meter resolution) of Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve was overlain on the LANDFIRE map using ArcMap. These images were checked against plot data collected by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program in 2002-2003 (Boggs et. al 2005) and the dataset compiled by LANDFIRE (ca. 1980-1990). In its present state the LANDFIRE map is not largely usable within the boundaries of Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. Completion of the following major revisions would greatly improve the map for the area reviewed: • In general it does not appear that a fire perimeter mask was used. Late seral types (Forests and Western North American Boreal Black Spruce Dwarf Tree Peatland) occur within recently burned areas. • Application of a slope layer would help identify incorrectly located classes. For example, tussock tundra and peatland types should be restricted to flat and low, sloping areas. Similarly, application of elevation rules would prevent tussock tundra form occurring on alpine summits and ridges. • The separation of Populus balsamifera, Populus tremuloides and Betula papyrifera forests on south-facing slopes and Picea mariana forests on north-facing slopes is not well-delineated. On the map, these types mosaic much more than they do in reality.

Specific Comments on the EVT classes: Note: only dominant and sub-dominant classes were reviewed. 1. Forested systems: a. Western North American Boreal Black Spruce Dwarf Tree Peatland is over- mapped by perhaps as much as 75%. This type should be restricted to shallowly- sloped plains and basins, but is often mapped as occurring on steep slopes and active floodplains. Often this class is confused with tussock tundra types. b. Western North American Boreal White Spruce Forest is over-mapped, shrublands and herbaceous cover is often mis-mapped as White Spruce Forest. c. Western North American Boreal Mesic Birch-Aspen Forest is not well mapped. This type appears to be confused for shrublands, but there is no obvious pattern. d. Western North American Boreal White Spruce-Hardwood Forest is adequately mapped; occasionally dominantly deciduous forests are mis-mapped as this mixed type. e. Western North American Boreal Mesic Black Spruce Forest is often confused with tussock and low/dwarf shrub cover. f. Western North American Boreal Black Spruce Wet-Mesic Slope Woodland is well mapped. g. Western North American Boreal Wet Black Spruce-Tussock Woodland is confused for recently burned areas and is incorrectly mapped on slopes; this class should be restricted to gentle slopes, flat plains, and valley bottoms. 2. Shrubland systems: a. Western North American Boreal Low Shrub Peatland is over-mapped often confused with alpine and tussock tundra cover. b. Western North American Boreal Low Shrub-Tussock Tundra is under-mapped. c. Western North American Boreal Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland is over- mapped, often confused with tussock tundra cover. 3. Herbaceous systems: a. Western North American Boreal Tussock Tundra is drastically under-mapped and not well mapped. This type is often incorrectly occurs on steep slopes or is mis- mapped as dwarf tree peatland. b. Western North American Boreal Low-Shrub Tussock Tundra that covers low sloping plains adjacent to (but outside the active floodplain of) the Yukon River is often mis-mapped as Western North American Boreal Black Spruce Dwarf Tree Peatland and less commonly as Western North American Sub-boreal Mesic Bluejoint Meadow. c. Steppe bluff systems are occasionally mis-mapped as Barren or as Western North American Boreal Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland. d. Western North American Boreal Freshwater Emergent Marsh is not well mapped. Tussock tundra and peatlands are often mis-mapped as this type. 4. Alpine systems: are generally well mapped (including Alpine Floodplain systems) a. Western North American Boreal Alpine Ericaceous Dwarf-Shrubland is over- mapped in the southern section of the park, apparently related to a seam in the imagery used. b. Western North American Boreal Alpine Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland is adequately mapped but sometimes confused for tussock tundra cover.

c. Western North American Boreal Alpine Dwarf-Shrub Summit is under-mapped, often mis-mapped as Barren. 5. Floodplain systems: a. Western North American Boreal Lowland Large River Floodplain Forest and Shrubland is under-mapped; this type is mis-mapped as Western North American Boreal Montane Floodplain Forest and Shrubland or Western North American Boreal Black Spruce Dwarf Tree Peatland or Western North American Boreal Herbaceous Fen. 6. Unvegetated systems: a. Barren is over-mapped. Much of the Barren cover could be more precisely mapped as Alpine or Steppe-bluff types. Steep shadowed slopes are also occasionally incorrectly mapped as barren.

/01 1 *'/) 0' /2* .03*-, L'/*3&03 4,-))&5&4-/&0' -'( 6*+ 503 ò760'!/2-3,*+8 • Betula glandulosa considered synonymous with Betula nana. Perhaps Shrubland Ecological Systems 7b. should be revised to read “Non-wetlands; Betula nana (including B. glandulosa) is the most common dominant” • Review the use and definitions of “sparse” and “unvegetated” in the classification. Following NatureServe guidance, we defined certain systems to include both sparse and unvegetated (such as Alpine Talus and Bedrock), but this approach does not correspond to the mapping methods. We may need to raise the lower limit on vegetation cover ; it is currently 10%, but usually mapped as barren. • Tussock systems: the key lists Eriophorum vaginatum as the only indicator, but the classification description lists Eriophorum vaginatum as the primary, and Carex bigelowii as a tussock former on some sites. Because Carex bigellowii is not always a tussock former, this could lead to the misclassification of plots if based solely on species composition.

/,-))&5&4-/&0' 05 9,0/) /0 *40,0.&4-, )+)/*1 &' ò760'!/2-3,*+8 General notes to the evaluation: • Sites classified as “None” or “Unclassified…” were not evaluated (207 points omitted) • total of 259 sites remaining, all of these were evaluated, 83% of the evaluated sites were correctly classified. • Lichen cover was a contributing factor to the misclassification of sites. Forested and Dwarf Shrub sites with greater than 25% lichen were often not classified as Spruce- Lichen or Dwarf Shrub-Lichen types. Alternately, sites with less than 25% lichen were often incorrectly classified as lichen types. Determining tussock cover was also a contributing factor: sites with greater than 35% Eriophorum vaginatum were often not classified as tussock types. Classification of “Tussock” sites is problematic using only species data. Carex bigellowii is not always a tussock-former, and species lists often list only “Carex.”

Comments specific to EVT classes: • Western North American Boreal Alpine Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland: 14 sites, 87% correct. Two misclassified points - should be Western North American Boreal Alpine Dwarf- Shrub-Lichen Shrubland based on lichen cover greater than 25%

• Western North American Boreal Alpine Dwarf-Shrub Summit: 1 site, this site is correctly classified assuming that it does occur on or proximal to a summit. • Western North American Boreal Alpine Ericaceous Dwarf-Shrubland: 31 sites, 36% correct. Points are misclassified where low shrub (Betula nana and B. glandulosa), Eriophorum vaginatum and Sphagnum cover is high. (I assumed sites with more than 60% cover of Sphagnum were wetlands). Such sites should be reclassified as Western North American Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland, Western North American Boreal Tussock Tundra or Western North American Boreal Sedge-Dwarf-Shrub Bog, respectively. • Western North American Boreal Alpine Floodplain: 5 sites, all correctly classified. Unable to determine from the data provided if sites occur on Floodplains in the Alpine; assumed the topographic position was correct. • Western North American Boreal Alpine Mesic Herbaceous Meadow: 1 site, correctly classified. • Western North American Boreal Black Spruce Dwarf-Tree Peatland: 17 sites, 94% correct. The one misclassified site had greater than 25% lichen and should be Western North American Boreal Spruce-Lichen Woodland. Unable to determine aspect and hydrology from data given, assumed not north-facing and wet. • Western North American Boreal Black Spruce Wet-Mesic Slope Woodland: 22 sites, 91% correct. The two sites that were misclassified had Cladina cover greater than 25% should be Western North American Boreal Spruce-Lichen Woodland. Assumed sites are located on north-facing slopes. • Western North American Boreal Dry Aspen-Steppe Bluff: 3 sites, all classified correctly. • Western North American Boreal Dry Grassland: 1 site, correctly classified. • Western North American Boreal Low Shrub Peatland: 7 sites, 86% correct. The one misclassified site had Betula nana dominant and should be Western North American Boreal Mesic Scrub Birch-willow Shrubland • Western North American Boreal Low Shrub-Tussock Tundra: 32 sites, 94% correct. Some sites with Carex bigellowii as the dominant sedge may not be classified correctly, but it is not possible to tell from the species composition data if it is tussock-forming. • Western North American Boreal Lowland Large River Floodplain Forest and Shrubland: 5 sites, all classified correctly; however, since I cannot determine topographic position from the data provided, and this class has broad floristic criteria only, I cannot fully evaluate the classification. • Western North American Boreal Mesic Birch-Aspen Forest: 13 sites, 77% correct. Populus balsamifera or P. tremuloides are dominant at misclassified sites; these should be Western North American Boreal Subalpine Balsam Poplar-Aspen Woodland. • Western North American Boreal Mesic Black Spruce Forest: 14 sites, 64% correct. Misclassified sites support Cladina (or unidentified lichen) at covers greater than 25%, and should be reclassified as Western North American Boreal Spruce-Lichen Woodland or Sphagnum cover is high enough (greater than 60%) to warrant classification as Western North American Boreal Black Spruce Dwarf-tree Peatland. • Western North American Boreal Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland: 16 sites, 88% correct. 2 sites clearly met the threshold for Low Shrub Tussock (over 35% Eriophorum vaginatum). 6 sites may also be tussock, however sedges are listed as “Carex” and “Eriophorum” so it is impossible to determine whether they are tussock-formers. 16

