Description: <div style="text-align:Left; font-size:12pt;"><p><span><span>Tukman Geospatial classified each redwood stand in Marin County, assigning it a structural class that represents tree height and vertical structure. Structural classes were assigned using a combination of the stand’s lidar derived mean height and the stand’s coefficient of variation for mean height (the standard deviation of mean stand height divided by mean stand height). Using these two variables, five structural classes were developed using ground condition data from Alison Forrestel and Carl Sanders as a guide. </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;">Tree height is represented first in the classification as “Small”, “Medium to Large”, or “Largest”. Vertical structure is represented second, as “LESS” or “MORE”. The "Largest Stands" category includes all stands of over 140 feet mean height. </span><span style="font-size:12pt;">This metric represents the state of the landscape in winter 2019, when countywide lidar was collected.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;">See Chapter 6 of the </span><a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf" style="color:rgb(0, 97, 155); text-decoration-line:none; font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a><span style="font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;"> (Page 252 - Structural Classification of Conifer Forest Types) for more information.</span><br /></p></div>
{"renderer":{"type":"uniqueValue","field1":"RW_DF_CONDITION_CV_SIMPLE","uniqueValueInfos":[{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[255,255,191,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Small (<60 ft.) - LESS Vertical Structure","label":"Small (<60 ft.) - LESS Vertical Structure"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[230,230,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Small (<60 ft.) - MORE Vertical Structure","label":"Small (<60 ft.) - MORE Vertical Structure"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[190,232,255,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Med to Lge (60-140 ft) - LESS Vertical Structure","label":"Med to Lge (60-140 ft) - LESS Vertical Structure"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[0,168,132,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Med to Lge (60-140 ft) - MORE Vertical Structure","label":"Med to Lge (60-140 ft) - MORE Vertical Structure"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[168,112,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Largest Stands (140 ft. +mean height)","label":"Largest Stands (140 ft. +mean height)"}],"fieldDelimiter":",","authoringInfo":{"colorRamp":{"type":"multipart","colorRamps":[{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[138,15,95,255],"toColor":[142,191,250,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[142,191,250,255],"toColor":[120,250,228,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[120,250,228,255],"toColor":[26,232,26,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[26,232,26,255],"toColor":[245,252,136,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriHSVAlgorithm","fromColor":[255,255,115,255],"toColor":[230,0,0,255]}]}}},"scaleSymbols":true,"transparency":0,"labelingInfo":null}
HasZ: false
HasM: false
Has Attachments: false
Has Geometry Properties: true
HTML Popup Type: esriServerHTMLPopupTypeAsHTMLText
Description: <div style="text-align:Left; font-size:12pt;"><p><span><span>Tukman Geospatial classified each Douglas fir stand in Marin County, assigning it a structural class that represents tree height and vertical structure. Structural classes were assigned using a combination of the stand’s lidar derived mean height and the stand’s coefficient of variation for mean height (the standard deviation of mean stand height divided by mean stand height). Using these two variables, five structural classes were developed using ground condition data from Alison Forrestel and Carl Sanders as a guide. </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:inherit;">Tree height is represented first in the classification as “Small”, “Medium to Large”, or “Largest”. Vertical structure is represented second, as “LESS” or “MORE”. The "Largest Stands" category includes all stands of over 140 feet mean height. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:inherit;">This metric represents the state of the landscape in winter 2019, when countywide lidar was collected.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1.5rem; font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;">See Chapter 6 of the <a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf" style="color:rgb(0, 97, 155); text-decoration-line:none;">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a> (Page 252 - Structural Classification of Conifer Forest Types) for more information.</p></div>
