Report Title: Identify Characterize & Quantify the Types of Landforms …library.cemaonline.ca/ckan/dataset/ef103f1b-134c-4071-be... · 2015-01-29 · a plain, plateau, or mountain,

Report Title: Identify Characterize & Quantify the Types of Landforms and Landscape Patterns Present in the Regional Municipality of

Wood Buffalo

Working Group: Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group

Final/Approved Report Date: September, 2006

Contract Number: 2002-0032 (Phase 1) & 2005-0029 (Phase 2)

COPYRIGHT #: 1042265 (Phase 1) & 1016151 (Phase 2) ***All information contained within this report is owned and copyrighted by the Cumulative Environmental Management Association. As a user, you are granted a limited license to display or print the information provided for personal, non-commercial use only, provided the information is not modified and all copyright and other proprietary notices are retained. None of the information may be otherwise reproduced, republished or re-disseminated in any manner or form without the prior written permission of an authorized representative of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association.***

CEMA Disclaimer Contract Name: Identify Characterize & Quantify the Types of Landforms and Landscape Patterns Present in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Consultant Name(s): LandMapper Environmental Solutions inc., Soil-Info Ltd., GISmo Solutions Ltd., Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd., AMEC Earth and Environmental Ltd. and Pettapiece Pedology. This report was commissioned by the Cultural and Historical Resources Subgroup of the Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA), in its tasks of developing a management framework to address the cumulative effects of development in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. Specifically, this report was intended to assess landform topographical characteristic from a visual resource management perspective in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. The objective of this project was to characterize the physiognomy of the various simple landforms and complex landform assemblages in the selected area within the RSDS region. The information was to be collated into a landform database in a format that could be appended to the existing ALI database. This report has been completed in accordance with the terms of reference issued by the Cultural and Historical Resources Subgroup. The Cultural and Historical Resources Subgroup has closed this project and considers this report final. The Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group does not fully endorse all of the contents of this report, nor does the report necessarily represent the views or opinions of CEMA or the Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group Members. The conclusions and recommendations contained within this report are those of the consultant, and have neither been accepted nor rejected by the Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group. Until such time as Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group issues correspondence confirming acceptance, rejection, or non-consensus regarding the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report, they should be regarded as information only. For more information please contact CEMA at 780-799-3947.

IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE & QUANTIFY THE TYPES OF LANDFORMS AND LANDSCAPE PATTERNS PRESENT IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WOOD BUFFALO

Prepared For: CEMA Project Office

Prepared By: Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd. LandMapper Environmental Solutions Inc. Soil-Info Ltd. GISmo Solutions Ltd. Amec Pettapiece Pedology

September 12, 2006 (final revision)

Final Report

IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE & QUANTIFY THE TYPES OF LANDFORMS AND LANDSCAPE

PATTERNS PRESENT IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WOOD BUFFALO

Submitted to: CEMA

Cumulative Environmental Management Association

Submitted by:

R.A. MacMillan, Ph.D, P.Ag, LandMapper Environmental Solutions Inc. W.L. Nikiforuk, M.Edes, P.Ag, Soil-Info Ltd.

M. Pawlina, M.Sc, P.Eng, GISmo Solutions Ltd. S. Robertson, M.Sc, Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd. (Editor)

L. Turchenek, Ph.D, P.Ag, Amec W. Pettapiece, Ph.D, P.Ag, Pettapiece Pedology

Contact: Dennis O’Leary, President,

Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd. Phone: (780) 461-5000

Fax: (780) 461-5036 Email: [email protected]

Final and revised version submitted on September 12, 2006

IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd., LandMapper Environmental Solutions, i Soil-Info Ltd., GISmo Solutions Ltd., AMEC, and Pettapiece Pedology