• Western North American Boreal Shrub and Herbaceous Floodplain Wetland: 4 sites, all correctly classified, however, since I cannot determine topographic position from the data provided, and this class has broad floristic criteria only, I cannot fully evaluate the classification. • Western North American Boreal Spruce-Lichen Woodland: 3 sites, all correctly classified. • Western North American Boreal Treeline White Spruce Woodland: 6 sites, 50% correct. Misclassified sites had greater than 25% lichen cover and should be Western North American Boreal Spruce-Lichen Woodland. • Western North American Boreal Tussock Tundra: 3 sites, all correctly classified. • Western North American Boreal Wet Black Spruce-Tussock Woodland: 23 sites, 87% correct. Misclassified sites fail to meet the 35% cover requirement for Eriophorum vaginatum. • Western North American Boreal White Spruce Forest: 26 sites, 91% correct. Misclassified sites had greater than 25% lichen cover and should be Western North American Boreal Spruce-Lichen Woodland. • Western North American Boreal White Spruce-Hardwood Forest: 14 sites, 93% correct. The one misclassified site lacked deciduous tree cover.

Y9b!L CWhw5{ b!ÇLhb![ t!wY [&'()*+ C,-.)/-( General comments: An air photo-interpreted map of Kenai Fjords National Park and Preserve (Boggs et al. 2008) and 1-meter resolution IKONOS imagery were overlain on the LANDFIRE map using ArcMap. Vegetated and non-vegetated covers are generally well delineated, however many of the landcover classes are misinterpreted or could be mapped to a more descriptive class. In its present state the LANDFIRE map is unuseable within the boundaries of Kenai Fjords National Park. Completion of the following major revisions would greatly improve the map for the area reviewed: • Remove and reclassify the Western Hemlock Class (see heading 7b below for more detail) • Apply a deglaciation mask to identify occurrence of mid-seral (Picea sitchensis) and late- seral (Tsuga mertensia) in early-seral locations (see 7a, 7e). Correct these occurrences as necessary. This mask is complete for the state. • Apply an avalanche zone mask to identify the confining limits of Avalanche Slope Shrubland and the excluding limits of mid-seral (Picea sitchensis) and late-seral (Tsuga mertensia) classes (see 7a, 7e, 8a). An alternative would be to collapse the Avalanche Slope Shrubland and Subalpine Alder-Salmonberry Shrubland into a Alder-Salmonberry Shrubland. Analysts have created avalanche masks over large portions of the state (John Koltun is a possible contact). • Forested types often occur above treeline and shrublands often occur above the shrubline. If possible, use a relational check that would preclude the occurrence of forested class adjacent and above subalpine classes and the occurrence of shrubland classes adjacent and above alpine classes.

Specific Comments on the EVT classes: 7. Snow/Ice is slightly overestimated at around nunataks (nunatak extent is under-mapped) and at glacier termini (likely due to reflection of bergy bits) but is otherwise well- mapped. Harding Ice Field and its component glaciers could be split out as North American Glacier and Ice Field. 8. Open Water is occasionally confused with saturated (e.g. floodplains, kettle plains) or shadowed areas (e.g. alpine barrens, steep shadowed slopes) of varying vegetation types. 9. Barren is over-mapped (possibly by as much as 50%). Much of the Barren class occurs on sparsely vegetated types and could be parsed to more descriptive fields such as: Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Sparse and Fell-field, North Pacific Alpine and Subalpine Bedrock and Scree, Floodplain and Coastal types. 10. Coastal systems: a. Only two coastal classes are mapped (Temperate Pacific Tidal Salt and Brackish Marsh and Alaskan Pacific Maritime Coastal Meadow and Slough-Levee). At a minimum Alaska Pacific Maritime Coastal Dune, Beach and Beach Meadow and Temperate Pacific Intertidal Flat should occur within the park. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Rocky Coastline certainly occurs within the park but may not be mappable. It appears that these under-represented classes are often mapped as Barren. b. The two coastal classes mapped (Temperate Pacific Tidal Salt and Brackish Marsh and Alaskan Pacific Maritime Coastal Meadow and Slough-Levee) often occur in areas that not influenced by coastal processes (e.g. floodplains, drained lake beds, kettle plains) 11. Wetlands: a. In general, peatland classes should be most abundant on the outer peninsulas, which remained ice-free during the last glacial advance. b. As mapped, peatland classes (Alaska Pacific Maritime Mountain Hemlock Peatland and Alaskan Maritime Poorly Drained Conifer Woodland) are often confused for subalpine shrub and meadows. c. Alaska Pacific Maritime Mountain Hemlock Peatland and Alaskan Maritime Poorly Drained Conifer Woodland are the dominant wetland types mapped for the park. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Dwarf-shrub-Sphagnum Peatland should have far greater representation. 12. Floodplain systems: a. Floodplain types (Alaskan Pacific Maritime Shrub and Herbaceous Floodplain Wetland and Alaskan Pacific Maritime Floodplain Forest and Shrubland) are placed correctly but under-mapped. Much of the floodplains are mapped as Barren, Alaskan Pacific Maritime Periglacial Woodland and Shrubland and Sitka Spruce forests. In many cases it would be more appropriate to classify these areas as Alaskan Pacific Maritime Floodplain Forest and Shrubland, a class that is presently not mapped within the park. b. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Floodplain is not mapped within the park. Where this type occurs is typically mapped as Barren. 13. Forested systems:

a. Hemlock types should be largely restricted to older terrains on the outer peninsulas, which remained ice-free during the last glacial advance. Terrains that have been glaciated within the last 150 years or active avalanche zones are not at a seral stage advanced enough to support hemlock. Where hemlock types are mapped in recently deglaciated areas and avalanche zones, it appears to be confused with alder shrub. b. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Western Hemlock Forest is an invalid type for KEFJ. To my knowledge one Tsuga heterophylla sapling is the only record of this species in the park. c. Alaska Pacific Maritime Mountain Hemlock Forest is often mapped at high elevation where it appears to be confused with subalpine dwarf shrub and mesic herbaceous types. d. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Subalpine Mountain Hemlock Woodland is undermapped. This type typically occurs in the subalpine on the outer peninsulas (areas not recently glaciated). e. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Sitka Spruce Forest is fairly well mapped. However, this class should not occur on very recently deglaciated terrains (Sitka spruce is restricted to terrain deglaciated more than 100 years ago) nor within active avalanche zones. Often what should be Sitka spruce is classified as Alaskan Pacific Maritime Western Hemlock Forest (an invalid class for this area); elimination of this class may help revise the distribution of Sitka Spruce within the park. 14. Shrublands: a. As mapped, Alaskan Pacific Maritime Avalanche Slope Shrubland often misses the avalanche zone. b. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Periglacial Woodland and Shrubland is undermapped. There are two routes to this class in the key. First route requires 25% cover of Populus balsamifera. This criterion is satisfied in few regions of the park (Nuka and Russian River valleys). The second route requires early-seral deglaciated uplands dominated by Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata and Salix spp. This criterion is satisfied in many areas of the park; almost all of the vegetation below trimlines of the receding glaciers would qualify as such. c. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Subalpine Alder-Salmonberry Shrubland is overmapped. Portions of this class should be parsed to Alaskan Pacific Maritime Avalanche Slope Shrubland and Alaskan Pacific Maritime Periglacial Woodland and Shrubland. 15. Alpine types: a. Alpine types are under-mapped in general. Many Barren types could be better classified as Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Sparse Shrub and Fell-field or Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland. 16. Herbaceous systems: a. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mesic Herbaceous Meadow is under-mapped. This landcover type is often mapped as Barren at high elevation and Hemlock Forest at lower elevations.

Y*'-& C:03() ;a-3&/&1 *< 4,-))&5&4-/&0' -'( 6*+

• The Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Floodplain is missing from the key. • The Sitka Spruce Beach Ridge class is listed as Alaskan Pacific Maritime Sitka Spruce Beach Ridge in the raster dataset, but as Alaskan Pacific Hyper-Maritime Sitka Spruce Beach Ridge in the key. • There are two routes to the Alaskan Pacific Maritime Periglacial Woodland and Shrubland class in the key. First route requires 25% cover of Populus balsamifera. The second route requires early-seral deglaciated uplands dominated by Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata and Salix spp. It is my understanding that Populus balsamifera is relatively easy to pull out on satellite images. Could the class with Populus balsamifera be renamed to avoid confusion within the key? A simpler alternative would be the addition of a note to the class explaining that it is also listed in the keys for Forested/Shrubland systems. • Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mesic Herbaceous Meadow was combined with Alaskan Sub- boreal and Maritime Alpine Mesic Herbaceous Meadow. Make sure this is reflected in documentation (classification and key) • Alaskan Pacific Maritime Avalanche Slope Shrubland requires >25% shrub, however the description allows herbaceous inclusions. Review the requirements for classification.