{"renderer":{"type":"uniqueValue","field1":"RW_DF_CONDITION_CV_SIMPLE","uniqueValueInfos":[{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[255,255,191,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Small (<60 ft.) - LESS Vertical Structure","label":"Small (<60 ft.) - LESS Vertical Structure"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[230,230,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Small (<60 ft.) - MORE Vertical Structure","label":"Small (<60 ft.) - MORE Vertical Structure"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[190,232,255,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Med to Lge (60-140 ft) - LESS Vertical Structure","label":"Med to Lge (60-140 ft) - LESS Vertical Structure"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[0,168,132,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Med to Lge (60-140 ft) - MORE Vertical Structure","label":"Med to Lge (60-140 ft) - MORE Vertical Structure"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[168,112,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Largest Stands (140 ft. +mean height)","label":"Largest Stands (140 ft. +mean height)"}],"fieldDelimiter":",","authoringInfo":{"colorRamp":{"type":"multipart","colorRamps":[{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[138,15,95,255],"toColor":[142,191,250,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[142,191,250,255],"toColor":[120,250,228,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[120,250,228,255],"toColor":[26,232,26,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[26,232,26,255],"toColor":[245,252,136,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriHSVAlgorithm","fromColor":[255,255,115,255],"toColor":[230,0,0,255]}]}}},"scaleSymbols":true,"transparency":0,"labelingInfo":null}
HasZ: false
HasM: false
Has Attachments: false
Has Geometry Properties: true
HTML Popup Type: esriServerHTMLPopupTypeAsHTMLText
Description: <p>Tukman Geospatial mapped structural classes for Bishop pine based on lidar-derived canopy cover, lidar-derived canopy gap information, lidar-derived canopy height (90th percentile height), mapping of standing dead trees, relative conifer cover, and fire history. 90th percentile height was used to determine late-seral versus mid-seral status; canopy cover and relative conifer cover were used to further divide the late-seral and mid-seral stands into more detailed structural classes. Mortality and fire history were also included in the final classification.</p>
<p><u>Metric Classes</u></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Mid Seral:</strong> Within 1995 Vision Fire footprint. Mortality as determined by canopy gaps and standing dead less than 15%. </li>
<li><strong>Mid Seral, High Mortality:</strong> Within 1995 Vision Fire footprint. Mortality as determined by canopy gaps and canopy standing dead greater than 15%. </li>
<li><strong>Late Seral, Mixed with Hardwood:</strong> Not within 1995 Vision Fire footprint. Mortality as determined by canopy gaps and standing dead less than 20%. Absolute canopy cover greater than 70% and relative conifer cover less than 80%. </li>
<li><strong>Late Seral, High Mortality:</strong> Not within 1995 Vision Fire footprint. Mortality as determined by canopy gaps and canopy standing dead greater than 20%. </li>
<li><strong>Late Seral, Open and Shrubby:</strong> Not within 1995 Vision Fire footprint. Mortality as determined by canopy gaps and standing dead less than 20%. Absolute canopy cover less than 70%. </li>
<li><strong>Late Seral, Pure Bishop Pine, Closed Canopy:</strong> Not within 1995 Vision Fire footprint. Mortality as determined by canopy gaps and standing dead less than 20%. Absolute canopy cover greater than 70% and relative conifer cover greater than 80%. </li>
</ul>
<p>See Chapter 6 of the <a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a> (Page 258 - Bishop Pine Structural Classification) for more information.</p>
{"renderer":{"type":"uniqueValue","field1":"Classification","uniqueValueInfos":[{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[209,255,115,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Mid Seral","label":"Mid Seral"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[168,168,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Mid Seral, High Mortality","label":"Mid Seral, High Mortality"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[115,115,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Late seral, hardwood mixed","label":"Late Seral, Mixed with Hardwood"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[76,115,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Late seral, high mortality","label":"Late Seral, High Mortality"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[38,115,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Late seral, open and shrubby stands","label":"Late Seral, Open and Shrubby"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[0,115,76,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"Late seral, pure bishop closed canopy","label":"Late Seral, Pure Bishop Pine, Closed