Aerial Photo Interpretation for Wood Resources

N S W W E S T E R N R E G I O N A L A S S E S S M E N T S

Nandewar

Aerial PhotoInterpretation for

Wood ResourcesN A N D 0 8 ( V o l 4 )

December 2003

R E S O U R C E A N D C O N S E R V A T I O N A S S E S S M E N T C O U N C I L

N S W W E S T E R N R E G I O N A L A S S E S S M E N T S

Nandewar

Aerial PhotoInterpretation for

Wood ResourcesMurray W ebster

Project Number NAND08

R E S O U R C E A N D C O N S E R V A T I O N A S S E S S M E N T C O U N C I L

I N F O R M AT I O N

Crown Copyright December 2003

NSW Government

ISBN: 1 74029 218 9

This project has been funded and coordinated by the Resourceand Conservation Division (RACD) of the NSW Department ofInfrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, for the Resourceand Conservation Assessment Council (RACAC)

Preferred way to cite this publication:

Webster, M. 2004. Aerial Photo Interpretation for Wood Resources Nandewar Bio-Region. NSWWestern Regional Assessments. Project Number: NAND 08. Resource And Conservation AssessmentCouncil. 32 p.p

For more information and for information on access to data, contact:

Resource and Conservation Division, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources

P.O. Box 39

SYDNEY NSW 2001

Phone: 02 9228 6586

Fax: 02 9228 6411

Email: [email protected]

Key authors: Murray Webster

Disclaimer

While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that this document is correct at the time ofprinting, the State of New South Wales, its agents and employees, do not assume any responsibility andshall have no liability, consequential or otherwise, of any kind, arising from the use of or reliance on anyof the information contained in this document.

mailto:[email protected]

N SW W EST ER N R EG IO N AL A SS ES S MEN T S – N AN D EW AR

HEADER: INSERT DOCUMENT TITLE

Contents

Project Summary I

Acronyms and abbreviations II

Glossary III

i 1Introduction 1

1 2Aerial photography 2

1.1 SUMMARY 2

1.2 ACCURATE SPATIAL DATA CAPTURE 2

1.3 COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL AND DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY 3

1.4 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY DETAILS 6

1.5 PHOTOGRAMMETRY 6

2 8Research Note 17 forest typing 82.1 RESEARCH NOTE 17 8

2.2 API PROCEDURES 8

2.3 RESULTS OF RN17 FOREST TYPING 9

2.4 RECOGNITION OF FOREST TYPES 11

2.5 AMALGAMATION OF TYPES FOR WOOD RESOURCES 12

2.5 ANALYSIS OF RN17 FOREST TYPING 13

2.6 ANALYSIS OF WRA TYPE AMALGAMATION 22

3 26Forest structure mapping 263.1 SUMMARY 26

N SW W EST ER N R EG IO N AL A SS ES S MEN T S – N AN D EW AR

3.2 FOREST STRUCTURE ATTRIBUTE MAPPING 26

3.3 STRATIFICATION 28

4 32Conclusion 32

a 1Appendix 1.1 1

N SW W EST ER N R EG IO N AL A SS ES S MEN T S – N AN D EW AR I

Project SummaryAn aerial photo interpretation project was undertaken to support the Nandewar wood resourcesproject. The project mapped species and associations thereof to Research Note 17 standards. Foreststructure mapping was also undertaken.

This aerial photo interpretation project is apparently one of the first large project in Australia to utilisedigital photogrammetry and the resulting three-dimensional digital stereo images. This enabled anumber of tasks to be performed without additional photogrammetry and different mapping tasks to beperformed simultaneously in separate locations using copies of the data sets. Although significantdelays were encountered due to ‘teething problems’ associated with the implementation of newtechnology, it appears that on-screen interpretation using three dimensional models is a more efficientmethod for undertaking aerial photo interpretation.

Results indicate that effective separation of forest types was achieved with the exception of dominantwhite cypress pine versus mixed white cypress pine and ironbark.

The forest structure mapping appears to have achieved broad strata definition but due to tightdeadlines this was not available for incorporation in the wood resources project. Nevertheless the datacollected will further assist the planning of forestry operations in the region.

II N SW W EST ER N R EG IO N AL A SS ES S MEN T S – N AN D EW AR

Acronyms and abbreviations

API Aerial Photograph Interpretation

DSM Digital Stereo Model

GIS Geographic Information System

RN17 Research Note 17 – Forest Types in New South Wales

N SW W EST ER N R EG IO N AL A SS ES S MEN T S – N AN D EW AR III


Glossary

Diameter at breast height - diameter of a tree trunk at 1.3m above the ground

Diameter class - a range of diameters, eg 10 to 20 cm

Photogrammetry - the science of deriving accurate measurements from photos

Non-commercial thinning – an forestry operation were dense regrowth stands are reduced toa nominated stocking, in order to improve the timber production capacity of a site

Stocking - number of trees per hectare

N SW W EST ER N R EG IO N AL A SS ES S MEN T S – N AN D EW AR 1


i IntroductionWood resource assessment is underpinned by two sets of data. One set of data is derived from forestmensuration (i.e. measurement), which leads to estimates of timber volume per hectare and themodelling of growth over time. The other major data set is spatial data that provides the areas towhich the mensuration-derived estimates are applied.

The Nandewar bioregion was poorly serviced by spatial data describing the nature of the forest. Inorder to provide this essential data an aerial photograph interpretation project was initiated.

This project had two major aims:

• To provide essential floristic mapping to identify commercial and non-commercial forest types.Research Note 17 forest type mapping was used for this purpose

• To attempt forest structure mapping. Forest structure mapping has two potential purposes:

1. wood resource modelling if time permits, and2. planning forest operations and management activities.

This report details the methods and results of the aerial photo interpretation project.

2 AER IA L PH O T O IN T ER PR ET AT IO N P R O J EC T

1 Aerial photography

1.1 SUMMARY

This chapter details digital photogrammetric work performed that enabled the capture ofspatially accurate data. Accurate spatial data capture is essential for this project. Digitalphotogrammetry was used to ensure spatially accurate data capture. Digital photogrammetrycreates some efficiency since it allows aerial photo interpretation to take place on-screen in a3D environment, and for various interpretation exercises at various locations without furtherrequirement for photogrammetry.

1.2 ACCURATE SPATIAL DATA CAPTURE

Spatially accurate data collected from API underpins the wood resources project. It istherefore essential to ensure that the API is captured as accurately as possible, within theavailable budget.

This essential role that API plays in the wood resources project is highlighted by how it isused:

• API defines inaccessible areas incorporated into net mapped area.

• API is used to collect post-harvest data used in the net harvest area modifier.

• Forest type mapping is performed by API and delineates commercial and non-commercial forest types.

• Forest structure mapping by API clearly identifies regeneration dominant and non-commercially thinned areas.

The science of creating three-dimensional, spatially accurate data from aerial photography iscalled photogrammetry. Photogrammetry is used in the API project to ensure accuratespatial data capture. Note this also requires the assumption that the field plots are locatedaccurately.