Y*'-& C:03() 4,-))&5&4-/&0' 05 9,0/) /0 *40,0.&4-, )+)/*1 )8 Notes to the evaluation: • Only the dominant classes (those with more than ~20 records) and records available occurring within the boundaries of Kenai Fjords National Park were checked. • Sites lacking dominant and co-dominant species data were not evaluated. • Sites coded as NONE, with Unclassified landcover codes or coded as landcovers that are invalid for the Kenai Fjords area (see below for a list) were not evaluated. Why are some sites Unclassified and how were these sites used mapping? The following classes should not occur in Kenai Fjords: • Aleutian Mesic Herbaceous Meadow • North Pacific Alpine and Subalpine Bedrock and Scree • North Pacific Montane Massive Bedrock-Cliff and Talus • North Pacific Shrub Swamp • Western North American Boreal Alpine Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland • Western North American Boreal Alpine Dwarf-Shrub Summit • Western North American Boreal Alpine Talus and Bedrock • Western North American Boreal Herbaceous Fen • Western North American Boreal Mesic Birch-Aspen Forest • Western North American Boreal Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland

Approximately 70% of the 679 total points were evaluated. Eighty [81] percent of the points evaluated were correctly classified. Plots appeared to be spatially accurate. Problems with the classification are listed below in alphabetical order by EVT class.

• Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mesic Herbaceous Meadow: 100% correct (if alpine mesic herbaceous is included, check documentation on lump). • Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland: 98% correct. Assumed sites with dwarf shrub greater than 25% and a maximum of 10% Sphagnum (most had much less)

are not Alaskan Pacific Maritime Dwarf-shrub-Sphagnum Peatlands and should be classified as Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland instead. • Unable to determine if tall shrub sites occur on recently deglaciated terrains or in avalanche zones from the data provided, therefore I cannot fully assess sites classified as Alaska Pacific Maritime Periglacial Woodland and Shrubland or Alaskan Pacific Maritime Avalanche Slope Shrubland. Assumed that the topographic position of these sites was correct and evaluated the classification based on the presence and abundance of plant species. • Alaskan Pacific Maritime Avalanche Slope Shrubland: 85% correct. Often Alaskan Pacific Maritime Avalanche Slope Shrubland sites are mis-classified because they fail to meet the 25% shrub cover criteria. Review the classification requirements for this type. • Alaskan Maritime Coastal Meadow and Slough-Levee: 79% correct. Unable to determine hydrological regime of coastal sites from the data provided. Assumed if Carex lyngbyei was dominant, then site is regularly inundated and should be classified as Temperate Pacific Tidal Salt and Brackish Marsh. Otherwise assumed topographic position was correctly inferred and evaluated the classification based on the presence and abundance of plant species. I am a little suspicious of Alaskan Maritime Coastal Meadow and Slough-Levee sites where Leymus mollis is either dominant or co-dominant. Leymus mollis seems to be better associated with dunes and beach meadows in Kenai Fjords; perhaps these sites would be better classified as Alaskan Pacific Maritime Coastal Dune, Beach and Beach Meadow? • Unable to determine if a site is located in a floodplain from the data provided. Assumed the topographic position was correct for Floodplain classes and evaluated based on plant species presence and abundance. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Floodplain is missing from the key; unable to evaluate. • Alaskan Pacific Maritime Floodplain Forest and Shrubland: 100% correct. • Unable to determine if forested site is poorly drained or a low-productivity forest from the data provided. I assumed forests were correctly classified with respect to their hydrology and productivity. • Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mountain Hemlock Forest: 79% correct. Several Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mountain Hemlock Forest sites have less than 25% Tsuga mertensiana and Picea sitchensis is the dominant tree; these sites should be reclassified as Alaskan Pacific Maritime Sitka Spruce Forest. • Alaskan Pacific Maritime Periglacial Woodland and Shrubland: 100% correct. • Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mountain Hemlock Peatland: 0% correct. None of these sites have the 10% tree cover necessary to qualify them as a forested system and Tsuga mertensiana is not present at many of the sites that do have tree cover. In general these sites should be reclassified as Alaskan Pacific Maritime Dwarf-shrub-Sphagnum Peatland. • Unable to determine the hydrology of Alaskan Pacific Maritime Poorly Drained Conifer Woodland sites from the data provided. Assumed drainage was poor at these sites and evaluated classification based on the presence and abundance of plant species. • Alaskan Pacific Maritime Poorly Drained Conifer Woodland: 57% correct. Approximately half the sites are classified incorrectly because they fail to meet the 10% tree cover criteria. • Alaskan Pacific Maritime Sitka Spruce Forest: 100% correct.

• Alaskan Pacific Maritime Subalpine Alder-Salmonberry Shrubland: 89% correct. Mis- classified sites fail to meet the 25% tall shrub cover criteria. • Alaskan Pacific Maritime Subalpine Copperbush Shrubland: 40% correct. Several sites are mis-classified because they have less than 25% cover of Elliottia pyroliflorus.

D[!/L9w .!ò b!ÇLhb![ t!wY Y*&/2 .0..) I contrasted an air photo interpreted map of Glacier Bay National Park (Boggs et al. 2008) and Preserve with the LANDFIRE map. The overall pattern of the alpine classes occurring in the alpine and forest classes occurring below the alpine is good. The unvegetated classes of Open Water, Snow/Ice and Barren are well mapped.

Most of the vegetated classes, however, are poorly mapped; I would guess 25% of the pixels are mapped correctly. The major issues are: 1. Old-growth forest classes such as Western Hemlock Forest and Mountain Hemlock Forest were mapped on recently disturbed areas where they do not occur. 2. The Alaskan Pacific Maritime Subalpine Alder-Salmonberry Shrubland class and the Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mesic Herbaceous Meadow class were under-mapped. Both should be dominant classes in the alpine zone. 3. The various floodplain classes were either not mapped on floodplains or mapped in uplands. 4. The various forest classes are confused with each other. 5. Classes are mapped that do occur in the Park such as North Pacific Hypermaritime Western Red-cedar-Western Hemlock Forest. 6. The various peatland classes were mapped incorrectly (mostly mapped as Alaskan Pacific Maritime Poorly Drained Conifer Woodland).

It also appears that the floodplain and deglaciation masks were not applied to the map. This would help resolve a few of the issues.

The following are comments per map class: Open Water Well mapped

Snow/Ice Well mapped

Barren (used for land use barren, also see sparsely vegetated systems) Well mapped

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mountain Hemlock Forest It is commonly mapped in recently deglaciated regions; it should not occur here. It is confused with all vegetated map classes in the deglaciated zones.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Periglacial Woodland and Shrubland Mapped on floodplains where it should not occur and on upland unglaciated surfaces. Need to apply the proper masks to divide it into floodplain and periglacial. If we convert these to floodplain then it would maybe be mapped ok on floodplains and periglacial surfaces.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Sitka Spruce Beach Ridge Mostly mapped wrong. Apply a coastal mask to spruce that occur above the beach. Most of the pixels are incorrectly mapped above rocky shorelines.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Sitka Spruce Forest When all forest classes are combined it appears to be mapped ok in some areas on the outer coast. Terrible on periglacial surfaces. This class by itself is confused with the other forest classes bringing down the accuracy.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Subalpine Mountain Hemlock Woodland It is mapped in the alpine which is the correct location. But it should not occur on the recently deglaciated landscapes.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Western Hemlock Forest On unglaciated surfaces, the closed canopy forest were mapped ok, but it extends too far upslope into the alpine. It is commonly mapped in recently deglaciated regions. It should not occur here. It is confused with all vegetated map classes in the deglaciated zones. Commonly mapped on Alsek floodplain where it should not occur.

North Pacific Hypermaritime Western Red-cedar-Western Hemlock Forest It is mapped in GB, but it does not occur here or further west.

North Pacific Maritime Mesic Subalpine Parkland This is mapped in the park but it does not occur here.