Canopy"}],"fieldDelimiter":";","authoringInfo":{"colorRamp":{"type":"multipart","colorRamps":[{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[75,168,59,255],"toColor":[75,168,59,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[116,43,140,255],"toColor":[116,43,140,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[130,55,30,255],"toColor":[130,55,30,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[47,140,158,255],"toColor":[47,140,158,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[163,147,44,255],"toColor":[163,147,44,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[150,68,102,255],"toColor":[150,68,102,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[39,86,156,255],"toColor":[39,86,156,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[60,128,86,255],"toColor":[60,128,86,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[163,119,80,255],"toColor":[163,119,80,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[44,32,135,255],"toColor":[44,32,135,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[176,46,72,255],"toColor":[176,46,72,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[120,133,62,255],"toColor":[120,133,62,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[136,168,56,255],"toColor":[136,168,56,255]}]}}},"scaleSymbols":true,"transparency":0,"labelingInfo":null}
HasZ: false
HasM: false
Has Attachments: false
Has Geometry Properties: true
HTML Popup Type: esriServerHTMLPopupTypeAsHTMLText
Description: <div style="text-align:Left;"><p>This metric uses mean lidar-derived stand height to classify the 138 Sargent Cypress stands in
Marin County into two classes. Soil type is then used to divide these into four total classes,
described below (Figures 6.18, 6.19). Unlike for Bishop Pine, fire history for Sargent Cypress
was not an obvious predictor of stand height or density; rather, soil substrate was a better
correlate for stand structure.<br /></p><p>There are two fairly distinct populations of Sargent cypress in Marin County – the stands on San Geronimo Ridge which occur on serpentinite, and a small, more disparate population on Mt Tam (generally taller) on a mix of different soils, though none serpentinite according to the Marin County soil survey. <br /></p><p><u>Metric Classes:</u><br /></p><p><ul><li><span style="font-weight:bold;">Taller, non-Serpentinite</span><span>: mean stand height >= 20 feet, stand does not intersect a soil polygon with a taxonomic class of Clayey-skeletal, serpentinitic, thermic Lithic Argixerolls</span></li><li><span style="font-weight:bold;">Shorter, non-Serpentinite</span><span>: mean stand height < 20 feet, stand does not intersect a soil polygon with a taxonomic class of Clayey-skeletal, serpentinitic, thermic Lithic Argixerolls</span></li><li><span style="font-weight:bold;">Taller, Serpentinite</span><span>: mean stand height >= 20 feet, stand intersects (or is very close to) a soil polygon with a taxonomic class of Clayey-skeletal, serpentinitic, thermic Lithic Argixerolls</span></li><li><span style="font-weight:bold;">Shorter, Serpentinite</span><span>: mean stand height < 20 feet, stand intersects (or is very close to) a soil polygon with a taxonomic class of Clayey-skeletal, serpentinitic, thermic Lithic Argixerolls</span></li></ul></p><p><span></span></p><p><span>There was one stand that was changed from tall to short due to an anomolous return in the lidar height data.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size:16px;">See Chapter 6 of the </span><a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf" style="color:rgb(0, 97, 155); text-decoration-line:none; font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size:16px;">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a><span style="font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size:16px;"> (Page 261 - Sargent Cypress Structural Classification) for more information.</span><span><br /></span></p><p><span> </span></p></div>
Name: % '10-'19 Canopy Density Change (Native Forest Lifeform)
Display Field: OID_COPY
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: <div style="text-align:left;"><p style="font-size:12pt;"><span><span>Tukman Geospatial calculated canopy density for forested stands using all lidar returns over 10 feet above the ground. Canopy density was calculated for the 2010- and 2019-point clouds. The resulting 2010 1-meter canopy density raster was subtracted from the 2019 raster, creating a 2010 to 2019 canopy density change value, which was binned up into 9 classes. For some areas, especially those with deciduous vegetation, a loss in canopy density may be driven by leaf phenology, and not meaningful density or vigor changes, since the 2019 lidar was collected in mid-winter and the 2010 lidar was collected during the late spring.</span></span></p><p style><span style="font-size:16px;">See Chapter 6 of the </span><a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf" target="_blank">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a><span style="font-size:16px;"> (Page 287 - Canopy Density Change (Greater than 10 feet) 2010-2019) for more information.</span><br /></p></div>