Photogrammetry has been a critical component of data capture for all topographic maps.The use of photogrammetry allows data capture of known spatial accuracy. SFNSW has aspecialist photogrammetry unit and aims for a spatial accuracy better than 0.02% of the scaleof the photography, ie mapped data derived from 1:25 000 scale photography would have a


spatial accuracy of better than 5m. This is in contrast to the NSW native vegetation mappingproject (NVMP) that has spatial accuracy in the order of 50m.

Photogrammetry has been the subject of technological advances and practitioners now havethe choice of using either analytical or digital photogrammetry.

1.3 COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL AND DIGITALPHOTOGRAMMETRY

A decision was taken to use digital photogrammetry instead of the usual analyticalphotogrammetry. Analytical photogrammetry is a term used to describe the mapping offeatures from hard copy aerial photo prints or film, whereas digital (or soft copy)photogrammetry uses digital images acquired by scanning aerial prints or film.

The analytical and digital photogrammetric workflow used by SFNSW for vegetationmapping is illustrated below in figures 1.1 and 1.2.

Digital photogrammetric products have the following advantages over analyticalphotogrammetry for vegetation mapping purposes:

• Digital stereo models are produced that allows API to be undertaken on-screen anddirectly exported to GIS. This negates the need for photogrammetrists to trace over thelines and symbols drawn by the interpreter;

• Image processing enhancements can improve the recognition of species on-screen;

• Orthophotos (orthogonally rectified photos) are produced which can be made availablefor use as backdrops in GIS packages;

• Interpretation for different tasks can be performed on copies of the same imagery bydifferent operators at different locations simultaneously and does not require furtherinput from photogrammetrists;

• The digital stereo models can be viewed by many people and can be used to encourage abroader understanding of API;

• Digital stereo models and orthophotos are available for general purposes;


FIGURE 1.A ANALYTICALPHOTOGRAMMETRY PROCEDURE

Acquire photos

Perform aerotriangulation on photo prints

Digitise lines and symbols

Interpretation: lines and symbols office markedonto print overlays

Import to GIS

Analytical photogrammetric workflow for vegetation mapping

Photogrammetryworkflow

Interpretation fieldwork using photo prints

Interpretationworkflow

Notes:- Linear workflow photogrammetry and interpretation cannot be simultaneous- Photogrammetrists trace over interpreted lines, and redo labels- Only one set of images available- Additional mapping tasks require repetition of interpretation andphotogrammetric workflow, except aerotriangulation


FIGURE 1.B DIGITALPHOTOGRAMMETRY PROCEDURE

Acquire photos

Digital photogrammetric work-flow for vegetation mapping

Scan photos

Perform aerotriangulationon scanned photos Interpretation fieldwork

using photo prints

Products: 3D digital stereomodels and orthophotos

Interpretation: lines andsymbols captureddirectly on screen using3D stereo models

Import to GIS

Notes:- Parallel workflows allow photogrammetryand interpretation to be simultaneous- Avoids repetition line tracing and labelling- Multiple copies of onscreen imagesavailable- Additional mapping tasks require only theinterpretation workflow

Photogrammetry workflow Interpretation workflow

Deliver images


1.4 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY DETAILS

Aerial photography used for the project was the latest Land and Property Information (LPI)coverage available. The table below shows details of the photography.

1:100 000 Map sheet title Year of Photography Scale of Photography

Bingara 2001 1:25000

Boggabri 2001 1:25 000

Cobbadah 2001 1:25 000

Gravesend 1997 1:50000

Inverell 2001 1:25 000

Manilla 2001 1:25 000

Tamworth 2001 1:25 000

Yalloroi/Ashford 2000 1:50 000

Yetman/Texas 1999 1:50 000

A total of 176 prints were ordered at a cost of $4 345.

1.5 PHOTOGRAMMETRY

Aerial photo prints purchased from Land and Property Information were scanned at aresolution of 1200 dots per inch (dpi), by SFNSW. This resulted in a pixel size of 50cm for1:25 000 photography and 1m for 1:50 000 photography.

Photogrammetry was performed on 13 blocks of photography, numbered from 1 in the northto 13 in the south.

Digital photogrammetry was performed using ERDAS OrthoBase (version 8.6). Groundcontrol was observed from existing vector data, ie, roads, creeks and cadastre held inSFNSW GIS. Ground control derived from such sources is limited in accuracy. The tablebelow shows the spatial accuracy expressed as root mean square error of control pointvalues.


Block X rms (m) Y rms (m) Z rms (m)

1 5.5 5.9 5.5

2 10.3 10.5 5.7

3 10.1 9.8 3.3

4 6 5.4 3

5 6.3 6.4 4.1

6 9.1 9.2 2.9

7 8.9 10.9 2.9

8 6.3 6.6 6.8

9 7.9 10.8 13.7

10 2.5 2 1.5

11 6.6 6.4 2.9

12 7.7 8.5 1.7

13 4.2 5.1 3.8

Images and digital stereo models were sent to interpreters. Orthophotos were also produced.

Aerial photo interpretation was subsequently undertaken by specialist interpreters forResearch Note 17 (RN17) forest type and stand structure mapping. State Forests of NSWregional staff used the imagery to produce an accessibility layer, ie, a spatial data layerdefining accessible and inaccessible areas. Post-harvest mapping was also undertaken bySFNSW regional staff.

The existence of multiple copies of two and three-dimensional images allowed three separateAPI exercises to be conducted with only one photogrammetric process. This is a majoradvantage resulting from the use of digital photogrammetry.



2 Research Note 17 forest typing

2.1 RESEARCH NOTE 17

Research Note 17 was originally published in 1965. It is a classification of vegetation thatreflects the ecological thinking of the time – similar schemes were developed by Beadle andCostin (see references). These schemes are hierarchical classifications that recognise levelsof similarity between various co-occurring species. The levels formally documented byRN17 are termed: group, league, and forest type. Subtypes are combination types and arealso provided for in the classification.

A forest type is defined in RN17 as “major combinations of tree species recurring overappreciable areas of NSW”. Hence it is not designed to classify every occurrence of speciesand associations, though the use of sub-types can approach this function.

Research Note 17 forest typing has been carried out by SFNSW (and formerly the ForestryCommission of NSW) using intensive field-based aerial photo interpretation for the last fourdecades. Because there is a relatively continuous and consistent coverage of RN17 typingand that the system has relevance to wood resources, it has been adopted as policy bySFNSW as the preferred vegetation mapping classification system.

2.2 API PROCEDURES

Research Note 17 forest type mapping was undertaken using procedures developed primarilyduring the 1950’s and 60’s. Procedure is dominated by fieldwork, particularly in the earlystages of the work.

Typically the interpreter will follow a procedure that includes phases of office and fieldwork.Preliminary office work is aimed at: roughly determining SF boundaries; locating roads;familiarisation with broad vegetation types and land systems. Fieldwork is then undertaken.

Fieldwork is initially slow while the interpreter becomes familiar with local tree species,associations thereof and common RN17 forest types. During this initial phase the interpreterwill travel roads, using the stereoscopic three-dimensional model provided by overlappingphotos to navigate, and marking species and forest types onto the photos. As familiarity withthe area builds the interpreter will increasingly predict forest type based on photo appearancethen verify occurrence.