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Scope ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Objectives.................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Concepts and Definitions........................................................................................ 1 2.0 Collection of Background Data..................................................................................... 3 2.1 Digital Compilation .................................................................................................. 3 3.0 Review of Current Landform Data ................................................................................ 5 3.1 Definition of Look-up table...................................................................................... 5 3.2 Site and Landform Selection .................................................................................. 6 4.0 Relevant Literature ......................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Quantitative Descriptions of Landforms ............................................................... 7 4.2 Landform Dimensions ............................................................................................. 7 4.3 Landform Slope........................................................................................................ 9 4.4 Landform Drainage ................................................................................................ 10 4.5 Landform Orientation ............................................................................................ 11 4.6 Landform Morphology........................................................................................... 12 5.0 Characterization of Simple Landforms ...................................................................... 13 5.1 Simple Landform Identification ............................................................................ 13 5.2 Simple Landform Descriptions and Statistics .................................................... 14 6.0 Characterization of Complex landscapes .................................................................. 43 6.1 Complex Landscapes – General Statistics ........................................................ 43 6.2 Complex Landscapes Descriptions and Statisitics........................................... 47 7.0 Landscape Assemblages by Eco-district .................................................................. 91 7.1 Vegetation Communities by AGRASID Unit....................................................... 92 8.0 Future Research ........................................................................................................... 93 9.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 95 10.0 References .................................................................................................................... 97 Appendix A Look Up Table for Converting ALI Open Legend Codes to AGRASID Closed Legend Codes Appendix B Percent Area of Each AGRASID Unit with Individual Eco-districts Appendix C Vegetation Associations to AGRASID Units within Individual Eco-districts Appendix D Location of Digital Data Integrated into the Athabasca Oil Sands Region Appendix E Supplemental CD Information


Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd., LandMapper Environmental Solutions, ii Soil-Info Ltd., GISmo Solutions Ltd., AMEC, and Pettapiece Pedology

Descriptions, Figures, and Tables Descriptions of Simple Landforms Drumlin ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Esker (3 examples)...................................................................................................................... 18 Fluting (2 examples) .................................................................................................................... 24 Kettle............................................................................................................................................ 28 Longitudinal Dune........................................................................................................................ 30 Parabolic Dune ............................................................................................................................ 32 Upland Gully ................................................................................................................................ 34 Clearwater River Valley – No Terraces ....................................................................................... 36 Athabasca River Valley – Terraced............................................................................................. 38 Clearwater River – No Terraces .................................................................................................. 40 Descriptions of Complex Landscapes Meander Floodplain –FP1 ........................................................................................................... 50 Confined, Terraced Floodplain – FP3 ......................................................................................... 52 Undulating (low relief) – U1l (2 examples) .................................................................................. 54 Undulating (high relief) – U1h (3 examples)................................................................................ 58 Hummocky (low relief) – H1l........................................................................................................ 64 Hummocky (medium relief) – H1m.............................................................................................. 66 Longitudinal Dune (low relief) – D1l............................................................................................. 68 Inclined to Steep (high relief) – I3h.............................................................................................. 70 Steep Valley with Floodplain – SC1h .......................................................................................... 72 V-Shaped Valley – SC3 (2 examples) ......................................................................................... 74 Level Organic – O1...................................................................................................................... 78 Organic with Mineral – O5 (2 examples) ..................................................................................... 80 Additional Inclined to Steep River Valley Landscapes (high relief) – I3h (3 examples) .............. 84 Figures Figure 1 – Example of compiled digital data ................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 – Conceptualized Landform length and height .............................................................. 8 Figure 3 – Illustration of the automated approach to computing flow paths.................................. 8 Figure 4 – Illustration of watershed density as a measure of degree of drainage development.11 Figure 5 – Illustration of different terms for landform shape........................................................ 12 Figure 6 – Eco-districts in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region....................................................... 91 Tables Table 1 – Example of ALI to AGRASID conversion Table ............................................................ 5 Table 2 – Generalized morphological descriptions of AGRASID Landform Models ................... 41 Table 3 – Attributes of standard landform description................................................................. 42 Table 4 – Attributes of the four basic landform segments........................................................... 42 Table 5 – Detailed morphological descriptions of AGRASID Landform Models ......................... 43 Table 6 – Example of general landscape measurements and statistics ..................................... 47 Table 7 – Example of morphological statistics by landscape position ........................................ 48 Table 8 – Percent ALI coverage by Eco-district ..........................................................................91 Table 9 – Example of Eco-district statistics................................................................................. 92


Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd., LandMapper Environmental Solutions Inc., 1 Soil-Info Ltd., GISmo Solutions Ltd., AMEC, and Pettapiece Pedology

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Scope

In September 1998, Alberta Environment announced the creation of the Regional Sustainable Development Strategy (RSDS) for the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. This strategy was initiated to provide a framework for balancing development with environmental protection. The Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) recognized that biodiversity, wildlife and sustainable ecosystems were three of the highest priorities which needed to be addressed. The current project was released in an effort to assess landform topographical characteristic from a visual resource management perspective in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. The objective of this project was to characterize the physiognomy of the various simple landforms and complex landform assemblages in the selected area within the RSDS region. The information was to be collated into a landform database in a format that could be appended to the existing ALI database.

