Ministry of Environment Ecology

Shining Mountains Project

Classifications Used - Ecoregions

An understanding of the Shining Mountains' complex environment is essential for the management, utilization, and conservation of the area's natural resources. The purpose of a regional ecosystem classification scheme is to organize the ecological mosaic into simple patterns and to provide a practical framework for managing natural resources (Bailey and Hogg 1986). Several regional classification schemes exist for the stratification of parts of North America into ecosystem units (see: Munro and Cowan 1947; Krajina 1965; Omernik 1977; Bailey 1978, 1983, 1995; Brown and Lowe 1980; Brown 1982; Wiken 1986; Gallant et al. 1989; McNab and Avers 1994; Ecological Stratification Working Group 1996). Each has its positive attributes, but each also has shortcomings for delineating regional ecosystems in a mountainous area such as British Columbia or the Shining Mountains project area (Demarchi 1992).

The fundamental differences between the Shining Mountains Regional and Zonal Ecosystem Classification and Map and other regional ecosystem classifications is that the British Columbia regional ecological units are based on climatic processes rather than vegetation communities. Macroclimatic processes are the physical and thermodynamic interactions between climatic controls, the relatively permanent atmospheric and geographical factors that govern the general nature of specific climates (Marsh 1988). The zonal classification is based on zonal sites that represent zonal climates (Pojar et al. 1987). Zonal sites are modal or neutral sites with deep, medium textured soils on a gentle slope that has no net loss or gain of moisture to or from adjacent sites. The boundaries for the zonal units form the basis for the regional ecosystem boundaries, however, physiographic units may also be used when they are contrasting but not recognized by the zonal climates.

The British Columbia Ecoregion classification was developed to provide a systematic view of the small scale ecological relationships in the Province given its great ecological complexity (Demarchi 1988, 1992). This classification is based on macroclimatic processes (Marsh 1988) and physiography (Holland 1964; Mathews 1986),

The Ecoregion classification system of British Columbia (see Demarchi 1996), that was applied to the Shining Mountains project has 5 hierarchical levels, which is a fundamental difference between this and all other regional ecosystem classifications. The Ecoregion classification levels are defined as follows

1. Ecodomain - an area of broad climatic uniformity, defined at the global level (Crowley 1965; Bailey 1983);
2. Ecodivision - an area of broad climatic and physiographic uniformity, defined at the continental level (Crowley 1965; Bailey 1983; Demarchi 1994);
3. Ecoprovince - and area with consistent climatic processes and relief defined at the sub-continental level (Demarchi 1992, 1994);
4. Ecoregion - an area with major physiographic and minor macroclimatic variation defined at the regional level (Demarchi 1992);
5. Ecosection - an area with minor physiographic and macroclimatic variation, defined at the sub-regional level (Demarchi 1992)

Classifications Used - Vegetation Zonation

There is another level of ecological complexity that occurs within mountainous regions, that of topo-climatic zonation. Within each terrestrial region, bounded by climatic processes and landform parameters, there are climatic zones that are reflected by the plant and animal communities present. At the biogeoclimatic subzone level, the climate interacts with land surface materials to create particular environments suitable for the development of specific plant communities (Rowe 1984; Demarchi 1992b; Demarchi and Lea 1989). This level is best pursued through the Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (British Columbia Ministry of Forests 1992; Krajina 1965; Meidinger and Pojar 1991; Pojar et al. 1987).

1. The Biogeoclimatic classification system of British Columbia has 4 hierarchical levels, although in the Shining Mountains project, with some exceptions, only the highest level, - the zone- was used. The Biogeoclimatic Zonation classification levels are defined as follows:
2. 
   Biogeoclimatic Zone - groups of subzones with similar climatic parameters and "zonal" ecosystems;
3. Biogeoclimatic Subzone - areas with a distinct climax plant association on zonal sites. A subzone thus consists of unique sequences of geographically related ecosystems in which climatic climax ecosystems are members of the same zonal plant associations. Such sequences are influenced by one type of regional climate. Subzones were not mapped in the Shining Mountains project. [Except for: the Interior Cedar - Hemlock Biogeoclimatic Zone, which has been subdivided into Interior Western Hemlock, Interior Redcedar and Interior Grand Fir Vegetation Zones; the Ponderosa Pine Biogeoclimatic Zone which has been subdivided into the Ponderosa Pine and White Oak zones; and the Coastal Western Hemlock Biogeoclimatic Zone which has been subdivided into the Coastal Western Hemlock, the Pacific Silver Fir and the Coastal Spruce and Northern Coastal Hemlock zones.]
4. Biogeoclimatic Variants - areas in which regional climates are generally recognized for areas that are slightly drier, wetter, snowier, warmer, or colder than other areas in the subzone. These climatic differences result in corresponding differences in vegetation, soil, and ecosystem productivity that are topographically atypical from the regional climate. Typical examples are meadow/ steppe areas in an otherwise forested subzone. They were not identified in the Shining Mountains project.
5. Biogeoclimatic Phase - accommodates the variation, resulting from local relief, in the regional climate of subzones and variants. Phases are the result of extensive areas of ecosystems that are, for topographic or topoedaphic reasons, atypical for the regional climate. Examples are extensive areas of grassland occurring only on steep, south slopes in an otherwise forested subzone; or valley-bottom, frost-pocket areas in mountainous terrain. They were not identified in the Shining Mountains project.