The interpreter will then do detailed office work, planning reconnaissance trails to sampleareas of forest where photo appearance warrants field inspection. More fieldwork is thenconducted with specific targeting of difficult areas. Some forest types and species will beeasily recognised while others will not. The time taken to complete an area depends uponthe ease of recognition of the various species and forest types and the expected level ofaccuracy. Fieldwork is recorded on overlays with a felt-tip pen.

Forest type boundaries and codes are then finalised by the interpreter back in the office. Inthis project the final forest type boundaries and coding were interpreted and digitisedsimultaneously using ERDAS Stereo Analyst 1.2 and 1.3. This software allows the viewingof three-dimensional stereo models, on-screen in a georeferenced environment. The 3Ddigital stereo models (DSM) are used for interpretation. Interpreters in this project foundspecies and type recognition easier on-screen than on prints. This is because of the ability toenhance colour, and readily zoom in and out. It is also simple to display existing GIS dataover the DSMs as an aid to interpretation. In this case State Forest boundaries wereimported and used as a shell within which to add RN17 types. The RN17 type layer thenmatched exactly with the existing SF boundaries. The digitised API is then exported in aGIS compatible format.

2.3 RESULTS OF RN17 FOREST TYPING

The result of RN17 forest typing is forest type data that exist primarily in GIS, and henceavailable as tabulated and spatial data.

Figure 2.1 below shows an example of RN17 forest typing displayed over an orthophoto ofSepoy SF no.733. Note that tree species are more distinguishable in this image than on thephoto prints. This is due to the use of image processing to enhance visible differences. Thisfacility is available during interpretation and can be varied for different species andlocations.


FIGURE 2.1 EXAMPLE OF RN17FOREST TYPING OVER ORTHOPHOTO

– SEPOY SF

The following points summarise more important details of the RN17 forest typingcomponent of the project:

• The total area covered by forest typing is 33 400 hectares;

• Mount Topper SF no. 419 (312 hectares) and Clive SF no. 782 (609 hectares) were notincluded as they are known to have no commercial forest types;

• The nominal minimum polygon size for forest is 2 hectares;

• The nominal minimum polygon size for non-forest, eg, rock, cleared, gravel pits etc, is 1hectare;

• 35 different forest types were used, however 179 different subtypes and combinationsthereof where recognised;

• A complete list of forest type codes used is included as appendix 1.1.


2.4 RECOGNITION OF FOREST TYPES

Details of forest type recognition are provided here to assist in utility of the product.

Relative dominance

With regard to the relative dominance of species the following quote is from page 6 ofResearch Note 17:

“No attempt has been made to define this ‘degree of predominance’. However in generalterms, in the case of a single dominant that species would normally be expected to make upat least 50 per cent of the basal area of upper storey trees, and usually rather more. Similarlywhere two indicator species are named, it would be expected that these, between them,would make up at least 50 per cent of the stand, that the ratio between the basal areas of thetwo species would lie in the range of 1:1 to 1:3, and that no other tree would have a greaterpresence, except over very small and local areas.”

Use of subtypes

Frequently in RN17 the forest type description refers to a group of related species. Forexample the description for forest type 191 (white cypress pine – western ironbarks) refers toblue-leaved, broad-leaved, Caley’s, red, and silver-leaved ironbarks. Where the interpreterwas confident in interpreting the species of ironbark, sharing a subscript was used to denotespecies. Generally the first letter of the ironbark species name was used. Hence where whitecypress pine and silver-leaved ironbark are co-dominant the forest type would be 191m,where the ‘m’ denotes Eucalyptus melanophloia. However, narrowleaved ironbark (E.crebra) is denoted with the subscript ‘c’ and Caley’s ironbark (E. caleyi) denoted with thesubscript ‘ca’ to avoid ambiguity.

A forest type title may include two groups of species. Forest type 204 is titled Ironbark –Western Box and refers to many different species of box and ironbark. Subscripts used todenote species are separated by a “-“. For example where silverleaved ironbark(E.melanophloia) was found with white box (E. albens), the forest type was recorded as204m-a.

Many subtypes have been used to denote species. These are detailed in appendix 1.1.

Use of combination types

Combination types have two forms in RN17.

The use of a “/” is used to indicate a polygon that has characteristics of two forest typeseither as a general mix, or the two types are alternating in patches that are too small todelineate with the specified minimum polygon size.

Figure 3.1 shows a polygon labelled 129f/178b in the upper left. Close inspection of theorthophoto backdrop will reveal that the polygon contains small patches of Angophorafloribunda (olive-green coloured crowns) alternating with patches of Eucalyptus blakelyi(light brown diffuse crowns). These patches are well below the nominal two hectare


minimum polygon size. These two species growing in association are not recognised as aforest type, which indicates that the association is ecotonal and does not occur overappreciable areas. Hence a combination type label was used to indicate the species. Foresttype 129 is titled ‘rough-barked apples’ of which there are a number of species – thesubscript ‘f’ denotes Angophora floribunda. Forest type 178 is titled ‘western red gums’ –the ‘b’ subscript denotes E. blakelyi. Angophora floribunda is more dominant than E.blakelyi and hence appears first in the combination type. When simplified to the forest typelevel, ie up from the subtype level, the first listed type is selected.

The use of a “+” is used to indicate two strata of vegetation clearly apparent. The first listedtype is deemed to be taller. For example the combination type 207+224W indicates foresttype 207 (silverleaved ironbark) growing over 224W (Western scrub). When usingcombination types it is convention to list the predominant type first. This allows subtypes tobe amalgamated up to the type level. Hence 207+224W would become 207 when simplifiedto the forest type level.

2.5 AMALGAMATION OF TYPES FOR WOOD RESOURCES

RN17 forest types were amalgamated into commercial/non-commercial as well as ‘westernregion assessment’ floristic-based broad types for various wood resources purposes.

Commercial and non-commercial forest types

Within the Nandewar bioregion forests, the only currently commercial species arenarrowleaved ironbark and white cypress pine. Hence all forest types that do not containthese species as dominants are categorised as non-commercial.

Forest types that are of low site quality and occur in rocky terrain were also categorised asnon-commercial because they produce negligible volume of sawlogs and are difficult toaccess. Polygons that are deemed to be non-commercial forest are excluded from the netmapped area. The categorisation of RN17 forest types into commercial and non-commercialcategories is detailed in appendix 1.1.

Western Region Assessment types

RN17 forest typing provides more detailed data than can be efficiently sampled for woodresources. An amalgamation of forest types is therefore required to for wood resourceapplications. A decision was taken to amalgamate RN17 forest types into existing broadforest types that were developed for brigalow belt south western region assessment stage 1.These broad types are being referred to as western region assessment types or WRA types.Table 2.1 below shows the WRA types. Appendix 1.1 details which RN17 forest typescorrespond to which WRA type.


TABLE 2.1 WRA TYPES

WRA type Number Description Area (hectares)

1 Box-pine 1662

2 Ironbark dominant 1766

3 Pine-ironbark 24385

4 Pine-redgum 1000

5 Not Pine 4561

2.5 ANALYSIS OF RN17 FOREST TYPING

The wood resources field plot measurements provide an opportunity to assess the accuracyof the API. The field plots are small (600 square metres) compared to the forest typing,which has a minimum unit of two hectares (20 000 square metres). The average of plot datais used to give an independent sample and hence profile of what species where recordedduring field plot work within different forest types.