In order to meet this goal, a consortium of Alberta consulting companies consisting of Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd., LandMapper Environmental Solutions, GISmo Solutions Ltd, Soil-Info Ltd. and Pettapiece Pedology was selected by the CHR Sub-Group to implement this project. The consortium proposed a unique approach based on a combination of visual assessment and measurement of landforms combined with an automated computer-based quantification of landform morphology. The automated procedures represent an application and extension of procedures previously developed to quantify AGRASID landform types (MacMillan and Pettapiece, 2000).

1.2 Project Objectives This project is defined as having two primary objectives:

• Characterize the physiognomy of the various simple landforms and complex landform assemblages in the selected area within the Regional Sustainable Development Strategy region; and

• Collate the information into a landform database in a format that can be appended to the existing Alberta Land Inventory (ALI) database.

1.3 Concepts and Definitions In an effort to meet the objectives of this project, it is important to differentiate between the concepts associated with the terms landform and landscape. The term landform is most often applied to the physical, geomorphic characteristics of single identifiable terrain features. A landform is described in terms of concrete, measurable, physical characteristics such as size, shape, orientation and context.



A landform is defined as:

"Any physical, recognizable form or feature on the earth's surface, having a characteristic shape, and produced by natural causes; it includes major forms such as a plain, plateau, or mountain, and minor forms such as a hill, valley, slope, esker, or dune. Taken together, the landforms make up the surface configuration of the earth." -Glossary of geology

The term landscape, on the other hand, is more often applied to repeating patterns of landforms operating over larger distances and scales. In addition, the concept of a landscape is very often understood to include an aesthetic component that incorporates human assessments of subjective aspects, such as visual interest, complexity or uniqueness.

Landscapes are defined as:

“Distinct association of landforms, as operated on by geological processes (exo- or endogenic), that can be seen in a single view." -Glossary of geology



2.0 Collection of Background Data 2.1 Digital Compilation In support of the CEMA Landforms Project, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development delivered several source digital data sets. From the provincial Base Features repository Digital Elevation Model (DEM) grids, Triangular Irregular Network (TIN), Hydrography, Alberta Land Inventory (ALI), Indian Research Satellite (IRS) images, and Eco-districts information was provided. Additional LandSat images were obtained from the Toporama Internet site - http://toporama.cits.nrcan.gc.ca. All these digital data sets were used to create a series of output products that facilitated interpretation of landforms and landscapes. Products prepared in the initial phase included 1:50K map size tiles of DEM and ALI corresponding to geo-referenced LandSat (.jpg) and IRS (.tiff) images. Data sets were provided on three CDROMs with a brief documentation. A copy of the documentation from the first CDROM is provided as Appendix D. The output DEM product was created using corrected grid information (ie. derived contours edited for gross errors), TIN information (ie. individual 3D breaklines and elevation points) and hydrography information (lakes and streams). A Hydro-correction process (TOPOGRID) was used, but detailed adjustments for DEM flows to ensure compliance with streams was not completed for the CEMA Landforms project. The delivered DEM reflects all possible detail, but in some areas may not drain as per hydrography information. This terrain was cut into 1:50K tiles for the Landforms project, however, a more detailed validation and adjustment process is being performed in the CEMA Stream and Watershed Classification Project for the delivered areas. This concurrent project is providing DEM terrain in two formats (c.f. a version adjusted for drainage within source data accuracy and second version of fully filled and draining DEM) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Example of compiled digital data used in statistical analysis.



All output products and corresponding reference information (such as Eco-districts and study area boundaries) were geo-referenced as UTM zone 12, NAD83 datum. DEM products derived from 1:20K scale Base Features repository was supplemented with a more precise DEM created for the selected sub-study areas. After ALI and AGRASID associations were defined, the final step in the compilation was to calculate the statistical summary table for all landform types found within each Eco-district.



3.0 Review of Current Landform Data 3.1 Definition of Look-up Tables In addition to the digital landscape data, this project also incorporated the AGRASID Landform descriptions into the interpretation of simple and complex landforms (Brierley et al. 1997). In order to convert the existing ALI (open legend) data into AGRASID (closed legend) it was necessary to create unique identifiers for each of the ALI polygons. This was achieved by combining the following ALI fields:

• Primary ALI Parent Geological Parent Material (overlay) (ALIPM_01); • Primary ALI Parent Geological Parent Material (underlay) (ALIPM_U1); • Primary Slope Class (PLC_SL1); and • Secondary Slope Class (PLC_SL2).