North Pacific Mesic Western Hemlock-Yellow-cedar Forest Looks good. This class is probably impossible to spectrally separate from the other Hemlock systems.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Sparse Shrub and Fell-field Difficult to evaluate on deglaciated surfaces, but they are in the correct zones. Unglaciated surfaces look good.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Subalpine Copperbush Shrubland Should not occur on recently deglaciated landscapes. The slope position looks good on the older landscapes.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Avalanche Slope Shrubland Not mapped, but it should have been mapped.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Subalpine Alder-Salmonberry Shrubland

This should be the dominant class within the Park. It is badly under-mapped. The mappers probably missed 90% of the sites.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland Difficult to evaluate on deglaciated surfaces, but they are in the correct zones. Unglaciated surfaces look good.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Coastal Dune, Beach, and Beach Meadow Not mapped. That’s ok, it may be too narrow to pick out. I would suggest collapsing this class with the Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mesic Herbaceous Meadow.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mesic Herbaceous Meadow At low elevations this system is mixed up with the Alaskan Pacific Maritime Coastal Dune, Beach, and Beach Meadow. It is a dominant system in the alpine but was not mapped. Huge gap in information.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Dwarf-shrub-Sphagnum Peatland This is a common system but it was rarely mapped. It was mapped as Alaskan Pacific Maritime Poorly Drained Conifer Woodland

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Floodplain Forest and Shrubland Mapped incorrectly except for parts of the Alsek River and a few other sites.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mountain Hemlock Peatland This is a common system but it was rarely mapped. It was mapped as Alaskan Pacific Maritime Poorly Drained Conifer Woodland

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Poorly Drained Conifer Woodland It was mapped on the deglaciated surfaces where it does not occur. On outer coast this system is confused with various peatland systems.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Shore Pine Peatland Not mapped but should be common on outer coast.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Shrub and Herbaceous Floodplain Wetland Not mapped. That’s ok, it’s a minor system.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Wet Low Shrubland Can't evaluate.

North Pacific Shrub Swamp Not mapped, but it should have been mapped. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Wet Meadow Can't evaluate except that it is in the correct zone (alpine) and over-mapped on some steep slopes.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Coastal Meadow and Slough-Levee Need to convert the upland sites to Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mesic Herbaceous Meadow. The coastal sites might be correct.

Alaskan Pacific Maritime Fen and Wet Meadow Typically an uncommon system and it was rarely mapped.

North Pacific Maritime Eelgrass Bed Not mapped, but it should have been mapped.

Temperate Pacific Freshwater Emergent Marsh 95% wrong. It is mapped on slopes and in the tidal zone.

Temperate Pacific Tidal Salt and Brackish Marsh Mapped mostly in correct zone, but should be more extensive.

D!Ç9{ hC ÇI9 !w/ÇL/ b!ÇLhb![ t!wY Y . I contrasted a landsat-interpreted map of Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve (Boggs et al. 1999) with the LANDFIRE map. The unvegetated classes of Open Water and Barren are well-mapped. Most of the vegetated classes, however, are confused with other classes. Although no one error dominates the map, a few of the larger errors are: • The various Alaska Arctic Dwarf-Shrubland systems are under-mapped on North side (Arctic) of Park. • Alaska Arctic Sedge Freshwater Marsh, Alaska Arctic Pendantgrass Freshwater Marsh and open water are mapped on mountain slopes. Apply a DEM mask to change it. • Many tussock systems (such as Alaska Arctic Shrub-Tussock Tundra) are mapped on steep slopes. Apply a slope mask of slopes >5% and move them to another system. They are generally under-mapped in much of the lowlands.

The following are comments per map class:

North American Glacier and Ice Field Can’t evaluate.

Open Water Generally good except you have lakes mapped on mountain slopes. Use the DEM mask to convert them to other classes. Some lakes and smaller streams are mapped as Boreal White Spruce Forest and several other classes.

Barren Generally looks good, but sometimes over-mapped.

Recently Burned Forest and Woodland - High Severity Not mapped in Park

Alaska Arctic Acidic Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland I combined all of the Dwarf shrubland systems for my evaluation (i.e. Alaska Arctic Acidic Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland, Alaska Arctic Acidic Dwarf-Shrub Lichen Tundra, Alaska Arctic Dwarf-Shrubland, Alaska Arctic Non-Acidic Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland, Alaska Arctic Non-Acidic Dwarf-Shrub Lichen Tundra, Western North American Boreal Alpine Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland, Western North American Boreal Alpine Dwarf-Shrub Summit, Western North American Boreal Alpine Dwarf-Shrub-Lichen Shrubland, Western North American Boreal Alpine Ericaceous Dwarf-Shrubland). Simply mapping a dwarf shrubland system would be a good start. Apply the acidic vs. nonacidic mask after mapping a single dwarf shrubland system or the following more detailed classes: 1. Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland, 2. Dwarf-Shrub Lichen Tundra, 3. Dwarf-Shrubland, -It is confused with the Alaska Arctic Acidic Sparse Tundra, and Alaska Arctic Non-Acidic Sparse Tundra, but, in general, is mapped on the correct slope position. -Badly under-mapped on North side (Arctic) of Park

Alaska Arctic Acidic Dwarf-Shrub Lichen Tundra -See Alaska Arctic Acidic Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland

Alaska Arctic Acidic Sparse Tundra I combined the sparse dwarf shrub systems for my evaluation (Alaska Arctic Acidic Sparse Tundra, Alaska Arctic Non-Acidic Sparse Tundra). They are under-mapped and should extend further up slope into the area mapped as barren. It is often confused with the other Dwarf- Shrubland systems, and should be more extensive downslope. -Especially under-mapped on North (arctic) side of Park.

Alaska Arctic Active Inland Dune Small Dunes are not mapped. Probably too difficult to map at fine scale. The larger Kobuk Dunes were mapped as Dunes, but mislabeled--should have been labeled as Boreal Active Dune.

Alaska Arctic Bedrock and Talus Not mapped. This was mapped as barren. Need to resolve classification on this point.

Alaska Arctic Coastal Brackish Meadow Correct. Not mapped.

Alaska Arctic Coastal Sedge-Dwarf-Shrubland Correct. Not mapped.

Alaska Arctic Dwarf-Shrubland -See Alaska Arctic Acidic Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland

Alaska Arctic Dwarf-Shrub-Sphagnum Peatland Can’t evaluate.

Alaska Arctic Floodplain Small floodplains are mapped in the mountains—they are over-mapped. Major floodplains in the mountains and coastal plain were not mapped.

Alaska Arctic Freshwater Aquatic Bed Did not appear to be mapped in Park. That’s ok, it’s a rare system.

Alaska Arctic Large River Floodplain – Please apply the appropriate floodplain mask to delineate this system.

Alaska Arctic Lichen Tundra This is an uncommon system in the Park and it is mapped as such. It is also confused with low shrub.

Alaska Arctic Marine Beach and Beach Meadow Not present in Park.

Alaska Arctic Mesic Alder Shrubland This is under-mapped on the south side of the Park. There are typically some patches of it above treeline. When all the Alder systems are combined it is a major type (Alaska Arctic Mesic Alder Shrubland, Alaska Sub-boreal Avalanche Slope Shrubland, Alaska Sub-boreal Mesic Subalpine Alder Shrubland). Combined they are under-mapped on the West side of the Park.

Alaska Arctic Mesic Herbaceous Meadow This is an uncommon system and it is mapped as such. But I cannot evaluate its spatial accuracy.

Alaska Arctic Mesic Sedge-Dryas Tundra Confused with numerous systems including Alaska Arctic Scrub Birch-Ericaceous Shrubland, and Tussock Tundra systems.

Alaska Arctic Mesic Sedge-Willow Tundra Confused with numerous systems including Alaska Arctic Scrub Birch-Ericaceous Shrubland, and Tussock Tundra systems.

Alaska Arctic Mesic-Wet Willow Shrubland Looks ok within mountains, but probably over-mapped in flatlands on north side of Park.

Alaska Arctic Non-Acidic Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland -See Alaska Arctic Acidic Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland

Alaska Arctic Non-Acidic Dwarf-Shrub Lichen Tundra -See Alaska Arctic Acidic Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland

Alaska Arctic Non-Acidic Sparse Tundra -See Alaska Arctic Acidic Sparse Tundra

Alaska Arctic Pendantgrass Freshwater Marsh It is incorrectly mapped on mountain slopes. Apply a DEM mask to eliminate it.

Alaska Arctic Permafrost Plateau Dwarf-Shrub Lichen Tundra It does not occur in the Park and it is not mapped.

Alaska Arctic Polygonal Ground Mesic Shrub Tundra It is mapped in the correct locations.

Alaska Arctic Polygonal Ground Shrub-Tussock Tundra OK. Should be rare within park and it was mapped that way.

Alaska Arctic Polygonal Ground Tussock Tundra It is mapped extensively on the north side of the Park. It might be correct.

Alaska Arctic Polygonal Ground Wet Sedge Tundra OK. Should be rare within park and it was mapped that way.

Alaska Arctic Scrub Birch-Ericaceous Shrubland Should be more extensive on the rolling landscapes on the north west side of Park and less extensive on the rolling landscapes on the north east side of Park. Should be more extensive on North half of mountain range. It is one of the major systems.

Alaska Arctic Sedge Freshwater Marsh Marsh systems mapped extensively on mountain slopes. Apply a DEM mask to change it.