Table 2.2 below shows how many plots where in each forest type sampled. Plots measured atotal of 1 352 trees. Three-letter codes are used as shorthand to denote species. The codesused, and the number of each species recorded are presented in table 2.3.

TABLE 2.2 NUMBER OF WOODRESOURCES PLOTS IN RN17 FOREST

TYPES

Rn17 Total181c 3181c/188 2188 15189/220 1191 5191ca 1191ca/m 1191m 8192 1192/129f 1193a 3194/207 1208 1220/193a 1Grand Total 44


TABLE 2.3 SPECIES CODES ANDNUMBER OF RECORDS IN WOOD

RESOURCE PLOTS

Code Species NumberBCP Black cypress pine Callitris endicheri 66EUC Unknown eucalypt 75FIB Broadleaved ironbark E. fibrosa 221

KUR Kurrajong Brachychiton populneus 3NCO Unknown non-commercial species 30NIB Narrowleaved ironbark E.crebra 72OAK Allocasuarina sp 42RAP Roughbarked apple Angophora floribunda 19SAP Smoothbarked apple A. costata 2SIB Silverleaved ironbark E. melanophloia 12TRG Tumbledown red gum E. dealbata 8WAT Wattle Acacia sp. 4WBX White box E. albens 56WCP White cypress pine Callitris glaucophylla 731WIL Wilga Geijera parvifolia 10YBX Yellow box E. melliodora 1Total 1352

Note it appears that FIB is an error and should be silverleaved ironbark (SIB) see notes onforest type 191m.


Forest Type 181c

The five plots falling in forest types 181c and 181c/188 were amalgamated to increase thesample size. The plot data are summarised in table 2.4 and figure 2.2. Forest type 181c istitled ‘black cypress pine – ironbark’. The use of the subscript ‘c’ denotes narrowleavedironbark, E. crebra. Forest type 181c/188 is 181c in association with 188, white cypresspine. The plots indicate that this forest type is dominated by black cypress pine andnarrowleaved iron bark as indicated by the API. Further the subdominant species in the plotdata are listed as associates in the RN17 description, except for roughbarked apple. Itappears that the unknown eucalypt is likely to be one of the redgums, see notes on foresttype 192 below.

TABLE 2.4 - SPECIES BY BASAL AREAFOR PLOTS IN FOREST TYPE 181C

AND 181C/188

Spp Total Percent BABCP 5.09 28.7%EUC 1.18 6.6%NIB 6.56 37.0%OAK 2.82 15.9%RAP 0.90 5.1%SAP 1.12 6.3%WCP 0.07 0.4%Total 17.74 100.0%

FIGURE 3.2 SPECIES BY BASAL AREAFOR PLOTS IN FOREST TYPE 181C

AND 181C/188

29%

7%

37%

16%

5%

6%

0%

BCPEUCNIBOAKRAPSAPWCP


Forest type 188.

Fifteen plots were located within polygons labelled 188. The plot data are summarised intable 2.5 and figure 2.3. Plot data show that white cypress pine is the dominant species asindicated by the API. A mixture of eucalypt species total 42.8% with silverleaved ironbarkmaking up 26.6%.

TABLE 2.5 SPECIES BY BASAL AREAFOR PLOTS IN FOREST TYPE 188

Species BA (sqm) percent BABCP 0.05 0.3%EUC 1.07 6.3%FIB 4.50 26.6%

NCO 0.19 1.1%RAP 0.92 5.5%TRG 0.17 1.0%WBX 0.58 3.4%WCP 9.35 55.4%WIL 0.07 0.4%Total 16.90 100.0%

Species by basal area for plots in forest type 188

0.3%

6.3%

1.1%

5.5%

1.0%

3.4%

55.4%

26.6%

0.4%BCPEUCFIBNCORAPTRGWBXWCPWIL


Forest type191

Forest type 191 is dominated by white cypress pine and silver-leaved ironbark and showslittle difference from forest type 188 in basal area, as shown in table 2.6 and figure 2.4.


Species BA (sqm) Percent BAEUC 2.17 15.7%FIB 3.32 24.1%NCO 0.29 2.1%RAP 0.27 2.0%WCP 7.76 56.2%Grand Total 13.81 100.0%

Species by basal area for plots in forest type 191 - White Cypress Pine/Ironbark

16%

24%

2%

2%

56%

EUCFIBNCORAPWCP


Forest type 191m

Data from plots in forest type 191m are shown in table 2.7 and figure 2.5 below. The type isdominated by white cypress pine and silverleaved ironbark. Silverleaved ironbark makes up 43% ofthe basal area indicating that this species can be readily identified by API, however the relativedominance of white cypress pine is very similar to forest types 188 and 191.

TABLE 2.7 SPECIES BY BASAL AREAFOR PLOTS IN FOREST TYPE 191M

Species BA (sqm) Percent BAFIB 13.21 43.0%NCO 0.24 0.8%SAP 0.36 1.2%WBX 0.55 1.8%WCP 15.98 52.0%YBX 0.38 1.3%Grand Total 30.73 100.0%

Field plots indicate that the API failed to distinguish white cypress dominated areas from areas ofironbark mixed with white cypress pine. There are a number of factors contributing to this result:

• RN17 API refers to crown cover percent of the upper stratum not basal area.• White cypress pine can grow to high basal areas underneath a eucalypt canopy

and be invisible from above.• The proportions of white cypress pine and ironbark is a continuum.• Areas of non-commercially thinned white cypress pine may currently be

dominated by ironbark due to the reduction in white cypress pine basal area.These areas have been called 188 because they were, and are likely to again bedominated by white cypress pine.

Species by basal area for plots in forest type 191m White Cypress Pine - Ironbark (silverleaved)

43%

1%

1%

52%

1%

2%

FIBNCOSAPWBXWCPYBX


In wood resources terms forest types 191, 191m and 188 can be considered the same. A higherproportion of silverleaved ironbark over other eucalypt and related species can be expected in 191m,however this is not significant in today’s markets.


Forest Type 193a

Forest type 193a is dominated by white box with white cypress the next most common species at17.1%. Field work in this project indicates that this type has two phases or ‘ecotypes’. White boxmay be in association with white cypress in a woodland phase, or a hillside phase. The woodlandphase is on undulating deeper soils, has a grassy understorey and has been heavily modified byagriculture. The hillside phase grows on steeper rocky slopes, has a higher percentage of whitecypress pine and has not been greatly affected by agriculture. These two phases have not beendelineated by API, although this could be undertaken as an office-based exercise using the digitalstereo models targeting all 193a polygons and labelling them as the woodland or hillside phase basedon topography and openness of the understorey.