The result was an attribute field that contained a ‘unique’ landform symbol for each ALI polygon. The polygons were viewed in ArcView and assigned AGRASID landform models based on the description given in the original AGRASID report (Appendix A). Table 1 contains examples of the conversion from ALI to AGRASID for the study area. In many instances, the converted ALI code could be represented by a number of different AGRASID codes of equal probability and appropriateness.

Table 1. Example of ALI to AGRASID conversion table ALI Map Symbol

Assigned AGRASID Landform

Possible Alternative AGRASID Landforms

AAc34 U1h FP1, FP2, FP3

AAc4 H1l FP1, FP2, FP3

ABk6 I4h I3h, SC1h

ABk61-2 I4h I3h, SC1h

ABk67-8 I4h I3h, SC1h

The assigned coded was based on the experience of the classifier. Given the size of the ALI database, it was not possible to review each individual polygon, rather representative samples from the area were selected. This created a number of discrepancies related to the interpretation. First, the slope classes assigned in the ALI database are not descriptive, in that, only the degree of slope was classified for each landform. This lack of interpretation for the slope class and subsequent derivation of an AGRASID landform resulted in several possible interpretations for any given polygon. For example, a polygon that was mapped as slope class 5 can easily have rolling, hummocky or inclined surface form within the context of AGRASID landform descriptions.



Second, given the size of the ALI database it was not possible to identify individual and discreet landforms. For example, drumlins, dunes, kames and other simple landforms could not be identified based solely on information contained within the ALI database. The location and extent of these types of landforms can only be identified through either manual interpretation of photos or through analysis of very detailed digital elevation data. Third, the ALI database is incomplete. The incomplete ALI landform data arise primarily from omissions that occurred during the transfer from paper map to electronic database. The period over which the ALI data were collected also produced gaps in the data that have not been filled. A total of 523 ALI polygons were unlabelled and hence were not able to be included in this analysis. No AGRASID landforms were assigned to these polygons. For many of the polygons, the authors place a “low” confidence in the AGRASID landforms assigned to each polygon by our automated look-up process. Low confidence arises from a number of factors, such as missing data, the uncertainty of how slope classes were assigned, and the inability to review all polygons in stereo. AGRASID landform classes cannot always be directly related to the slope class attributes reported for the ALI polygons. Since it was not possible to visually review all ALI polygons in stereo to assess the correctness of the AGRASID landform classes that were assigned to them automatically, some polygons may have been assigned incorrect or inappropriate AGRASID landform class identifiers. 3.2 Site and Landform Selection After a thorough review of the AGRASID data and the IRS images, representative sites were selected within the study area. The digital elevation data for these sites was then enhanced from a 25 m DEM to a 5 m DEM. This was conducted in order to account for the subtle nature of the landscape and to permit a more accurate statistical analysis. New custom DEMs were obtained for 10 sites selected as containing areas that were representative of an identifiable AGRASID landform type. These DEMs were surfaced to grids with a horizontal resolution of 5 m and a vertical accuracy of +/- 0.5 m or better. This higher spatial resolution DEM data was much better suited to accurately depicting landform features and landform attributes (e.g. slope, curvatures) of interest than were the coarser resolution (25 m) data provided by the provincial DEM.



4.0 RELEVANT LITERATURE 4.1 Quantitative Description of Landforms The approach adopted for this project focused on analysis of landform characteristics derived from interpretation of DEM data. This approach is defined as Geomorphometry which is a sub-discipline of geomorphology devoted to developing quantitative descriptions of landforms (Mark, 1975a). Evans (1972) recognized two different approaches to geomorphometry, which he termed "specific geomorphometry" and "general geomorphometry". Specific geomorphometry deals with mathematical characterizations of named landforms (e.g. drumlins, ridges, peaks) and other local phenomenon (drainage networks), and does not provide a method to perform mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive classifications of an area (Weibel and DeLotto (1988). Evans (1972) defined general geomorphometry as "the measurement and analysis of those characteristics of landforms which are applicable to any continuous rough surface". Weibel and DeLotto (1988) concluded that general geomorphometry "more closely parallels the objectives and needs of terrain classification". Weibel and DeLotto (1988) cited Pike's (1988) concept of a "geometric signature" as an example of applied general geomorphometry.