Alaska Arctic Shrub-Tussock Tundra Tussock systems were mapped incorrectly on steep slopes. Apply a slope mask of slopes >5% go to another system. On the west side of the Park, the Shrub-tussock system currently mapped on level landscapes appears to be in the correct areas but sometimes over-mapped. On the rest of the park it is badly under-mapped.

Alaska Arctic Tidal Flat It does not occur in the Park and it is not mapped.

Alaska Arctic Tidal Marsh It does not occur in the Park and it is not mapped.

Alaska Arctic Tussock Tundra Generally in correct location, but is over-mapped in mountain valleys.

Alaska Arctic Tussock-Lichen Tundra This was not mapped in the Park. It is hard to distinguish from Alaska Arctic Tussock Tundra.

Alaska Arctic Wet Sedge Meadow This is a rare system and it was mapped rarely within the Park.

Alaska Arctic Wet Sedge-Sphagnum Peatland This is a rare system and it was not mapped Park.

Alaska Sub-boreal and Maritime Alpine Mesic Herbaceous Meadow This is a rare system and it was not mapped Park.

Alaska Sub-boreal Avalanche Slope Shrubland Not mapped in the park, but should have been.

Alaska Sub-boreal Mesic Subalpine Alder Shrubland In correct slope position but is under-mapped on the west side of the Park. Should be a dominant system.

Western North American Boreal Active Inland Dune The larger Kobuk Dunes were mapped as Dunes, but should have been labeled as Boreal Active Inland Dune. Smaller active dunes were not mapped, they may have been too small.

Western North American Boreal Alpine Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland See Alaska Arctic Acidic Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland.

Western North American Boreal Alpine Dwarf-Shrub Summit This is a sparse system. It is mapped it in the right location. See Alaska Arctic Acidic Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland

Western North American Boreal Alpine Dwarf-Shrub-Lichen Shrubland See Alaska Arctic Acidic Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland.

Western North American Boreal Alpine Ericaceous Dwarf-Shrubland See Alaska Arctic Acidic Dryas Dwarf-Shrubland.

Western North American Boreal Alpine Floodplain This system is confused with the WNA Boreal Riparian Stringer Forest and Shrubland. It should be restricted to the larger floodplains and not the narrow stringers extending into the alpine. It is also mapped in the Arctic. Convert these to the Arctic Floodplain system.

Western North American Boreal Alpine Mesic Herbaceous Meadow This is a rare system in the park and it is mapped as such.

Western North American Boreal Alpine Talus and Bedrock It was not mapped in the Park.

Western North American Boreal Black Spruce Dwarf-Tree Peatland

Generally mapped on the correct slope position. Some of the errors can be eliminated by applying a slope mask and any of the sites with over 5% slope go to one of the upland forest systems. Possibly collapse with: Western North American Boreal Black Spruce-Tamarack Fen. Evaluate whether Western North American Boreal Wet Black Spruce-Tussock Woodland can be accurately distinguished from the other wet black spruce woodland systems, if not, then consider combining all three.

Western North American Boreal Black Spruce-Tamarack Fen Generally mapped on the correct slope position. Some of the errors can be eliminated by applying a slope mask and any of the sites with over 5% slope go to one of the upland forest systems. (See comments under Black Spruce Dwarf-Tree Peatland.)

Western North American Boreal Wet Black Spruce-Tussock Woodland Generally mapped on the correct slope position. Some of the errors can be eliminated by applying a slope mask and any of the sites with over 5% slope go to one of the upland forest systems. (See comments under Black Spruce Dwarf-Tree Peatland.)

Western North American Boreal Black Spruce Wet-Mesic Slope Woodland I evaluated all of the mesic Boreal Woodland systems as a group (i.e. Western North American Boreal Black Spruce Wet-Mesic Slope Woodland, Western North American Boreal Spruce- Lichen Woodland, and Western North American Boreal Treeline White Spruce Woodland). They are on the correct slope position, but over-mapped in some areas and under-mapped in others. As a group it is one of the better-mapped types.

Western North American Boreal Deciduous Shrub Swamp A small amount was mapped, it might be correct.

Western North American Boreal Dry Aspen-Steppe Bluff It should occur within the park but it was not mapped. It would be a common system on south facing slopes.

Western North American Boreal Dry Grassland It should occur within the park but it was not mapped. It would be a common system on south facing slopes.

I reviewed the wetland systems as a unit: Western North American Boreal Freshwater Aquatic Bed Western North American Boreal Freshwater Emergent Marsh Western North American Boreal Herbaceous Fen These systems were mapped in the valley bottoms, which is correct, but it may have been over- mapped.

Western North American Boreal Low Shrub Peatland It was not mapped in the park. It should be common in the flatlands on the south side.

Western North American Boreal Low Shrub-Tussock Tundra

This should be a common system on the rolling hills and moderate to flat areas. It is under- mapped. If it cannot be mapped and needs to be combined with another system, I would suggest Western North American Boreal Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland.

Western North American Boreal Lowland Large River Floodplain Forest and Shrubland Apply the “large river mask” to correctly map this system. Parts of the floodplain are mapped correctly but others are not.

Western North American Boreal Mesic Birch-Aspen Forest It is on the correct slope position. I can’t evaluate its spatial accuracy.

Western North American Boreal Mesic Black Spruce Forest Under-mapped but in correct position on landscape.

Western North American Boreal Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland In correct position on landscape (above tree-line) but should be more common than currently mapped.

Western North American Boreal Montane Floodplain Forest and Shrubland Well mapped in some areas, and under-mapped in others. Plus many of the mapped sites are confused with WNA Boreal Riparian Stringer Forest and Shrubland.

Western North American Boreal Riparian Stringer Forest and Shrubland It was not mapped. It was mapped as Western North American Boreal Alpine Floodplain.

Western North American Boreal Sedge-Dwarf-Shrub Bog It is mapped on mountain sideslopes. It does not occur here. Use a DEM mask to delete them. Otherwise, the class is mapped on the correct landscapes.

Western North American Boreal Shrub and Herbaceous Floodplain Wetland This is a limited system and many sites are not mapped.

Western North American Boreal Spruce-Lichen Woodland It is mapped on the correct landscape, but possibly over-mapped.

Western North American Boreal Subalpine Balsam Poplar-Aspen Woodland It is not map it in the park. To create it, apply an elevation mask to the Western North American Boreal Mesic Birch-Aspen Forest system.

Western North American Boreal Treeline White Spruce Woodland It is mapped as being common which is correct, but it is confused with other classes. It should generally be the last forest class as you move upslope and grades into the alpine systems.

Western North American Boreal Tussock Tundra

Some of it is mapped in the alpine and should be masked out. It occurs at lower elevations and generally on flat or rolling terrain.

Western North American Boreal Wet Meadow It is mapped it on the correct landscape.

Western North American Boreal White Spruce Forest I evaluated this system by collapsing it with the black spruce system: Western North American Boreal Mesic Black Spruce Forest. They should extend up more of the mountain valleys. Otherwise they are generally mapped on the correct landscapes.

Western North American Boreal White Spruce-Hardwood Forest You have mapped it on the correct landscape, but likely over-mapped. Also, it rarely occurs on north facing slopes.

Western North American Sub-boreal Mesic Bluejoint Meadow This is a rare system and it is mapped as such, and on the correct slope position.

íw!bD9[[!{!LbÇ 9[L!{ b!ÇLhb![ t!wY a&6* 5755+ A landsat-interpreted map of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park (Stumpf 2007, Jorgenson et al. 2008) was overlain on the LANDFIRE map using ArcMap. Landsat imagery (30-meter) and plot data from LANDFIRE were also used to assist with interpretation of the EVT map. Evaluation of EVT classes: 1. Herbaceous systems: a. Alaska Sub-boreal and Maritime Alpine Mesic Herbaceous Meadow – this type shows a very spotty distribution in the Crystalline Hills/Lakina drainage/Fireweed Mt. area, which seems correct. I expected this type to be more prevalent in the Samovar Hills/Agassiz Lakes, Icy Bay/Malaspina and Bremner/Tebay Lakes areas. I think they have meadows of mappable size in the Bremner/Tebay Lakes area, at least. b. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Fen and Wet Meadow – this type occurs in tiny areas of the Bremner area. I am unable to confirm this distribution as no data points coincide with the type, however this distribution is plausible. c. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mesic Herbaceous Meadow – this type occurs in the Icy Bay/Malaspina area, and although I expected it to have a sparse distribution, it is under represented. Probably this is due to the areas mapped erroneously as western and mountain hemlock. The distribution of Mesic Herbaceous Meadow on southern Montague and Latouche Islands in Prince William Sound appear to be correct. d. North Pacific Maritime Eelgrass Bed - small component or not present e. North Pacific Shrub Swamp - small component or not present f. Temperate Pacific Freshwater Aquatic Bed - small component or not present g. Temperate Pacific Freshwater Emergent Marsh - small component or not present