TABLE 2.8 SPECIES BY BASAL AREAFOR PLOTS IN FOREST TYPE 193A

Species BA (sqm) Percent BAEUC 0.12 1.0%FIB 0.33 2.8%NCO 0.10 0.8%RAP 0.30 2.5%WAT 0.29 2.4%WBX 8.70 72.4%WCP 2.05 17.1%WIL 0.13 1.1%Grand Total 12.01 100.0%

FIGURE 2.6 SPECIES BY BASAL AREAFOR PLOTS IN FOREST TYPE 193A

73%

17% 2%

1%1%

2%

3%1%

EUCFIBNCORAPWATWBXWCPWIL


Forest Type 192Forest type 192 is dominated by white cypress pine and an unknown species of eucalypt as shown intable 2.9 and figure 2.7. The unknown eucalypt is likely to be a species of red gum given that the APIhas indicated red gum and although red gum species can be difficult to identify the red gum group iseasily recognisable.


Species BA (sqm) Percent BAEUC 2.22 39.6%FIB 0.73 13.1%KUR 0.31 5.6%WAT 0.05 0.8%WBX 0.07 1.3%WCP 2.22 39.6%Grand Total 5.59 100.0%

FIGURE 2.7 SPECIES BY BASAL AREAFOR PLOTS IN FOREST TYPE 193A

39%

13%

6%

1%

1%

40%EUCFIBKURWATWBXWCP


2.6 ANALYSIS OF WRA TYPE AMALGAMATION

WRA type 1 Box-Pine

Data from plots in WRA type 1 reflect a dominance of the indicated species, with white boxat 66% and white cypress pine at 19.6%.

TABLE 2.10 SPECIES BY BASAL AREAFOR PLOTS IN WRA TYPE 1

Species BA (sqm) Percent BAEUC 0.63 4.8%FIB 0.33 2.6%NCO 0.10 0.7%RAP 0.30 2.3%WAT 0.29 2.2%WBX 8.70 66.8%WCP 2.55 19.6%WIL 0.13 1%Grand Total 13.02 100.0%

FIGURE 2.8 SPECIES BY BASAL AREAFOR PLOTS IN WRA TYPE 1

Species by basal area for WRA type 1: Box-Pine

66%

20%

1%3%

1%5%

2%2% EUC

FIBNCORAPWATWBXWCPWIL


WRA type 2 Narrowleaved Ironbark Dominant

Data from plots in WRA type 2 show that the indicated species narrowleaved ironbark is themost dominant at 45.5% with a range of other species, notably bull oak at 19.2%.


Species BA (sqm) Percent BABCP 1.67 11.6%EUC 0.31 2.2%NCO 0.15 1.1%NIB 6.55 45.5%OAK 2.77 19.2%RAP 0.90 6.3%SAP 1.12 7.8%WCP 0.92 6%Grand Total 14.39 100.0%

FIGURE 2.9 SPECIES BY BASAL AREAFOR PLOTS IN WRA TYPE 2

Species by basal area for WRA type 2: NIB Dominant

12%2%

1%

46%

19%

6%

8%6%

BCPEUCNCONIBOAKRAPSAPWCP


WRA type 3 Pine- Ironbark

Data from plots in WRA type 2 show that the indicated species dominate with white cypresspine occupying 41.3% of basal area with ironbarks making up 35.1%. Silverleaved ironbarkis the most common 28.2% and narrowleaved ironbark is only a small proportion at 4.3%.


Species BA (sqm) Percent BABCP 3.47 3.9%EUC 4.52 5.1%FIB 25.04 28.2%KUR 0.24 0.3%NCO 1.52 1.7%NIB 3.82 4.3%OAK 0.06 0.1%RAP 1.19 1.3%SAP 0.36 0.4%SIB 2.25 2.5%TRG 0.17 0.2%WBX 8.99 10.1%WCP 36.67 41.3%WIL 0.07 0.1%YBX 0.38 0.4%Grand Total 88.75 100.0%

FIGURE 2.10 SPECIES BY BASALAREA FOR PLOTS IN WRA TYPE 3

Species by basal area for WRA type 3: Pine-Ironbark

4% 5%

29%

10%

42%

0%

0%

0%1%

0%3%0%

4%

0%2%

BCPEUCFIBKURNCONIBOAKRAPSAPSIBTRGWBXWCPWILYBX


WRA type 4 Pine-Redgum

Data from plots in WRA type 4 show that the indicated species dominate with both whitecypress pine and an unkown eucalypt (presumed to be redgum - see notes on forest type192, chapter 3.7) occupying 39.6% of basal area.


Species BA (sqm) Percent BAEUC 2.22 39.6%FIB 0.73 13.1%KUR 0.31 5.6%WAT 0.05 0.8%WBX 0.07 1.3%WCP 2.22 39.6%Grand Total 5.59 100.0%

Species by basal area for WRA type 4: Pine-Redgum

39%

13%

6%

1%

1%

40%EUCFIBKURWATWBXWCP

No wood resource data exist for WRA type 5 ‘not pine’.



3 Forest structure mapping

3.1 SUMMARY

Forest structure mapping by API was attempted with the aim of:• stratification of the area for wood resource sampling, and• provision of useful forest management information.

A detailed forest structure classification was developed based on stocking height and diameter atbreast height of commercial species. The results indicate a broad stratification was achieved. Thestrata can be summarised as:

1) Non-commercially thinned white cypress pine2) Regeneration dominant white cypress pine – candidate for non-commercial thinning3) Higher current sawlog volume areas4) The remainder which is a combination of mixed age, diameter and stocking

3.2 FOREST STRUCTURE ATTRIBUTE MAPPING

A forest structure classification system was created following discussion between wood resourcespecialists, project managers, and regional staff within State Forests of New South Wales.

The classification system was based on diameter classes, stocking, and height. Past structuralclassification systems used within State Forests have generally created classes prior to API and thenassigned polygons to those classes. In this project it was decided that the interpreter would estimateand record structural variables, rather than forcing polygons into pre-defined classes. Aggregation ofstocking estimates into structural classes (i.e. range of values) would then take place afterinterpretation.

Figure 3.1 below shows the API pathway for forest structure mapping.


FIGURE 3.1 API PATHWAY FORFOREST TYPE MAPPING

Structural API was only to be performed on commercial forest types defined during RN17 typing.Hence structural API was performed after RN17 API, on existing polygons. Subdivision of polygonsdue to structural variation was permitted subject to a minimum polygon size of two hectares.

The following variables were coded:

Site Quality: In forestry terms site quality is intended to indicate the productive capacity of a site, asdetermined by a range of environmental variables. The maximum height that a species of tree growson a site is used as an indication of site quality. In this project only site quality of white cypress pinewas mapped. Three site quality classes were used:

• 1 – high site quality, site capable of growing trees in excess of 18m tall. Two thousand hectareswere mapped as site quality one, of which approximately 670 hectares are excluded from harvestunder net mapped area rules.

• 2 – medium site quality, site capable of growing trees between 8 and 18m tall. Twenty-fourthousand seven hundred hectares were mapped as site quality 2, of which 4860 hectares areexcluded from harvest under net mapped area rules.

• 3 – low site quality, site not capable of growing trees in excess of 8m. Four thousand sevenhundred and seventy hectares were mapped as site quality 3, of which 3000 are excluded fromharvest under net mapped area rules.

White cypress pine stand height: the height of the dominant component of a stand. Interpretersmeasured the heights of a range of trees in the field, and recorded the tree locations on the photooverlays. Height was also measured on-screen using the three dimensional capability of StereoAnalyst to assist interpretation. The range of stand height estimates from API was between two andtwenty metres.