Pike (1988) defined geometric signature as "a set of measurements that describe topographic form well enough to distinguish geomorphologically disparate landscapes. Pike (1988) distinguished five groups of variables suitable for computing a "geometric signature". These were statistics of altitude, variables of the power spectrum of altitude, statistics of slope at a variable slope length (i.e. slope between topographic reversals), statistics of slope at a constant horizontal length, and statistics of slope curvature (or profile convexity) at constant length.

A review of the literature reveals numerous early examples of digital elevation data being used to produce quantitative, statistical descriptions of landform morphology (Strahler, 1956; Speight, 1968; Evans, 1972; Pike, 1988; Zevenbergen and Thorne, 1987). More recently, DEM data have increasingly been used to compute landform position (Skidmore, 1990) and to classify landforms into landform elements (Fels and Matson, 1996; Irwin et al., 1997). The principals and techniques outlined by these previous researchers were adopted to develop and test procedures for the quantitative description of different types of “typical” landforms in Alberta beginning in 1996 (see MacMillan and Pettapiece, 1996, 1997, 2000; MacMillan et al., 2000a). The following sections strongly reflect the synthesis of techniques for quantitative description of landforms described in the Alberta Landforms document (MacMillan and Pettapiece, 2000).

4.2 Landform Dimensions The most useful of measures for characterizing landform morphology are the horizontal and vertical dimensions (length, width and height) of the feature. MacMillan and Pettapiece (2000) use an automated approach to compute measures of landform length and height (Figure 2). Flow paths were computed to simulate the flow of surface runoff from every cell in a DEM through all of its down-slope neighbours until flow terminated



at a local depression (pit) or at the edge of the DEM data set. The process was repeated to simulate “upslope flow” from every cell into its upslope neighbours until flow terminated at a peak or the edge of the DEM. With these flow paths calculated, it was possible to flow upslope (and down-slope) from every cell in a DEM to identify the local peak (or ridge) and pit (or channel) to which it was connected hydrologically in terms of surface water flow (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Landform length and height as conceptualized by MacMillan and Pettapiece (2000).

Figure 3. Illustration of the MacMillan and Pettapiece (2000) automated approach to computing length and height of flow paths from peaks to pits.

Watershed 1 Watershed 2

CELL TO PIT Z (m)

PIT TO PEAK Z (m)

CELL TO PIT L (m)

PIT TO PEAK L (m)

LOCAL PEAK

PEAK & TOP(1)

PEAK, TOP(2) & MAX

LOCAL PEAK

LOCAL PIT(2)

LOCAL PIT(1) & MINIMUM ELEVATION

MAXIMUM ELEVATION (ZMAX)

cell relief

Watershed slope length

Cell slope length

Watershed relief

PEAK CELL

DIVIDECELL

PIT CELL

05 14 5 8 7 6 24 3 2 1Downslope length - cell to pit (cells)

63

3 m

063 20100100 1080 88 75 50 38 25 12

Relative slope position as % length upslope

123

45

Downslope drainage direction (DDIR)

204060

80100

83 72 1 0 1 2 64 5 6 7Upslope length - cell to peak (cells)

Upslope drainage direction (UDIR)

Relativeslopeposition as% heightabove pitlevel

Elevation of eachcell above pitelevation (m)

5 m

5 cells

3 cells



These local pits and peaks were used to define the three dimensional equivalents of Pike’s (1988) locations of slope reversals. All cells that flowed to a given pit were considered to belong to a single defined local watershed, whose total relief could be computed as the maximum minus the minimum elevation within the watershed. Each cell also belonged to a set of continuous flow paths that connected it to its closest associated local high (peak) and low (pit) point. From this it was possible to compute the total (peak to pit) length of the flow path that passed through every cell in a DEM as well as the total (peak to pit) difference in elevation (relief) for the flow path through each grid cell.

The length, width and height of recognizable portions of the landscape (slopes between slope reversals) represent perhaps the more important and easily understood measures of landform morphology. The most challenging task is to be able to determine the locations of the end points (peaks or ridges, pits or channels) that need to be identified in order to establish the length of slopes or the change in elevation between slope inflections. This can be done manually, through visual interpretation, or automatically, through automated calculation from digital elevation data.