{"renderer":{"type":"uniqueValue","field1":"DENDIFF_10_19_MANUAL","defaultSymbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[130,130,130,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSSolid","color":[110,110,110,0],"width":0.7}},"defaultLabel":"","uniqueValueInfos":[{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[230,0,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSSolid","color":[110,110,110,0],"width":0.7}},"value":">=10% Density Loss","label":">10% Density Loss"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[230,76,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSSolid","color":[110,110,110,0],"width":0.7}},"value":"5 - 10% Density Loss","label":"5 - 10% Density Loss"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[255,170,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSSolid","color":[110,110,110,0],"width":0.7}},"value":"2.5 - 5% Density Loss","label":"2.5 - 5% Density Loss"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[255,255,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSSolid","color":[110,110,110,0],"width":0.7}},"value":"0 - 2.5% Density Loss","label":"0 - 2.5% Density Loss"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[199,215,158,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSSolid","color":[110,110,110,0],"width":0.7}},"value":"No Change","label":"No Change"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[171,205,102,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSSolid","color":[110,110,110,0],"width":0.7}},"value":"0 - 2.5% Density Gain","label":"0 - 2.5% Density Gain"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[148,148,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSSolid","color":[110,110,110,0],"width":0.7}},"value":"2.5 - 5% Density Gain","label":"2.5 - 5% Density Gain"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[108,130,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSSolid","color":[110,110,110,0],"width":0.7}},"value":"5 - 10% Density Gain","label":"5 - 10% Density Gain"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[77,115,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSSolid","color":[110,110,110,0],"width":0.7}},"value":">10% Density Gain","label":">10% Density Gain"}],"fieldDelimiter":",","authoringInfo":{"colorRamp":{"type":"multipart","colorRamps":[{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriHSVAlgorithm","fromColor":[255,0,0,255],"toColor":[77,115,0,255]}]}}},"scaleSymbols":true,"transparency":0,"labelingInfo":null}
HasZ: false
HasM: false
Has Attachments: false
Has Geometry Properties: true
HTML Popup Type: esriServerHTMLPopupTypeAsHTMLText
Description: <div style="text-align:left;"><p style="font-size:12pt;"><span><span>Canopy gap analysis was conducted using Canopy Height Model (CHM) differencing, where analysts calculated the difference between the CHM value in 2019 minus the CHM value in 2010. This analysis was performed in Trimble</span></span><span><span>®</span></span><span><span> Ecogntion</span></span><span><span>®</span></span><span>, where the lidar CHM differencing was followed by noise removal to remove anomolous gaps. Very small gaps (<40 square feet) were also removed to reduce ‘noise’ in the gap analysis. The resulting canopy gaps were reviewed by analysts, who removed ‘false positive’ gaps along the coast and in urban areas. The final canopy gap dataset was integrated into the vegetation map, where each stand was assigned an attribute for the percent of its woody canopy over 7 ft. that was a gap formed between ’10-’19. A second attribute provides information for the area of each forested stand’s largest contiguous gap. </span></p><p style="font-size:12pt;"><span><span>Areas were considered canopy gaps and mapped as such if their canopy height changed in one of the following ways between 2010 and 2019 at the 1-meter raster scale:</span></span></p><ul><li><p style="margin:4 0 12 0;"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span>Low Gap</span></span><span><span>: Areas greater than or equal to 7 ft. in height in 2010 and less than 2 ft. in 2019 that lost more than 7 feet of canopy height between 2010 and 2019.</span></span></p></li><li><p style="margin:4 0 12 0;"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span>Medium Gap</span></span><span><span>: Areas greater than or equal to 12 ft. in height in 2010 and less than 7 ft. In height in 2019.</span></span></p></li><li><p style="margin:4 0 12 0;"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span>High Gap</span></span><span><span>: Areas greater than or equal to 15 ft. in height in 2010 that lost greater than 40 % of their total height between 2010 and 2019</span></span></p></li><li><p style="margin:4 0 12 0;"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span>Very</span></span><span><span> </span></span><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span>High Gap</span></span><span><span>: Areas greater than or equal to 100 ft. in height in 2010 that lost greater than 25% of their total height between 2010 and 2019</span></span><span><span>.</span></span></p></li></ul><div style><span style="font-size:16px;">See Chapter 6 of the </span><a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf" target="_blank">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a><span style="font-size:16px;"> (Page 269 - Canopy Gaps) for more information.</span><br /></div><div style="font-size:12pt;"><p><span></span></p></div></div>