Ecoregion/Vegetation Zonation Comparison

The major practical difference between the Ecoregion classification and the Biogeoclimatic Classification is that in mountainous terrain, the Ecoregion classification can be used to stratify the landscape into geographical units that circumscribe all elevations, whereas the Biogeoclimatic Classification can be used to delineate altitudinal belts of ecological zones within geographical units. On extensive plains the opposite is true. There without strong physiographic boundaries, the zonal boundaries are extensive and the Biogeoclimatic Classification can be used to stratify broad geographical areas, and it is the Ecoregions and Ecosections which are used to subdivide the landscape into smaller units.

Ecodomains and Ecodivisions are very broad and place a region in a global context. Ecoprovinces, Ecoregions and Ecosections are progressively more detailed and narrow in their scope and relate an area such as British Columbia or the Shining Mountains to other parts of North America or segments of the project area to each other. These lower three classes describe areas of similar climate, physiography, vegetation, and wildlife potential. In the terrestrial environment each Ecoregion or Ecosection class can be further subdivided by biogeoclimatic criteria to provide a basis for detailed interpretation of climate, topography, soil and vegetation for the purposes of habitat and wildlife management.

Both Ecoregion and Biogeoclimatic classifications are high level; for detailed or large scale ecological classification a more refined ecological classification must be used. In British Columbia there are two classifications, a Broad Terrestrial Ecosystem Classification suitable for mapping ecosystems at 1:250,000 (British Columbia Ecosystems Working Group 2000), and a detailed terrestrial ecosystem mapping classification suitable for mapping ecosystems at 1:50,000 - 1:20,000 (BC Ecosystems Working Group 1998b). While there is no equivalent ecological mapping classification at 1:250,000 in other jurisdictions, in the United States, habitat type classification and mapping is conducted at 1:24,000, (see Daubenmire and Daubenmire 1968, Cooper et al. 1991, and Pfister et al. 1977). In the Canadian national parks of the Rocky Mountains, Biophysical Habitat classes were mapped at 1:50,000 (Holland and Coen 1982).

Field Work

Field work has been conducted throughout British Columbia by the author and his colleagues for many years. In addition, two field trips were made specifically to correlate the BC Vegetation Zones with ecosystems in the United States and Alberta. The first was a trip through the Okanogan Highland, Salish Mountains and Northern Continental Divide. The second was a trip through the Rocky Mountains and Foothills of Alberta. Numerous other trips were made outside British Columbia where correlation opportunities were taken, such as through the northern Cascade Range and across the Columbia Basin; through the Coeur d'Alene Mountains, Montana Valley and Foothills, and Belt Highland; to the Buffalo River Plain; to the Canadian Prairie; to the Olympic Mountains, Coast Range and Puget Sound; to the Yukon Southern Lakes.

Delineation of Vegetation Zones

Alpine zones were delineated on 1:250,000 topographic maps using LandSat images with a softwood enhancement, enlarged to 1:250,000; areas higher than the last forests were called alpine. Grassland zones in southern British Columbia, Montana, (except for the Shortgrass Prairie and Wheatgrass Prairie) Idaho, Oregon and Washington were delineated on 1:250,000 topographic maps using LandSat Images with a softwood enhancement, enlarged to 1:250,000; lower elevation areas without trees were called grassland. Coastal areas were deemed to be those areas windward of the most easterly forests of Coastal Western Hemlock, Mountain Hemlock, Pacific Silver Fir, and Northern Coastal Hemlock. Alpine habitats within this area were called Coastal Alpine. Northern areas were deemed to be those areas that were predominantly Mountain Boreal and Boreal Subalpine forests. Alpine habitats within this area were called Alpine Tundra. The Interior area was deemed to be the mountainous areas east of the coast and south of the north. The alpine habitats and most of the forests within this area were given the prefix of “Interior”, e.g. Interior Alpine, Interior Subalpine, Interior Douglas-fir, etc. The process of delineating vegetation zones has varied across the project area.