We may consider a measurement of the horizontal distance from a crest through the stream channel into which it drains and then back upslope to the associated crest on the other side of the channel to represent the width of a landform (one crest to crest wavelength). Determination of this distance (width) is relatively straightforward using both manual visual assessments and automated procedures for processing DEM data. Determination of the horizontal length of landform entities can often present greater challenges. Some landform types, such as drumlins or hummocks, have reasonably well defined length as well as width dimensions, but for others, determination of where the landform terminates in the long dimension is more problematic. As with any modelling exercise, some features are difficult to model with a degree of accuracy. This includes features such as gentle swales and ridges or long continuous eskers that have indeterminate ends. Manual interpretations are more successful than automated procedures for identifying and measuring the lengths of such ephemeral landform features.

4.3 Landform Slope Slope gradient is perhaps the measurement most widely used to characterize landform morphology. Most typical mapping applications in Alberta, and in fact in most jurisdictions, attempt to assign a single class of slope, or a range of classes, to uniquely identify the dominant slope characteristics of a landscape within defined areas.

MacMillan and Pettapiece (2000) elected to report values for slope gradient at the 50% and 80% intervals on the cumulative frequency curve. They compared curves of cumulative frequency distributions to the single classes of slope assigned to map polygons on the AGRASID digital soils database for Alberta (Soil Inventory Working Group, 1998). They concluded that slope gradient at the 80% cumulative frequency distribution represented the best match to slope class as reported for the AGRASID polygons. They characterized the 80% value for cumulative slope gradient as representing a concept that they termed the “controlling value”.



The idea behind identifying and reporting a “controlling value” was that, in many instances, it is neither the mean value for slope, nor the dominant value for slope within an area that most strongly influences how that area will respond to certain influences or processes. In many instances, interpretations and uses of mapped areas of land are strongly influenced by the steepest topography that occupies some minimum significant proportion of the area of interest. MacMillan and Pettapiece (2000) judged that the steepest slopes that occupied at least 20% of an area of interest represented the slopes that effectively “controlled” how that area would respond to landform processes. Consequently these slopes in the last 20% of the landscape were judged to effectively “control” how one would interpret the landscape. It is likely not coincidence that the slope classes assigned to AGRASID polygons by experienced photo interpreters tended to correlate well with the values for slope at the 80% location on the cumulative curve. Photo interpreters also appeared to intuitively appreciate that the steepest slope to occupy at least 20% of the total mapped area was the class that would dominate interpretations. This “dominant” slope class might not actually dominate the polygon in terms of area covered, but it would dominate the polygon in terms of how it would be interpreted.

4.4 Landform Drainage Rowe (1996) has emphasized that drainage patterns help to reveal landscapes. Drainage features such as gullies and stream channels delineate many landform features of interest. They also reveal much about the kinds and relative strengths of geomorphologic processes that are operative in a landscape. Landform drainage is often characterized in terms of the spacing, length or depth of incision of gullies or channels in the landscape.

Meijerink (1988) identified valley density (Vd) as a critical measure for distinguishing landforms. Valley density, or drainage density, is the length of valley bottoms (or drainage lines) per unit area of land. It is computed by dividing the length of all observable drainage lines (in km) located in valleys within an area into the area of the unit in km2 according to Vd = L/A. In an automated environment, the length of all channels within a given region of interest can be easily computed and divided by the area of the region to compute valley density.

MacMillan and Pettapiece (2000) adopted two different measures to describe the drainage characteristics of different landforms. The first process was a calculation of watershed density as the number of discrete local watersheds per unit area (taken as 100 ha). The concept behind this measure was to distinguish landscapes with well established surface drainage (well defined streams and channels) from landscapes with poorly defined surface drainage. For example, hummocky areas characterized by surface drainage into many closed depressions would possess a very poorly defined channel network and would be characterized by many small local watersheds and a high watershed density (Figure 4 right). Alternately, undulating or rolling landforms characterized by a well-developed channel network and well-developed surface drainage would exhibit only a few, large, integrated watersheds and would have a low watershed density (Figure 4 left).



0.5 mi / 0.8 km

0.5 mi / 0.8 km

Figure 4. Illustration of the concept of watershed density as a measure of degree of drainage development (Source, MacMillan and Pettapiece, 2000)

A second measure used by MacMillan and Pettapiece (2000) to quantify the degree of development of integrated surface drainage was the percent of off-site drainage. This measure was meant to capture the proportion of the total area of a landform type that was able to contribute to off-site flow of surface water. Water retained within a landscape due to flow into local closed depressions was not considered to be available for off-site flow. Thus, an area with a well developed channel network and well developed surface drainage (e.g. rolling or inclined landforms) would typically exhibit a high value for percent off-site flow while an area with a poorly developed channel network and poorly integrated surface flow (e.g. hummocky landforms) would exhibit a low value for off-site flow.