Description: <div style="text-align:left;"><p style="font-size:12pt;"><span>Relative hardwood cover represents the percent of trees in a stand that are hardwoods (as seen from above). Relative hardwood cover plus relative conifer cover always adds up to 100%. Relative hardwood cover was assigned by Aerial Information Systems (AIS) using manual interpretation of the 2018 4-band, 6-inch resolution orthoimagery.</span></p><p style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;">See Chapter 6 of the </span><a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf" style="color:rgb(0, 97, 155); text-decoration-line:none; font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a><span style="font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;"> (Page 249 - Relative Percent Hardwood vs Conifer) for more information.</span><span><br /></span></p></div>
Copyright Text: Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, OneTam, Tukman Geospatial
Description: <div style="text-align:left;"><div style><div style><p style="font-size:12pt;"><span>Relative hardwood cover represents the percent of trees in a stand that are hardwoods (as seen from above). Relative hardwood cover plus relative conifer cover always adds up to 100%. Relative hardwood cover was assigned by Aerial Information Systems (AIS) using manual interpretation of the 2018 4-band, 6-inch resolution orthoimagery.</span></p><p style><span style="font-size:16px;">See Chapter 6 of the </span><a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf" target="_blank">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a><span style="font-size:16px;"> (Page 249 - Relative Percent Hardwood vs Conifer) for more information.</span><br /></p></div></div></div>
Copyright Text: Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, OneTam, Tukman Geospatial
Description: <div style="text-align:left;"><div style><div style><p style="font-size:12pt;"><span>Relative hardwood cover represents the percent of trees in a stand that are hardwoods (as seen from above). Relative hardwood cover plus relative conifer cover always adds up to 100%. Relative hardwood cover was assigned by Aerial Information Systems (AIS) using manual interpretation of the 2018 4-band, 6-inch resolution orthoimagery. </span></p><p style><span style="font-size:16px;">See Chapter 6 of the </span><a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf" target="_blank">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a><span style="font-size:16px;"> (Page 249 - Relative Percent Hardwood vs Conifer) for more information.</span><br /></p></div></div></div>
Copyright Text: Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, OneTam, Tukman Geospatial
Description: <div style="text-align:left;"><div style><div style><p style="font-size:12pt;"><span>Relative hardwood cover represents the percent of trees in a stand that are hardwoods (as seen from above). Relative hardwood cover plus relative conifer cover always adds up to 100%. Relative hardwood cover was assigned by Aerial Information Systems (AIS) using manual interpretation of the 2018 4-band, 6-inch resolution orthoimagery. </span></p><p style><span style="font-size:16px;">See Chapter 6 of the </span><a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf" target="_blank">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a><span style="font-size:16px;"> (Page 249 - Relative Percent Hardwood vs Conifer) for more information.</span><br /></p></div></div></div>
Copyright Text: Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, OneTam, Tukman Geospatial
Description: <div style="text-align:left;"><div style><div style><p style="font-size:12pt;"><span>Relative hardwood cover represents the percent of trees in a stand that are hardwoods (as seen from above). Relative hardwood cover plus relative conifer cover always adds up to 100%. Relative hardwood cover was assigned by Aerial Information Systems (AIS) using manual interpretation of the 2018 4-band, 6-inch resolution orthoimagery. </span></p><p style><span style="font-size:16px;">See Chapter 6 of the </span><a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf" target="_blank">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a><span style="font-size:16px;"> (Page 249 - Relative Percent Hardwood vs Conifer) for more information.</span><br /></p></div></div></div>
Copyright Text: Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, OneTam, Tukman Geospatial
Name: 2019 Standing Dead Percent (Native Forest Lifeform)
Display Field: OID_COPY