1. Delineate non-forest to 1 hectare, eg, gravel pits, rock, clearings

2. Delineate eucalypt dominant types to two hectares eg, yellow box,white box

3. Delineate white or black cypress pine dominant types to twohectares

4. Subdivide remaining mixed cypress/eucalypt areas according tospecies to a minimum of two hectares.


White cypress pine stocking: stocking of white cypress pine was estimated for the following diameterat breast height classes:

• less then 10cm

• 10 to 20 cm

• 20 to 30 cm

• over 30 cm

Note that 5 cm diameter classes were attempted but it was not technically possible with the scale ofphotography in use.

Narrowleaved ironbark stand height: stand height of narrowleaved ironbark was estimated. The rangeof stand heights was up to 28 metres.

Narrowleaved Ironbark stocking: stocking of narrowleaved ironbark was estimated for the followingdiameter at breast height classes:

• less then 50cm

• over 50 cm

Note that smaller diameter classes were attempted but it was not technically possible with the scale ofphotography in use – most of the narrowleaved ironbark occurred on 1:50 000 scale photos.

3.3 STRATIFICATION

The forest structure mapping can be amalgamated into various combinations for various purposes.The following strata are suggested as being relevant for wood resource and forest managementpurposes.

Non-commercial forest

Polygons categorised as non-commercial, based on RN17 forest typing have been included in thiscategory as well as all of Clive, Mount Topper, and Copeton State Forests. These state forests wereexcluded from the API project because they were known to have insignificant white cypress pineresources.

The total area classified as non-commercial forest was 9865 hectares, of which 2310 hectares is fromthe excluded State Forests. Non-commercial forest is an exclusion for net mapped area purposes.

Non-commercial thinning

Areas of non-commercial thinning were identified during API. Only recent non-commercial thinningwas mapped. Some stands have non-commercial thinning dating back decades and have subsequentlybeen selectively harvested, with consequently more regeneration. Non-commercial thinning here


refers to thinning of regeneration, where the remaining stems are less then approximately 15cm indiameter.

Note that some of this area also had a high number of trees over 30cm, but has been harvested sincephoto date. This illustrates the point that polygons can be amalgamated for different purposes. It isfact that some areas within Dowe State Forest where both non-commercially thinned and had asignificant volume of larger trees.

Four hundred and sixty hectares have been identified as non-commercially thinned, of which 60hectares is in excluded categories of the net mapped area. However, the area of non-commerciallythinned forest has increased since photo date in Mehi State Forest.

Figure 3.2 shows a non-commercially thinned area, a plot location, some cleared areas and denseregeneration.


FIGURE 3.2 EXAMPLE OFSTRUCTURAL MAPPING


Regeneration dominant:

Polygons that were coded as having more than 500 stems per hectare of less than 10cm diameter whitecypress pine, and had a low number of larger diameter classes have been labelled regenerationdominant. These areas have potential for future non-commercial thinning operations. The total areaincluded in the regeneration dominant stratum was 2832 hectares, of which 326 hectares are excludedfrom the net mapped area.

Sawlog

Polygons that were coded as having more 20 trees per hectare in the greater than 30cm diameter class,and/or more than 50 trees per hectare in the 20-30cm diameter class have been classified into a sawlogstratum. These areas are likely to be carrying more than average volumes of white cypress pine logs.The total area of the sawlog strata is 830 hectares, of which 280 hectares are excluded from the netmapped area.

Narrowleaved ironbark (nib)

The narrowleaved ironbark forest types were amalgamated into western region assessment (WRA)type 2. This is all included in the narrowleaved ironbark strata. A total of 1766 hectares in included innarrowleaved ironbark strata, of which 98 hectares are excluded from the net mapped area.

Mixed

The remainder of the forest area that was not included in the above types has been included in a mixedstratum. White cypress pine in a range of diameter classes and stocking dominates these areas. Atotal of 19940 hectares is included in this stratum of which 2216 hectares are excluded from the netmapped area.

This is a large stratum. It is expected that if operational staff use the API GIS layers in conjunctionwith two- or three-dimensional imagery and field work, that they will recognise variation that will beuseful from an operational perspective.


4 Conclusion

The major contribution of this API project to the wood resources project has been theprovision explicit spatial data essential for defining commercial and non-commercial forest.

Because digital photogrammetry was used instead of analytical photogrammetry, as used inprevious API projects, the same three-dimensional digital imagery was able to be used formany tasks, including derivation of a broad accessibility layer and post harvest mapping foruse in generating the net harvest area modifier.

The Research Note 17 forest typing appears to have achieved a good separation of speciesand associations. The exception is distinguishing white cypress pine dominant versus whitecypress pine mixed with ironbark, which for wood resource purposes can be considered thesame.

The amalgamation of RN17 types into five western region assessment types alsodemonstrates a good broad level of floristic classification.

Forest structure mapping appears to have achieved stratification into six broad strata. Theinformation provided by the API can be used not only in strategic inventory, but also inassisting many operational tasks.


AERIAL PHOTO INTERPRETATION PROJECT

a Appendix 1.1

List of forest types used in Nandewar WRA

RN17 type Dominant_type

No ofpolygons

Area(ha)

Commercial

WRAtype

DESCRIPTION

105/175 105 1 3.6 0 5 Smoothbarked Apple (Angophora costata) in association with White Box (E. albens)129f 129 5 21.1 0 5 Roughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda)

129f/178b 129 2 9.7 0 5 Roughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda) in association with Blakelys Red Gum (E.blakelyi)129f/181ca 129 1 11.6 0 3 Roughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda) in association with Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Caleys'

Ironbark (E.caleyi)129f/188 129 1 24.1 1 3 Roughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda) in association with White Cypress Pine

129f/191m 129 1 1.3 1 3 Roughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda) in association with White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) -Silverleaved Ironbark (E.melanophloia)

129f/193a 129 1 7.7 1 1 Roughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda) in association with White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - WhiteBox (E.albens)

129f/207 129 1 22.6 0 5 Roughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda) in association with Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia)171 171 2 4.5 0 5 Yellow Box (E. meliodora)175 175 50 480.8 0 5 White Box (E. albens)

175/105 175 1 5.2 0 5 White Box (E. albens) in association with Smoothbarked Apple (Angophora costata)175/171 175 1 5.3 0 5 White Box (E. albens) in association with Yellow Box (E.meliodora)175/178d 175 2 5.6 0 5 White Box (E. albens) in association with Tumbledown Red Gum (E.dealbata)175/191m 175 5 36.7 1 3 Roughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda) in association with White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) -

Silverleaved Ironbark (E.melanophloia)175/208 175 2 68.6 0 5 White Box (E. albens) in association with Narrowleaved Ironbark (E.crebra) - Bull Oak (Allocasuarina luehmannii)175/220 175 1 28.1 0 5 White Box (E. albens), cleared areas present177b-m 177 1 2.0 0 5 Blakely's Red Gum (E.blakelyi) - Red Stringybark (E.macrorhyncha)178/175 178 1 7.4 0 5 Western Red Gums - White Box (E.albens)

178/191ca 178 1 9.6 1 3 Western Red Gums in association White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Caley's Ironbark (E.caleyi)178b 178 7 38.7 0 5 Blakely's Red Gum (E.blakelyi)

178b/129f 178 6 55.3 0 5 Blakely's Red Gum (E.blakelyi) in association with Roughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda)178b/220 178 2 15.4 0 5 Blakely's Red Gum (E.blakelyi), cleared areas present


178d 178 4 19.7 0 5 Tumbledown Red Gum (E.dealbata)178d/175 178 2 3.2 0 5 Tumbledown Red Gum (E.dealbata) in association with White Box (E. albens)178d/214 178 2 6.3 0 5 Tumbledown Red Gum (E.dealbata) in association with Wattle (Acacia sp.)