4.5 Landform Orientation Landform orientation is usually measured in terms of the dominant aspect of some feature or characteristic of interest. Absolute values for landform orientation are mainly assigned when describing unique landform features (such as drumlins or flutings) as defined in specific geomorphometry. In general geomorphometry, however, there is less emphasis placed on qualifying values of absolute orientation.

MacMillan and Pettapiece (2000) computed slope aspect for all grid cells in a DEM taken as representative of a particular landscape type. They reported the cumulative frequency distribution of aspect for all cells in the DEM and determined whether any preferred orientations were observable. Some kinds of landscapes are uniquely characterized by not having any preferred orientation (e.g. hummocky) while other types are expected to display a preferred orientation (e.g. ridged or duned). Analysis of the distribution of aspect was found to have only limited value for characterizing different landform types. Its main contribution was in helping to identify whether a particular landform type exhibited any kind of preferred orientation.



4.6 Landform Morphology Meijerink (1988) recommended manually attaching physical descriptions to the shape of describable features (e.g. crests, slopes and valleys) that comprised each area of interest. He observed that crests could be steep to broad and convex to flat and argued that the attribute of surface form should not be under-rated. He noted that, for example, erosional processes are strongly related to slope form and that sediment delivery ratio depended on slope form and valley type. He provided examples of some common forms that could be recognized and classified based on manual air photo interpretation (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Illustration of different terms for landform shape presented by Meijerink (1988).



5.0 Characterization of Simple Landforms 5.1 Simple Landform Identification The identification of simple landforms is the focus of this section. This process is defined by “specific geomorphometry” whereby individual landforms are identified and statistics are compiled (Evans, 1972). The provincial 25 m DEM data was used for compiling the statistics for this section. Previous researchers have found this data is suitable for providing general statistics and measurements, but does not meet the requirements for more advanced and detailed statistical analysis (R.A. MacMillan, pers. comm., 2003). For this reason, this section describes general geomorphic properties such as slope, length, width, and height. Definitions of the simple landforms were taken from US NRC Glossary of Terms in Geology. As stated in section 3.1, it was difficult to identify individual landforms from the existing ALI database. It was determined that the best approach to identifying unique landforms was an airphoto search. The 1984 1:60 000 scale photos were selected and a survey of the entire region was conducted. Each township was reviewed in stereo, with unique simple landform features identified. These simple landforms included eskers, parabolic dunes, flutings, kettles, and gullied upland topography. The geographic locations for each feature was recorded and used as reference in identifying DEM data locations. It is possible to gather data directly from the airphotos; however the accuracy of that data was questioned (due to scale limitations of photography). It was determined, for consistency and accuracy; that these simple landforms would undergo the same digital interpretation as the complex landscape assemblages. The difference between the two statistical interpretations was the accuracy of the DEM. For the simple landforms, a cross section was created and measurements were derived directly from those cross-sections. Visual measurements were also added for approximate slope gradients. The following section outlines the statistics generated for the simple landforms identified in the region. The simple landforms are described in the following section using a standard two-page template. The first page contains a scientific description or definition of the landform, a schematic cross section, and a summary of the landform measurements and statistics derived from the DEM data. The second page of the template contains photos of the two-dimensional shaded relief (hillshade image) and/or an orthophoto illustration (IRS Image), and a three-dimensional perspective view (IRS draped over the DEM); cross section diagrams are presented for some simple landforms. The summary of land form measurements and statistics is derived from the modeling of landforms at specific sites as represented by a DEM for each site. Five unique physical landform characteristics are identified. The mean value of the landform represents the feature as a whole, regardless of the specific morphology. The dominant slope characteristics refer to those attributes which control the overall form of the landform.



The dominant slope characteristics are those which occupy the majority (in terms of percentage) of area however; they may not necessarily be the defining attribute of the feature. Secondary slope characteristics refer to attributes that are significant (in terms of percent area covered). In certain cases, it is this secondary characteristic which defines the overall form of the feature and makes it unique and recognizable as a specific landform type. The following descriptions of simple landforms are typical examples noted within the Wood Buffalo Region. It should be noted that the natural variability of the landscape precludes producing a single, unique statistical description that will apply to all occurrences of any given landform. The statistical data for the examples provided in this section, is therefore specific to each particular representative site and the landform type that the site is meant to represent. These site specific descriptions cannot be expected to apply uniformly to all other similar landforms in the region. The range of values for a specific location will usually be narrower than for the general case but, for some examples, the range of values may be greater or the range may extend outside the range reported for the general case. 5.2 Simple Landform Descriptions and Statistics