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: <div style="text-align:left;"><div style><p style="font-size:12pt;"><span><span>Estimates the percentage of the woody canopy > 7 feet tall that did not have a living crown in 2018/2019. Standing dead vegetation was mapped using a combination of object- based image interpretation using Trimble Ecognition, which produced an estimate of standing dead vegetation using a combination of 2018 high resolution imagery and 2019 lidar. The automated output from Ecognition was reviewed and manually edited by Aerial Information Systems. Using 6-inch resolution 2018 4-band imagery, AIS adjusted the % standing dead value up or down where the automated result from Ecognition overestimated or underestimated standing dead vegetation. </span></span></p><p style><span style="font-size:16px;">See Chapter 6 of the </span><a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf" target="_blank">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a><span style="font-size:16px;"> (Page 266 - Percent Canopy Mortality (Canopy Standing Dead)) for more information.</span><br /></p></div></div>
{"renderer":{"type":"uniqueValue","field1":"STANDING_DEAD_19_MANUAL","uniqueValueInfos":[{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[1,97,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":"<.5% of Canopy Standing Dead","label":"<.5% of Canopy Standing Dead"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[255,255,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":".5 - 2.5% of Canopy Standing Dead","label":".5 - 2.5% of Canopy Standing Dead"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[255,34,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,255],"width":0}},"value":">2.5% of Canopy Standing Dead","label":">2.5% of Canopy Standing Dead"}],"fieldDelimiter":",","authoringInfo":{"colorRamp":{"type":"multipart","colorRamps":[{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[0,112,6,255],"toColor":[241,252,30,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[241,252,30,255],"toColor":[250,58,10,255]}]}}},"scaleSymbols":true,"transparency":0,"labelingInfo":null}
HasZ: false
HasM: false
Has Attachments: false
Has Geometry Properties: true
HTML Popup Type: esriServerHTMLPopupTypeAsHTMLText
Description: <div style="text-align:Left;"><div style="font-size:12pt;"><p><span>In Northern California, many areas of oak woodland are converting to Douglas-fir forests. This conversion stems from fire exclusion and other changes in land use and land management. </span><span style="font-size:12pt;">This metric uses relative conifer
cover and proximity to conifer stands data from the 2018 Fine Scale Vegetation Map to create two classes, actively converting to conifer forest or threatened with conversion to conifer
forest.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt;"><u>Metric Classes</u> </span></p><p></p><ul><li><span style="font-size:12pt;"><b>Actively Converting to Douglas-fir (or any other conifer species except Sargent
cypress):</b> Oak stands with greater than or equal to 10% relative conifer cover. </span></li><li><span style="font-size:12pt;"><b>Threatened with Conversion to Douglas-fir (or any other conifer species except Sargent
cypress):</b> Open Canopy Oak Woodland stands within 0.25 miles of any 2018 Fine Scale
Vegetation Map polygon stand (excluding Sargent cypress) with a relative conifer cover
of greater than or equal to 25%.</span> </li></ul><p><span style="font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;">See Chapter 6 of the </span><a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf" style="color:rgb(0, 97, 155); text-decoration-line:none; font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a><span style="font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;"> (Page 263 - Open Canopy Oak Woodland Stands Threatened or Converting to Conifer Forests) for more information.</span><span><span><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;"><br /></span></p><p><br /><br /></p></div></div>
{"renderer":{"type":"uniqueValue","field1":"OAK_FLAGS","uniqueValueInfos":[{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[168,0,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSNull","color":[110,110,110,0],"width":0}},"value":"Actively Converting to Douglas-fir","label":"Actively Converting to Douglas-fir"},{"symbol":{"type":"esriSFS","style":"esriSFSSolid","color":[255,85,0,255],"outline":{"type":"esriSLS","style":"esriSLSSolid","color":[110,110,110,0],"width":0.7}},"value":"Threatened with Conversion to Douglas-fir","label":"Threatened with Conversion to Douglas-fir"}],"fieldDelimiter":",","authoringInfo":{"colorRamp":{"type":"multipart","colorRamps":[{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[0,112,6,255],"toColor":[241,252,30,255]},{"type":"algorithmic","algorithm":"esriCIELabAlgorithm","fromColor":[241,252,30,255],"toColor":[250,58,10,255]}]}}},"scaleSymbols":true,"transparency":0,"labelingInfo":null}
HasZ: false
HasM: false
Has Attachments: false
Has Geometry Properties: true
HTML Popup Type: esriServerHTMLPopupTypeAsHTMLText