h. Western North American Boreal Freshwater Aquatic Bed - This unit seems well suited to describe the lower slope ponds of Mt Sanford and the Copper Basin in general, where the individual patches are small and scattered, but the occurrence of large patches in the high alpine is incorrect. A large patch shows up on Jaeger Mesa, which is an expansive flat-topped alpine feature that is sedge dominated and does not have any large water bodies. I suspect confusion of this cover for a Freshwater Aquatic bed results from either cloud cover or late melting snow. In the photo the mis-mapped section of the mesa is obscured by clouds; otherwise the map well-approximates the vegetation (App. 2, Fig. 1-4). Further, occurrences of this type near the Copper River terminus below Tanada Peak seem to be mis- mapped due to shadow; the patches east of Tanade Lake are also suspect. i. Western North American Boreal Herbaceous Fen - this type occurs incorrectly in alpine areas and is mis-mapped as spruce forest at lower elevations (App. 2, Fig. 5-8). j. Western North American Sub-boreal Mesic Bluejoint Meadow – this type has a very small and spotty distribution, which is plausible as bluejoint meadow is related to small pond/kettle succession in the mid-Copper River/Mt Sanford area. In the Crystalline Hills, bluejoint meadows are mapped on upper slopes. I assume both cover types are lumped despite their differing successional pathways. Most of those signatures are light pink but some of the hotter, redder signatures suggest a major forb component, which would perhaps necessitate a reclassification.

2. Shrubland systems: a. Alaska Sub-boreal Avalanche Slope Shrubland – where this type is mapped on western Mt. Drum and Mt. Sanford, the slopes appear too shallow to provide the energy necessary for an avalanche. Unlike an avalanche path, this type is limited in local extent, and instead of running perpendicular to the slope, the units follow the contour. The occurrence of Avalanche Slope Shrubland on upper slopes seems more plausible, but the signature is very grey suggesting that the cover may instead be sparse. I'm surprised this type does not occur on the steeper slopes of the Bremner, Wernicke, and lower Copper Rivers b. Alaska Sub-boreal Mesic Subalpine Alder Shrubland - this type and Alaska Sub- boreal Avalanche Slope Shrubland are found together on the west slopes of Mt. Drum and Mt. Sanford. The mapping appears adequate, but some of the signatures are grayish and might indicate sparse cover instead. I recall a lot of birch in this area, so perhaps these stands are mixed opposed to pure alder. There are some good alder patches in the area, but where Alder Shrubland is mapped on the southern slopes of the Crystalline Hills the signature is too dark grey and is mapped by the Wrangell-St. Elias Landcover map (WRST2) as black spruce and birch scrub. c. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland – This type is not well- mapped in the park. I would expect Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland in the Icy Bay/Malaspina area, where it is probably associated with the sparse shrub fell- field type, but it is mapped with a very limited distribution in this area. The distribution of Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland outside the park, in the Bering Glacier area, looks pretty good. I have seen this type in the Grindle Hills. This type is

mapped extensively in the upper Tana river and its tributaries, however dwarf shrub sould be limited or absent in this area due to the strong maritime influence. The WRST2 maps these areas as alder scrub, upland birch forest and subalpine poplar. There is also a straight-line boundary on the north side of the West Fork at its confluence with the main stem of the Tana (App. 2, Fig. 9). d. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Avalanche Slope Shrubland – this type occurs in a few spots in the Bremner, appears to be adequately mapped. e. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Dwarf-shrub-Sphagnum Peatland - similar to fen and wet meadow types that are incorrectly mapped in alpine areas, this Dwarf-shrub- Sphagnum Peatland is showing up in the nunataks of the NW Malaspina Glacier area, which seems suspect. f. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Subalpine Alder-Salmonberry Shrubland - this type is extensively mapped in the Granite Creek/Upper Tana area but I don't know if it should be. I can't tell from the imagery if this is truly alder-salmonberry. The data points don't mention salmonberry but they do mention alder-birch, which fits with the photo (though I think these are similar signatures). WRST2 map designates this area as boreal; When I was there I remember a few transitional species reminiscent of the coast but I don't recall salmonberry. Alder-Salmonberry Shrubland is also extensively mapped in the Bremner area where it is more likely to occur. The several data points that occur within this mapped type do not mention salmonberry, but they do indicate Aruncus as a sub-dominant, a species that would be associated with this type. The Icy Bay/Malaspina area would be a very appropriate place for Alder-Salmonberry Shrubland, although from the photo this type appears to be over-mapped, perhaps at the expense of forb or pure alder cover. g. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Subalpine Copperbush Shrubland - small component or not present h. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Wet Low Shrubland - not familiar with this type, not reviewed i. Western North American Boreal Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland – there are problems where this boreal type transitions to maritime types, typically the transition is either misplaced or too abrupt. This type is also mapped as patches that appear too large, encompassing entire valleys that should have a more complex pattern (App. 2, Fig. 10-20).

3. Forested systems: a. Alaska Sub-boreal Mountain Hemlock-White Spruce Forest - small component or not present b. Alaska Sub-boreal White Spruce-Hardwood Forest - small component or not present c. Alaska Sub-boreal White-Lutz Spruce Forest and Woodland - this type is extensively mapped in the boreal areas of the Hanagita area west to the confluence of the Chitina and Copper Rivers, and east to the middle-Tana and the Kiagna Rivers. Curiously, this type is not well-represented in the more transitional drainages of the Bremner and Werkicke Rivers further south. I'm not familiar with all the features that separate sub-boreal from boreal forests. I assume

that besides the presence of Lutz spruce (often overlooked), differences would relate to understory elements like Oplopanax, Menziesia, Vaccinium ovalifolium. None of the data points had these as co-dominants, but a complete listing of understory elements was not available for this review. So my suggestion would be to review why this an related types map as sub-boreal here, but as boreal in valleys further south (App. 2, Fig. 21-31). d. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mountain Hemlock Forest – the distribution of this type around Cordova looks plausible, but appears to be over mapped in the Duktoth River area. I have no data points or maps to compare, but within the park at Icy Bay the distribution looks too large on the north shore of the Taan Fjord. Data points in or proximal to the type as mapped are all shrub - tall alder, willow, or a combination. The same slope is mapped mostly as scrub on the WRST2 map, and they have a few bands of low cottonwood forest that show up as mountain hemlock on the LANDFIRE map. Further, this unit is mapped incorrectly high above the Malaspina Glacier on the slopes of Mt. St. Elias (App. 2, Fig. 31-34). e. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Mountain Hemlock Peatland – this type occurs from the Cordova area through the Copper River Delta to Kayak Island but not in the expected areas. Areas mapped as Mountain Hemlock Peatland appear to be flat herbaceous wetlands, and in the photo cloud cover is spatially correlated with the patches of this type. I would expect hemlock peatlands to occur as poorly drained 'pocket' wetlands in rocky, areas like Heney Ridge and fringing some flat peatlands of the Delta, located more along the Cordova Road, not so close to the open ocean. f. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Periglacial Woodland and Shrubland - the data points seem to support the correct mapping of type- mostly cottonwood seres of forest/woodlands and scrub with a little spruce. The limited overlap between the LANDFIRE and WRST2 map near Taan Fiord shows that Periglacial Woodland and Shrubland are mapped (by WRST2) as scrub. g. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Poorly Drained Conifer Woodland – this type occurs as a few large polygons around the Taan Fiord; area that the WRST2 map maps as scrub, and the few data points in or nearby also records scrub (although one is a poplar stand). The photo signature does not suggest conifer. Please review this class. h. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Sitka Spruce Forest – this type occurs in some questionable locations. For example, this type is mapped in the Tana and Bremmer areas, however plot data in the entire Tana drainage, especially at the West Fork indicate white spruce. In addition, the Bremner area might better be described as sub-boreal white spruce-Lutz spruce (the only conifer data point says white spruce). I remember some trees looking like Lutz spruce when I was there, but most keyed to white spruce. Sitka Spruce Forest is mapped extensively in the Taan Fjord and Malaspina Forelands but this cover does not appear to be extensive on the photo, or what I recall of the area. The photo suggests alder, and that is what is mapped by WRST2, although they do interpret some as spruce. Only one data point in the area, at the Chaix Hills nunataks, has spruce. I would expect Sitka Spruce Forest in older, later successional areas in the Malaspina Forelands. Sitka Spruce Forest is also incorrectly placed as small patches on the