180 180 8 82.6 0 5 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri)180/122y 180 1 4.0 0 5 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) in association with Youmans' Stringybark (E. youmannii)180/234 180 1 13.1 0 5 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) alternating with areas of rock

181c 181 30 894.2 1 2 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra)181c/105 181 3 38.3 1 2 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) in association with Smothbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda)181c/129f 181 2 31.3 1 2 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra) in association with Roughbarked Apple

(Angophora floribunda)181c/188 181 21 716.9 1 3 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra) in association with White Cypress Pine

(Callitris glaucophylla)181c/ca 181 6 81.7 1 2 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra)/Caley's Ironbark (E.caleyi)181c/m 181 5 104.1 1 2 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra)/Silverleaved Ironbark (E.melanophloia)181c/s 181 1 70.8 1 2 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra)/Red Ironbark (E.sideroxylon)181ca 181 3 16.8 0 5 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi)

181ca/188 181 1 10.8 1 5 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi) in association with White Cypress Pine (Callitrisglaucophylla)

181ca/220 181 2 45.7 0 5 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi), cleared areas present181ca/234 181 1 34.7 0 5 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi), alternating with areas of rock181ca+234 181 4 41.2 0 5 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi), on rocky terrain

181m 181 10 209.3 0 5 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia)181m/234 181 3 31.5 0 5 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia), alternating with areas of rock181m+234 181 1 12.4 0 5 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia), on rocky terrain

181s/m 181 2 9.3 0 5 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Red Ironbark (E. sideroxylon)/Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia)182a 182 2 7.7 0 5 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - White Box (E. albens)183d 183 1 1.9 0 5 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Tumbledown Red Gum (E. dealbata)185 185 5 69.9 1 3 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla)

185/204m-a 185 1 7.7 1 3 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) in association with Silverleaved Ironbark (E.melanophloia) - White Box (E.albens)

185/207 185 6 190.3 1 3 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) in association with SilverleavedIronbark (E.melanophloia)

185/234 185 4 55.4 0 3 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) on rocky terrain185+234 185 3 21.9 0 3 Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) alternating with areas of rock

188 188 208 7204.4 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla)188/129f 188 4 15.8 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) in association with Roughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda)

188/204m-a 188 36 687.5 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) in association with Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia) - White Box(E.albens)


188/204m-m 188 2 8.7 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) in association with Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia) - Yellow Box(E. meliodora)

188/205ca-d 191 1 2.4 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) in association with Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi) - Tumbledown Red Gum(E. dealbata)

188/205m-d 188 24 209.4 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) in association with Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia) - TumbledownRed Gum (E. dealbata)

188/220 188 4 37.8 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla), cleared areas present188/234 188 10 114.0 0 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) alternating with areas of rock188+234 188 9 82.6 0 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) on rocky terrain

189 189 32 971.1 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra)189/129f 189 1 8.6 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra) in association with Roughbarked

Apple (Angophora floribunda)189/175 189 1 14.2 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra) in association with White Box (E.

albens)189/192 189 1 76.9 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra) in association with Red Gum sp.189/220 189 3 38.5 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra), cleared areas present

189/224W 189 2 89.8 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra) in association with Western Scrub191 191 167 3290.7 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Ironbark sp.

191/129f 191 1 0.8 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Ironbark sp. in association with Roughbarked Apple (Angophorafloribunda)

191/220 191 3 27.5 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Ironbark sp., cleared areas present191/224W 191 5 44.5 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia) in association with Western

Scrub191+214 191 2 16.6 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Ironbark sp. over Wattle (Acacia sp.)

191+224W 191 3 40.8 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Ironbark sp. over Western Scrub191+234 191 72 1438.2 0 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Ironbark sp. on rocky terrain

191ca 191 51 910.6 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi)191ca/129f 191 2 11.6 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi) in association with (Angophora floribunda)191ca/175a 191 1 10.1 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi) in association with White Box (E. albens)191ca/180 191 6 80.8 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi) in association with Black Cypress Pine

(Callitris endlicheri)191ca/234 191 4 115.5 0 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi) alternating with rock191ca/m 191 3 786.6 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi)/Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia)

191ca+234 191 8 145.1 0 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi) on rocky terrain191m 191 363 4664.7 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia)

191m/129f 191 1 6.0 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia) in association withRoughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda)

191m/195 191 3 36.1 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia) in association with Hillside RedGum sp.


191m/220 191 9 73.6 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia), cleared areas present191m/234 191 5 37.3 0 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia), alternating with rock191m/ca 191 3 23.1 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia)/Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi)

191m/ca+234 191 2 68.0 0 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia)/Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi) onrocky terrain

191m+234 191 33 774.2 0 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia), on rocky terrain192 192 39 779.8 1 4 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Red Gum sp.

192/129f 192 9 118.9 1 4 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Red Gum sp. in association with Roughbarked Apple (Angophorafloribunda)

192/191 192 1 11.4 1 4 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Red Gum sp. in association with Ironbark sp. and NarrowleavedIronbark (E.crebra)

192/220 192 1 8.6 1 4 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Red Gum sp., cleared areas present192+234 192 2 23.5 0 4 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Red Gum sp., on rocky terrain

192b 192 2 40.6 1 4 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Blakely's Red Gum (E. blakelyi)193 193 1 38.8 1 1 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Box sp.

193a 193 69 1472.4 1 1 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - White Box (E. albens)193a/234 193 5 36.5 0 1 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - White Box (E. albens), alternating with rock193a+234 193 1 5.2 0 1 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - White Box (E. albens), in rocky terrain193a-m 193 1 6.8 1 1 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - White Box (E. albens)/Yellow Box (E.meliodora)193m 193 10 35.0 1 1 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Yellow Box (E.meliodora)194 194 19 392.5 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri)

194/207 194 3 94.0 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) in association with SilverleavedIronbark (E. melanophloia)

194/234 194 5 129.3 0 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri), alternating with rock194+234 194 2 56.0 0 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) in association with Silverleaved

Ironbark (E. melanophloia), on rocky terrain195 195 7 109.9 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Hillside Red Gum

195/207 195 2 15.9 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Hillside Red Gum in association with Silverleaved Ironbark (E.melanophloia)

195/234 195 1 17.2 0 4 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Hillside Red Gum alternating with rock195ba 195 2 4.4 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Bancrofts Red Gum (E. bancroftii)195d 195 12 80.7 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Tumbledown Red Gum (E. dealbata)