Description: <div style="text-align:Left;"><p style="margin:0 0 11 0;"><span><font size="3">This dataset represents a vegetation map stand’s aboveground live biomass in tons/hectare sequestered in forest vegetation. </font></span></p><p style="margin:0 0 11 0;"><font size="3"><span> The data are derived from the work of the </span>Landscape Ecology Modeling, Mapping & Analysis (LEMMA) group, a research team led by US Forest Service (USFS) Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon State University and supported by collaboration with USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, USFS Pacific Northwest Region, and the USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis Program (FIA).<span style="background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span></font></p><p style="margin:0 0 11 0;"><font size="3">To map the biomass of aboveground live trees, the LEMMA group utilized
gradient nearest neighbor (GNN) analysis based on 30-meter Landsat imagery supplemented
by training data for GNN derived from FIA data (LEMMA, n.d.a., n.d.b.). Mean value
aboveground live biomass was then integrated into native forest stands in the 2018 Fine Scale
Vegetation Map using the zonal statistics (mean) function in ArcGIS. Each native forest
polygon in the 2018 Fine Scale Vegetation Map was assigned an aboveground live biomass
tons/hectare attribution. Note that aboveground forest carbon is calculated from
the biomass value by using the biomass to carbon conversion factor of 0.47.</font></p><p style="margin:0 0 11 0;"><span><font size="3">LEMMA biomass is mapped at the regional scale and is derived from moderate resolution satellite imagery. As such, it provides an approximation of biomass density that is not field checked or refined at the local scale. High resolution datasets such as lidar or high-resolution imagery are not used to create LEMMA data products. Training data is limited to FIA plot data.</font></span></p><p style="margin:0 0 11 0;"><span style="font-size:medium; font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;">See Chapter 6 of the </span><a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf" style="font-size:medium; color:rgb(0, 97, 155); text-decoration-line:none; font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a><span style="font-size:medium; font-family:"Avenir Next W01", "Avenir Next W00", "Avenir Next", Avenir, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;"> (Page 279 - Aboveground Live Biomass and Carbon) for more information.</span></p><p style="margin:0 0 11 0;"><font size="3"><span><span>For more information on the LEMMA biomass data, go to: </span></span><a href="https://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/projects/ca-biomass">https://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/projects/ca-biomass</a></font></p><div><div style="font-size:12pt;"><p><span></span></p></div></div></div>
Copyright Text: Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, OneTam, Tukman Geospatial
Name: Classified Ladder Fuels (Forested Areas Only)
Display Field: OID_COPY
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: <div style="text-align:Left; font-size:12pt;"><p><span>Ladder fuels were derived from the 2019 QL1 countywide point cloud. A ladder fuel proxy was developed to provide an indication of the density of vegetation of in the 1-4 meter above ground stratum. This continuous value (0-1 range) was classified into four classes for each forest lifeform class. As a result, the countywide count of very high, high, medium and low ladder fuel polygons within each forest lifeform class (e.g., evergreen forest) is roughly the same.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:15px;">See Chapter 6 of the </span><a href="https://www.onetam.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/marin_regional_forest_health_strategy_2023.pdf" style="font-size:15px;" target="_blank">Marin Regional Forest Health Strategy</a><span style="font-size:15px;"> (Page 276 - Classified Ladder Fuels) for more information.</span><span><br /></span></p></div>
Copyright Text: Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, OneTam, Tukman Geospatial
Description: <div style="text-align:Left;"><p>This layer shows Marin County Fine Scale Vegetation Map polygons that are non-native and associated with high fire hazard. Note that wildfire hazard is a function of many more variables than dominant canopy vegetation.<br /></p><p><span>This layer shows polygons from Marin's fine scale vegetation map that include the following fine scale map classes:</span></p><ul><li><p><span><span>Genista monspessulana Semi-Natural Association</span><span></span></span></p></li><li><p><span>Eucalyptus (globulus, camaldulensis) Provisional Semi-Natural Assocation</span></p></li><li><p><span>Pinus radiata Plantation Provisional Semi-Natural Association</span></p></li><li><p><span><span>Acacia spp. – Grevillea spp. – Leptospermum laevigatum Semi-Natural Alliance</span><span></span></span></p></li><li><p><span>Cortaderia (jubata, selloana) Semi-Natural Alliance</span></p></li></ul><div>See the <a href="https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=bafd2c8070df49f298a7d5838550329d" target="_blank">Marin County Fine Scale Vegetation Map</a> layer for the full 106-class vegetation map and description of methods.</div><p><span></span></p></div>
Copyright Text: Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, OneTam, Tukman Geospatial