upper Tana Glacier and icefields north of the Malaspina Glacier, which appear to be ice or shadow on the photo. i. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Subalpine Mountain Hemlock Woodland - this type occurs in the Icy Bay area in what should be shrubland (alder or alder-willow) similar to the western hemlock type (although it seems not to be mapped as extensively as western hemlock). j. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Western Hemlock Forest – this type occurs around Icy Bay in areas that appear to be shrublands. Western Hemlock Forest is shown on The Arrowhead (the peninsula exposed by the retreat of the Guyot Glacier) but when I was there in 1992, the tallest thing growing was two meter alder. I doubt anything like a forest has established since. The occurrence of this type south of the mouth of the Taan Fiord on the map is extensive; I doubt there is any hemlock there at all, maybe Sitka spruce woodland. Most of this area is mapped as tall alder-willow scrub on the WRST2 map, and nearby data points indicate scrub. Note that WRST2 does not indentify a western hemlock type (App. 2, Fig 31-34). k. North Pacific Hypermaritime Western Red-cedar-Western Hemlock Forest – this type occurs as a band in the Malaspina Forelands; a young terrain that should not support late seral species such as western red-cedar and western hemlock. My first guess was that this type is misinterpreted Sitka spruce Forest, but the photo signature looks lighter, a brighter red, suggesting a shrub type (App. 2, Fig 31- 34). l. North Pacific Mesic Western Hemlock-Yellow-cedar Forest - the only occurrence of this type is in the icefields north of the Malaspina Glacier. On the photo it looks like ice or shadow. There are other forest types scattered in this area as well as some dwarf ericaceous scrub; the dwarf ericaceous scrub might occur in tiny patches on nunataks (but the photo does look like ice shadow here also (App. 2, Fig 31-34). m. Western North American Boreal Black Spruce-Tamarack Fen – small component, adequately mapped n. Western North American Boreal Dry Aspen-Steppe Bluff – this occurs in areas that make sense geographically, but the full extent of the type is not well captured, often because this type is mis-mapped as mesic aspen. Dry Aspen-Steppe Bluff systems are typically long and narrow with many discontinuities. I am not sure how to best increase the accuracy or how to distinguish it from the mesic aspen but see App. 2, Fig 35-49. o. Western North American Boreal Mesic Birch-Aspen Forest - this type seems to be mistaken for alder and shrub birch-willow (App. 2, Fig. 20, 50-57). p. Western North American Boreal Mesic Black Spruce Forest – this type is incorrectly mapped at elevations above its natural range (App. 2, Fig. 58, 59).

4. Floodplain systems: a. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Floodplain - small component or not present b. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Floodplain Forest and Shrubland - this type seems adequately mapped for most of the coastal areas, but perhaps out of place in the Bremner River area near the Copper River. Forested data points in or near this type indicate white spruce. While Lutz spruce (or even some Sitka spruce,

although I didn't see any there) may be in the area, they are not common. The area might better be mapped as sub-boreal with spruce-hardwood or white-Lutz spruce. c. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Shrub and Herbaceous Floodplain Wetland - small component or not present

5. Alpine systems: a. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Sparse Shrub and Fell-field – this type is adequately mapped. The photo looks like this type might incorrectly encompass scrub and forb herbaceous, but there are no data points to confirm this. The WRST2 map does not include this type, the most similar type (subalpine low blueberry) is of very limited extent. b. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Alpine Wet Meadow – this type occurs in a few patches around the slopes north of the Malaspina. I am surprised it does not occur around Icy Bay, as I remember delightful Wet Meadows in the Taan Fiord. It is also surprising to see this type mapped on the North-facing slopes of Mt. Owen. I doubt wet meadows truly occur here.

6. Coastal systems: a. Alaskan Pacific Maritime Sitka Spruce Beach Ridge - this type is not mapped by LANDFIRE in the park. There are, however well-developed beach ridge forests on the Malaspina Forelands and Cape Yakataga areas that are incorrectly mapped as Maritime Sitka spruce forests. b. Temperate Pacific Intertidal Flat - small component or not present c. Temperate Pacific Tidal Salt and Brackish Marsh - small component or not present

7. Unvegetated and Sparse systems: a. Barren - the LANDFIRE map under maps very sparsely vegetated areas. As a result, the Barren type is over mapped. I have only picked out the big inconsistencies- see App. 2, Fig. 60, 61 for problems near the tributaries of the North Fork of the Bremner. b. North Pacific Alpine and Subalpine Bedrock and Scree - small component or not present c. Open Water – this type is well mapped. d. Snow/Ice - this type seems to be over mapped, especially in the northeast quarter where it is probably confused with late-lying snow and ice, or possibly obscured by shadow or clouds. Snow/Ice is typically mapped as directly bordering vegetation and not associated with barren rock. The WRST2 map maps these bordering areas as vegetated.

w9/haa9b5!ÇLhb{

Mapping: While some combining of classes is recommended, collapsing classes alone does not sufficiently improve the problems with map accuracy. Across the state, we found that classes 37 that were not closely related were confused in the map. At a minimum, efforts should be undertaken to improve the map accuracy of the following broad categories: barren, water, coniferous forest, deciduous forest, low and tall shrub, dwarf shrub, mesic herbaceous, woody wetlands, and herbaceous wetlands. Vegetation structure, masks, and models can be used to further improve mapping within the broad classes.

The flood plain model did not perform well enough to be useful in any of the review areas. Shrub types were under-mapped in the flood plain, while floodplain wetlands were over-mapped in the floodplain and well beyond the floodplain boundaries. Mapping the existing vegetation in the floodplain would provide a more useful product. When the layers become available to create a more robust flood plain model, the mask should be applied. The STATSGO map should be available by the end of 2009 for the boreal region.

Recent burns and other early seral vegetation types should be mapped as the existing vegetation. Models can be used to derive ecological system.

Slope models could be used to search out classes that typically occur on flat or gently sloping terrain but have been mapped on slopes, such as Fresh Marsh, Herbaceous Fen, or Black Spruce Dwarf-Tree Peatland.

Elevation checks should be used to search out tree and shrub classes that are mapped above their elevational range. Because the elevation ranges for common species vary across the state, limits will have to be developed specific to a particular region. This information has been compiled for the Central Alaska Network of the National Park Service.

Geographic range checks should be applied for common forest classes to search out classes that have been mapped beyond their range, particularly coniferous species in the maritime zone.

A deglaciation mask should be used in the maritime zone to search out incorrectly mapped classes and correctly assign these areas to appropriate recently deglaciated systems.

Height mapping categories should match the categories defined in the classification and Biophysical Setting models. Heights should be cross-checked with the mapped EVT classes to make sure there is agreement between the height and structural definition of the EVT.

The Alaska coastline boundary used for the map is too coarse-scale. Use a coastline boundary that does not truncate mainland, spits, and barrier islands.

Plot assignment to Ecological System: Our review of the classification of plot data showed that a large percentage of plots could not be assigned to a class based solely on species composition data. These plots were classified according to the dominant vegetation cover (i.e. unclassified Alder, unclassified Willow, etc.). The plots that were classified to an EVT generally had high levels of agreement compared to the manual classification process; therefore we do not believe that there is a fundamental problem with the sequence table process. The manual review did show that in some cases closely related types are difficult to classify based solely on species

38 composition. It is also not possible to classify early seral vegetation correctly using the sequence table method.

Certain datasets, however, may contain plots that are accurately classified and spatially located, but still may not be useful for training plots or accuracy assessment plots. Many of the plots were not collected for landcover mapping purposes, and as such, may not be located to best represent the class in which they occur. We recommend a review of these datasets.

We did not review the sketchmap polygon datset, but based on our experience collecting the data, we suspect that there is a high error rate within the dataset in the non-forested areas. Short- stature vegetation was difficult to distinguish from high elevation, and polygons often included pixels that were not part of the targeted class. These polygons need a heavy-handed review to make them more useful.

Ecological System Classification: Image analysts and classifiers should work together to resolve issues related to what can and cannot be mapped accurately. For example: is 10% too low a threshold for tree cover in forested classes? Is 10% too low a threshold for vegetation cover for sparse classes? Analysts should identify classes that cannot be separated spectrally, and if those classes cannot be separated using other methods (elevation, slope, etc.) then combine as recommended by classifiers.

Additional information: Two additional reviewers have conducted accuracy assessments of the LANDFIRE EVT map in specific locations in Alaska. These results should be added to those listed in this report in future improvements to the map. 1) Dan Ferhringer conducted an accuracy assessment on the north slope (western portion of zone 67) as part of the North Slope Science Initiative mapping effort. He has made his results available to the LANDFIRE mapping team. 2) Kelly Walton conducted an assessment of willow mapping as part of a moose habitat study in the Placer Valley (between zone 75/77). She found that willow-dominated sites were often misclassified as white spruce-hardwood, black spruce dwarf peatland, birch aspen, and mesic bluejoint meadow. She also lists EVTs that are mapped in the area, but do not occur there (Walton 2009).