195d/207 195 6 60.7 1 3 White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Tumbledown Red Gum (E. dealbata) in association with SilverleavedIronbark (E. melanophloia)

199 199 10 64.2 0 3 River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis)199/129f 199 5 56.7 0 5 River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis) in association with Roughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda)199/178b 199 1 11.9 0 5 River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis) in association with Blakely's Red Gum (E. blakelyi)199/211 199 1 7.9 0 5 River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis) in association with River Oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana)


199+234 199 1 6.2 0 5 River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis) on rocky terrain203m/181c 203 1 4.7 1 2 Grey Box (E. microcarpa) in association with Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Narrowleaved Ironbark (E.

crebra)203m/181ca 203 1 7.9 0 5 Grey Box (E. microcarpa) in association with Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri) - Caleys' Ironbark (E. caleyi)203m+180 203 4 90.3 0 5 Grey Box (E. microcarpa) over Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri)204/224W 204 8 114.1 0 5 Silverleaved Ironbark (E.melanophloia) over Western Scrub

204c-a 204 5 25.2 0 2 Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra) - White Box (E. albens)204c-a+180 204 2 21.1 0 2 Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra) - White Box (E. albens) over Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri)

204m-a 204 24 213.6 0 5 Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia) - White Box (E. albens)204m-a/188 204 1 35.0 0 3 Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia) - White Box (E. albens) in association with White Cypress Pine (Callitris

glaucophylla)204m-m 204 6 22.6 0 5 Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia) - Yellow Box (E. meliodora)

205c 205 1 3.1 1 2 Narrowleaved Ironbark (E. crebra) - Red Gum sp.205ca-d 205 2 51.4 0 5 Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi) - Tumbledown Red Gum (E. dealbata)

205ca-d+234 205 2 27.5 0 5 Caley's Ironbark (E. caleyi) - Tumbledown Red Gum (E. dealbata) on rocky terrain205m-b 205 1 1.5 0 5 Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia) - Blakely's Red Gum (E.blakelyi)205m-d 178 12 174.1 0 5 Silverleaved Ironbark (E.melanophloia) - Tumbledown Red Gum (E.dealbata)

205m-d/188 178 4 34.2 1 3 Tumbledown Red Gum (E.dealbata) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E.melanophloia) in association with White Cypress Pine(Callitris glaucophylla)

206 206 1 2.2 0 5 Red Ironbark (E. sideroxylon)207 207 87 803.8 0 5 Silverleaved Ironbark (E.melanophloia)

207/129f 207 2 17.2 0 5 Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia) in association with Roughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda)207/208 207 1 6.6 1 2 Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia) in association with Narrow-leaved Ironbark (E. crebra) - Bull Oak

(Allocasuarina luehmannii)207/220 207 8 41.9 0 5 Silverleaved Ironbark (E.melanophloia), cleared areas present207/234 207 2 21.9 0 5 Silverleaved Ironbark (E.melanophloia) alternating with rock207+214 207 6 89.7 0 5 Silverleaved Ironbark (E.melanophloia) over Wattle (Acacia sp.)

207+224W 219 1 17.3 0 5 Silverleaved Ironbark (E.melanophloia) over Western Scrub207+234 207 8 52.9 0 5 Silverleaved Ironbark (E.melanophloia) on rocky terrain

208 208 18 345.9 1 2 Narrow-leaved Ironbark (E. crebra) - Bull Oak (Allocasuarina luehmannii)208/105 208 2 10.1 1 2 Narrow-leaved Ironbark (E. crebra) - Bull Oak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) in association with Smoothbarked Apple

(Angophora costata)208/129f 208 2 22.7 1 2 Narrow-leaved Ironbark (E. crebra) - Bull Oak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) in association with Roughbarked Apple

(Angphora floribunda)208/175 208 1 1.9 1 2 Narrow-leaved Ironbark (E. crebra) - Bull Oak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) in association with White Box (E. albens)208/178d 208 2 14.5 1 2 Narrow-leaved Ironbark (E. crebra) - Bull Oak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) in association with Tumbledown Red Gum

(E. dealbata)208/180 208 1 5.4 1 2 Narrow-leaved Ironbark (E. crebra) - Bull Oak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) in association with Black Cypress Pine


(Callitiris endlicheri)208/203m 208 1 4.2 1 2 Narrow-leaved Ironbark (E. crebra) - Bull Oak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) in association with Grey Box (E.

microcarpa)208/204 208 4 83.1 1 2 Narrow-leaved Ironbark (E. crebra) - Bull Oak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) in association with Silverleaved Ironbark (E.

melanophloia)211 211 3 14.1 0 5 River Oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana)

211/129f 211 1 2.7 0 5 River Oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana) in association with Roughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda)211/191m 211 1 0.8 1 3 River Oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana) in association with Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia)211/199 211 3 16.4 0 5 River Oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana) in association with River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis)211/234 211 1 4.4 0 5 River Oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana) alternating with rock214/178d 214 2 20.3 0 5 Wattle (Acacia sp.) associated with Tumbledown Red Gum (E. dealbata)214+234 214 1 1.6 0 5 Wattle (Acacia sp.) on rocky terrain

219 219 15 50.8 0 5 Settlements, Roads, Gravel Pits, etc220 220 104 836.9 0 5 Cleared

220/129f 220 1 2.5 0 5 Cleared, with remnant Roughbarked Apple (Angophora floribunda)220/175 220 2 5.4 0 5 Cleared, with remnant White Box (E. albens)220/188 220 2 19.8 1 3 Cleared, with remnant White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla)

220/191m 220 4 16.6 1 3 Cleared, with remnant White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia)220/193a 220 3 24.6 1 1 Cleared, with remnant White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - White Box (E. albens)220/207 220 2 9.6 0 5 Cleared, with remnant Silverleaved Ironbark (E. melanophloia)220/214 220 2 8.3 0 5 Cleared, with Wattle (Acacia sp.)220/216 220 1 72.1 0 5 Cleared, and Improved Pasture and Cropland220/219 220 1 4.5 0 5 Cleared with Settlements, Roads, Gravels Pits, etc

220/224W 220 4 40.4 0 5 Cleared, with Western Scrub223/234 223 1 0.9 0 5 Heath, alternating with rock223+234 223 1 0.9 0 5 Heath, on rocky terrain

224l 224 1 3.3 0 5 Teatree (Leptospermum sp.) Scrub224W/191m 224 5 26.0 1 3 Western Scrub in Association with White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Silverleaved Ironbark (E.

melanophloia)224W/234 224 1 1.1 0 5 Western Scrub, on rocky terrain

225v 225 3 8.7 0 5 Green Mallee (E. viridis)234 234 41 204.5 0 5 Rock

234/185 234 2 14.3 0 5 Rock alternating with Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicheri)234/188 234 1 14.3 0 3 Rock alternating with White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla)234/191 234 3 20.1 0 3 Rock alternating with White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) - Ironbark sp.234/207 234 1 5.1 0 5 Rock alternating with Silverleaved Ironbark

235 235 3 8.9 0 5 Water Surfaces

Aerial Photo Interpretation for Wood Resources

Documents

Transcript of Aerial Photo Interpretation for Wood Resources