• In British Columbia, the BC Ministry of Forests delineated Biogeoclimatic subzones, by analyzing plots established in mature and old growth forests on “zonal” sites and then relating that information to topography across the province (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). Those subzones formed the basis for the Vegetation Zones in this project.
• In the Rocky Mountains and Foothills of Alberta there was a Biogeoclimatic zonation project, with methodology similar to that established for BC (Kojima 1980 and Sivak 1987 and 1991), and Biophysical Habitat mapping (Holland and Coen 1982). For the rest of Alberta the Ecoregions and Subregions developed by Strong (1991) were used.
• For the Panhandle of southeastern Alaska vegetation zones were delineated by Greg Nowaki of the USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest (personal communication) for this project. The classification was based on the relation of dominant vegetation and elevation.
• For forests of northwestern Montana, northern Idaho and eastern Washington, habitat type maps based on the classification established by Daubenmire and Daubenmire (1968), Pfister et al. (1977) and Cooper et al. (1991), and mapped at 1:24,000 were used to delineate “typical” habitats for neutral aspects, which were in turn related to elevational zones.
• Grasslands zones in eastern Washington, adjacent Idaho and Oregon were based on zones mapped by Daubenmire (1970), grassland zones in northwestern Montana were based on zones mapped by Ross and Hunter (1976).
• For forests of western Washington, the Vegetation Zones of Washington (Cassidy 1997) were used to provide the model and digital maps of “Potential Natural Vegetation” printed at 1:250,000 (provided by the USDA Forest Service, Colville National Forest) were used to delineate her zones onto 1:250,000 topographic maps.
• For Yukon, Forest Cover and Land Type maps printed at 1:250,000 were used to extend the BC zones northward.

The British Columbia data was taken from the Provincial Broad Ecosystem Inventory Project. The Alberta Interior Plains, and Northwest Territories data were taken from the Ecoregions of Canada project. The resultant vegetation zones were digitized from the draft 1:250,000 topographic maps. All subsequent work was done from either the digital files or paper copies of the digital data.

Delineation of Ecoregion Units

Ecoregion units were identified by grouping areas with a distinctive vegetation zonal pattern, modifying the boundaries based on dominant weather patterns, and physiography. Each Ecoregion was subdivided based on minor variation, of those 3 parameters, and grouped into Ecoprovinces based on prevailing climatic processes or the distribution of vegetation zones. Small contrasting units were placed within a particular Ecoprovince or Ecoregion depending on the alternative choices. For example, Eastern Cascade Mountains Ecoregion was placed in the Columbia Plateau Ecoprovince, because even though it is highly contrasted with the Columbia Basin Ecoprovince, it is too small to be a stand-alone Ecoprovince and, it is too far south to have the same climatic conditions as other leeward coast mountains in the Southern Interior Ecoprovince of British Columbia.

Ecodivisions represent groupings of global climate units based on continental scale physiography. Ecodomains represent groupings of global climate units, irrespective of physiography. Each Ecodivision is comprised of similar Ecoprovinces, and each Ecodomain is comprised of Ecodivisions with similar climates.

The boundaries for all Ecoregion levels are based on the Vegetation Zone boundaries.

The names for the Ecoregion units are based on local geographic or physiographic names. Spelling follows local spelling, thus it is Kootenai Mountains in Montana, but Northern Kootenay Mountains in British Columbia; Cariboo Mountains in British Columbia, but Caribou Mountains in Alberta. The exception is the Southern Okanogan Highland and Basin, this unit straddles the British Columbia/Washington border, but most of it is in Washington so the American spelling was used. However, for the Okanagan Range, Northern Okanagan Highland and Northern Okanagan Basin and the Thompson – Okanagan Plateau the Canadian spelling was used.

Background on Regional Ecosystem Classifications Applied to Various Portions of the Shining Mountains Project Area

There are many Ecoregion and Vegetation Zonation classifications in existence in the study area. Some, like the Ecoregion classification of the USDA Forest Service, the US Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, Alberta Department of Natural Resources and British Columbia Ministries of Environment, Lands and Parks, and of Forests are original ecological classifications based on precise rules for identifying areas as unique ecosystems. Others, such as the World Wildlife Fund’s (1997), or North America Free Trade’s ecological maps (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 1997) are subjective products usually based on rules that are different from the original classification.

National Ecoregion Classifications

Canada -Wiken (1986), Ecological Stratification Working Group (1996) Marshall et al. (1996); Ecozones are contiguous, small scale, used old ecosystem classification information. Units in the mountainous regions were generalized to ‘ keep the mapping simple’

United States - Bailey (1995, 1998), Ecoregions of the United States, units are not contiguous, small scale, used old vegetation classification information, based on a ‘flat- earth’ model. Units along the northern boundary were not extended into Canada, but often were truncated.