!/Ybhí[95D9a9bÇ{ We would like to thank The Nature Conservancy Global Fire Initiative for financial support for this review. Tina Ting-Wan Kuo provided valuable assistance with database manipulation and the production of the error matrices for Denali National Park and Aniakchak National Monument. We thank Carl Roland (National Park Service) for making his extensive Denali mini-grid dataset available to us for this review. We are grateful to Beth Koltun (National Park Service) for filling numerous data requests for digital imagery and landcover maps for all project areas. w9C9w9b/9{ Boggs, K., S.C. Klein, L. Flagstad, T. Boucher, J. Grunblatt, and B. Koltun. 2008. Landcover classes, ecosystems and plant associations of Kenai Fjords National Park. Natural

Resource Technical Report NPS/KEFJ/NRTR—2008/136. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Boggs, K. W., S. C. Klein, J. E. Grunblatt, G. P. Streveler, and B. Koltun, 2008. Landcover classes and plant associations of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/GLBA/NRTR—2008/093. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Boggs, K., A. Garibaldi, J. L. Stevens, J. Grunblatt, and T. Helt. 2001. Denali National Park and Preserve landcover mapping project Volume2: Landcover classes and plant associations. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/DENA/NRTR—2001/002. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Boggs, K., A. Garibaldi, J. L. Stevens, and T. Helt, 1999. Landsat derived map and landcover descriptions for Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/GAAR/NRTR—1999/001. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Boggs, K., and M. Sturdy. 2005. Plant associations and post-fire vegetation succession in Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/YUCH/NRTR—2005/001. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Campbell, J. B. 1987. Introduction to Remote Sensing, Guilford, New York, 1987 Congalton, R. G. 1991. A review of assessing the accuracy of classification of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. Environ. 37:35-46. Ducks Unlimited. 2007. Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges Earth Cover Classification: Phase 1. Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 3074 gold Canal Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670. Jensen, R. J. 1996. Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective, 2nd edition. Prentice Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey (USA). Jorgenson, M. T., J. E. Roth, P. F. Loomis, E. R. Pullman, T. C. Cater, M. S. Duffy, W. A. Davis, M. J. Macander, and J. E. Grunblatt 2008. An ecological survey for landcover mapping of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/WRST/NRTR—2008/094. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Stevens, J. L. K. Boggs, A. Garibaldi, J. Grunblatt, and T. Helt. 2001. Denali National Park and Preserve landcover mapping project Volume 1: Remote sensing data, procedures and results. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/DENA/NRTR—2001/001. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Story, M., and R.G. Congalton. 1986. Accuracy assessment: A user’s perspective. Photogrammetic Engineering and Remote Sensing, 52(3):397-399. Stumpf, K., 2007. Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve landcover mapping project. Natural Resource Technical Report, NPS/WRST/NRTR—2008/095. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Walton, K.M. 2009. Landscape scale quantification of wildlife habitat using hierarchical classification techniques. M.S. Thesis, University of Alaska Anchorage.

!tt9b5Ló 9wwhw a!ÇwL/9{ !'&-642-6 *3303 1 -/3&= Aleutian EVT name t Ü 2642 2640 2718 2671 2725 2651 2727 2647 2729 2721 2722 2726 2723 2719 2720 2730 31 12 11 ! Kenai Birch-Cottonw ood-Poplar Forest 2642 Mesic-Wet Willow Shrubland 2640 Mesic Alder-Salmonberry Shrubland 2718 ! " # " $%&' American Dunegrass Grassland 2671 Marine Beach and Beach Meadow 2725 Mesic Herbaceous Meadow 2651 ! #' Shrub and Herbaceous Meadow Floodplain 2727 # # Shrub-Sedge Peatland 2647 # # % Floodplain Wetland 2729 $ ! # # ' Freshw ater Aquatic Bed 2721 Freshw ater Marsh 2722 $ ! $ ' ( '&) Tidal Marsh 2726 Wet Meadow and Herbaceous Peatland 2723 $ $$&$ Crow berry-Herbaceous Heath 2719 $ # % ( !! $)&" Mixed Dw arf-Shrub-Herbaceous Shrubland 2720 " ! ! #)&" Sparse Heath and Fell-Field 2730 # $ ""&% Barren or Volcanic Rock and Talus 31 ) ) $ $$ '!&' Snow /Ice 12 # Open Water 11 " ) Ç $ ## " ! ' ( $ " # ' $ " % # $ " %

t+ ! $%&' # ##&# $$&$ ' # '!&) #' &) (

green = recommended combination % + ,+ , 5 " h ! , + / $> ! , + , #% ( + #%# >

5*'-,& *3303 1 -/3&= row s = raster values Columns = reference plots Boreal EVT name EVT-MAP11 12 31 200 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2609 2610 2611 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2625 2626 2628 Open Water 11 5 1 1 1 Snow /Ice 12 2 Barren 31 8 Unclassified Sparsely Vegetated Systems 200 White Spruce Forest 2600 1 1 2 13 2 1 1 2 1 6 Treeline White Spruce Woodland 2601 1 2 1 1 Spruce-Lichen Woodland 2602 1 White Spruce-Hardw ood Forest 2603 3 1 1 2 1 1 9 1 Mesic Black Spruce Forest 2604 6 1 1 1 2 1 1 Mesic Birch-Aspen Forest 2605 2 5 1 1 1 Dry Aspen-Steppe Bluff 2606 1 Subalpine Balsam Poplar-Aspen 2607 Mesic Subalpine Alder Shrubland 2609 Mesic Scrub Birch-Willow Shrubland 2610 3 1 5 4 4 40 1 1 1 7 7 Mesic Bluejoint Meadow 2611 Montane Floodplain Forest and Shrubland 2614 1 1 8 1 6 22 3 3 2 3 3 Low land Lg. River Floodplain Forest and Shrub. 2615 1 1 1 Riparian Stringer Forest and Shrubland 2616 Shrub and Herbaceous Floodplain Wetland 2617 1 1 1 Herbaceous Fen 2618 3 2 1 1 2 2 3 Sedge-Dw arf-Shrub Bog 2619 1 1 2 1 5 Low Shrub Peatland 2620 1 4 1 23 1 5 2 2 1 15 Black Spruce Dw arf-Tree Peatland 2621 2 2 1 1 1 4 2 1 Black Spruce Wet-Mesic Slope Woodland 2622 1 2 2 1 1 Black Spruce-Tamarack Fen 2623 2 8 1 4 7 1 14 1 10 1 1 Freshw ater Emergent Marsh 2625 1 1 1 Wet Meadow 2626 Low Shrub-Tussock Tundra 2628 1 1 Tussock Tundra 2629 Wet Black Spruce-Tussock Woodland 2630 1 1 2 1 2 4 2 2 1 Alpine Dw arf-Shrub Summit 2631 1 2 8 1 Alpine Talus and Bedrock 2632 2 Alpine Mesic Herbaceous Meadow 2633 1 2 Alpine Dryas Dw arf-Shrubland** 2634 4 27 1 5 ` 15 64 4 3 1 Alpine Ericaceous Dw arf-Shrubland** 2635 2 4 20 1 1 1 1 Alpine Dw arf-Shrub-Lichen Shrubland 2636 Alpine Floodplain 2637 1 3 AK Pac. Marit. Alpine Herb. Dw arf Shrubland 2643 4 Plot totals 5 0 8 0 14 41 2 7 51 14 0 2 27 205 3 53 0 7 0 1 7 18 41 8 19 2 4 41 Producer's Accuracy+/- 0% 100 100 0 7 0 0 14 12 36 0 0 20 0 42 0 0 0 28 10 0 53 0 0 2

yellow = dominant types w ithin project area according to NPS map of Denali green = combine; tan = consider combining; blue = consider combining; pink = consider combining; grey = consider combining 42

5*'-,& *3303 1 -/3&= ;40'/&'7*(< User's EVT 2629 2630 2631 2632 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2643 Total Accuracy +/- 0% 11 1 9 56 12 1 3 0 31 5 9 5 2 1 2 32 25 200 0 2600 1 31 3 2601 5 0 2602 1 0 2603 1 20 5 Total = 706 2604 13 46 Diagonal total = 123 2605 1 11 45 Overall Accuracy= 123/707 = 17.4% 2606 1 0 Accuracy w ith 2634/2635 Combined = 142/707 20.1% 2607 0 Accuracy w ith 31/2632 combined = 151/707 21.4% 2609 0 accuracy w ith 2621/2632 combined = 168/707 23.7% 2610 1 1 2 4 1 83 48 accuracy w ith 2620/2610 combined = 191/707 27% 2611 0 2614 1 4 58 38 2615 3 0 2616 0 2617 3 0 2618 0 14 0 2619 10 0 2620 2 1 5 63 8 2621 14 29 2622 1 8 0 2623 50 20 2625 1 4 0 2626 0 2628 2 50 2629 0 2630 2 18 11 2631 1 8 9 3 33 0 2632 2 0 2633 1 4 0 2634 1 1 8 17 8 3 162 5 2635 1 2 3 1 37 8 2636 1 1 0 2637 2 6 33 2643 1 5 0 1 12 7 11 2 27 43 11 12 0 706

0 17 0 0 0 30 7 0 17

!tt9b5Ló

íw!bD9[[!{Ç 9[L!{ 59Ç!L[95 {/w99b {IhÇ{ !b5 Ç9óÇ