Omernik (1977), Ecoregions of the United States, Units not contiguous, small scale, only 2 hierarchical levels, no regional climate differences i.e. units are differentiated based on vegetative physiognomy, not climate. Units along the northern boundary were not extended into Canada, but often were truncated so that several units that occur in Canada were mapped as one unit in the United States.

Regional Ecoregion and Vegetation Zonation Classifications

Alberta - Strong and Leggat (1992), the Ecoregions of Alberta [now referred to as Natural Regions (Alberta Environmental Protection 1994)] are climatic regions based on measurable climatic parameters to used to infer vegetation zones (in extensive agriculture areas soil great groups are used as a substitute for vegetation). Across the Prairies and Interior Plains vegetation zones are broad with few distinct boundaries, these broad zones form the basis for the regional units. It is the physiographic differences within the broader climatic zone that provides within unit variation.

• The Rocky Mountains, however, have been classified in the same manner as the plains.
• The Ecoregion units are not contiguous.
• There is no distinction made between physiographic units and vegetation zones.
• The map bases are 1:250,000, but 1:100,000 biophysical habitat maps were used when available.

British Columbia - Demarchi (1996) and Meidinger and Pojar (1991), The Ecoregions of British Columbia are macroclimatic regions, based on climatic processes and are used to stratify mountainous landscapes into geographical units that circumscribe all elevations; the Biogeoclimatic Zonation Classification is used to delineate altitudinal belts of ecological zones within geographical units. There is a distinction made between physiographic based climate units and the regional climate based vegetation zones. Within each classification system the hierarchical units are integrated. That is, the Ecoregion units are contiguous at all levels of the hierarchy, and the Biogeoclimatic Zonation units are like-wise hierarchical.

• The 2 classification systems are not fully integrated. However, even though for the most part Ecosection boundaries are coincidental with Biogeoclimatic Subzone/variant boundaries the reverse is not true.
• The Interior Plains of northeastern British Columbia were mapped using the mountain-based ecological classification criteria.
• The map bases were 1:250,000 for physiographic and topographic features.

Montana and northern Idaho - Nesser et al. (1997), the Ecoregion Subsections were mapped by stratifying the landscape into unique units based on surficial geology, geomorphic processes, soil groups, subregional climate and potential natural vegetation as outlined by McNab and Avers (1994).

• The Ecoregion units are not contiguous at any level in the hierarchy.
• No distinct vegetation zonation maps are produced in this classification methodology.
• The map bases were 1:500,000 State geology and State topographic maps and 1:3,168,000 natural vegetation mapping (Kuchler 1964).

Washington - Cassidy (1997), Land Cover of Washington State (using Ecoregions and vegetation zones) Ecoregion units are contiguous areas of similar climate and geological history, the vegetation zones were defined as an area in which moisture, temperature, elevation create similar vegetation communities. Delineation of Ecoregions and vegetation zones was based on satellite imagery, and classifications such as Franklin and Dyrness (1973) for forested zones and Daubenmire (1970) for the Columbia Basin steppe.

• The Ecoregion units are contiguous, whereas the vegetation zones are not.

Columbia Basin - Washington and Blue Mountains - Oregon - Clarke and Bryce (1997). Ecoregions have been mapped at 2 hierarchical levels using physical land characteristics such as climate, geology, geomorphology, historic and present vegetation, soil , land use and hydrology (Omernik and Gallant 1986).

• The Ecoregions units are not contiguous and no vegetation zonation map is produced. - Map bases were 1:250,000.

International Ecoregion Maps

Ecological Regions of North America - Commission For Environmental Cooperation (1997) Ecoregions in the Canadian and American portions have been mapped using Wikens’ (1986) Ecozones of Canada, and Level I and II Ecoregions from the US Environmental Protection Agency (Omernik and Gallant 1989).

• The map represents the conjoining of units using different classification rules for each jurisdiction.

Canada and the US, Terrestrial Ecoregions – The World Wildlife Fund - Canada and United States developed an “ecoregion” map for the purpose of comparing biodiversity values and degree of protection (Ricketts et al. 1999) - This is a conjoining of the Ecoregions from Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s “ A National Ecological Framework for Canada” by the Ecological Stratification Working Group (1996) and the Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States by Omernik (1977) with additions to Alaska and Hawaii.

• There are 116 units depicted, but the levels depicted range from regional vegetation communities, vegetation zones to “Ecoregions” depending on the emphasis required for ecosystem protection.