Simple landforms are described in the following section using a standard two page template in which information is presented in the following order. The top of the first page presents a definition or a general description of the landform type. These definitions and descriptions identify the general attributes of a typical landform of this type. The ranges of values for slope gradient, slope length or relief that may be cited in these general descriptions and definitions may not always correspond exactly with the statistical results obtained and reported for the specific site selected to illustrate the defined landform type. Following the description is a schematic cross-sectional diagram based on a selected transect across a representative portion of the landform of interest within an example area. This cross-section contains the origin and terminal points, as well as, the length and relief noted along the section. A summary of the landform measurements and statistics, as derived from the 25 m provincial DEM data, is presented at the bottom of the page. The second page of the template contains images of a two-dimensional shaded relief (hillshade image) and/or an Orthophoto illustration (IRS Image). These images were produced during the analysis of the landscape and are included to provide a visual representation of the landscape type. A three-dimensional perspective is also provided. This perspective view drapes the available ortho imagery over the DEM to provide a photo-realistic 3D model that illustrates the shape and form of the landform type that is being described. It should be noted that vertical exaggeration exists and should be considered when comparing multiple landscape types. Finally, at the bottom of the second page, an additional 2D cross-sectional profile along the length of the landform type is provided for some, but not all, example sites. These longitudinal cross sections are provided where the data support producing them and only for landform types that exhibit a characteristic profile along their length that is deemed to benefit from illustration.



Simple Landform Descriptions and Statistics



5.2 Simple Landform Descriptions and Statistics

Drumlin Map: 74L01

Definition

Drumlin - A low, smooth, elongated oval hill, mound, or ridge of compact till that has a core of bedrock or drift. It usually has a blunt nose facing the direction from which the ice approached and a gentler slope tapering in the other direction. The longest axis is parallel to the general direction of glacier flow. Drumlins are products of streamline (laminar) flow of glaciers, which molded the subglacial floor through a combination of erosion and deposition.

Schematic Cross Section

Summary of landform measurements and statistics∗

Landform characteristic

Mean Value

Controlling (80%) Value

Dominant Characteristics

Secondary Characteristics

Length (m) 1000 1200 1000-1500 500-1000 Width (m) 500 700 300-500 200-300 Height (m) 16 20 15-20 10-15 Slope Length (m) 200 250 150-200 200-300 Slope Gradient (%) 8% 12% 9-15% 5-9%

∗ Please note that controlling values represent the steepest and longest slopes that occupy the last 20% of any landscape. Controlling values do not necessarily belong to a dominant or sub-dominant class.



2D Shaded Relief &/or Orthophoto Illustration

3D Perspective View

Schematic Cross Section (lengthwise)



Esker (Single-ridged) Map: 74E14

Definition

Esker - A long, narrow, sinuous and steep-sided ridge composed of irregularly stratified sand and gravel. Eskers occur as a result of deposition within englacial or subglacial channels which are preserved by the mass wasting of stagnant glacial ice. Eskers are highly variable in preservation but can range in length from less than a kilometre to more than 160 kilometres, and in height from 3 to 30 meters. Eskers mimic the channel in which they were formed as such numerous different morphologies are often noted. The example described here is an esker comprised of a single non diverging ridge.




Mean Value









3D Perspective View



Esker (Eroded) Map: 74E10

Description

This example describes a single ridged esker which has undergone significant post glacial modification. This morphology is typical in this region, where deflation and fluvial processes are active.




Mean Value









3D Perspective View



Esker (Multi-ridged) Map: 74E01

Description:

This example is a multi-ridged or anastomizing esker. Generally this feature forms as a result of multiple channel fills within a drainage network.




Mean Value









3D Perspective View

Schematic Cross Section (Longitudinal – mulit-ridged esker)



Flutings Map: 74E01

Definition

Flute [glacial] - A lineation or streamlined ridge parallel to the specific direction of ice movement. Flutings form in either unconsolidated drift or bedrock landscapes. Flutings are highly variable and can range in height from a few centimetres to 25 m, and in length from a few metres to 20 km. This description is based on a small singular fluting comprised of unconsolidated drift.

Two examples of fluting are provided below; a schematic longitudinal cross section is provided only for the second example.




Mean Value









3D Perspective View



Flutings Map: 74E01

Description:

This example is a fluting formed in unconsolidated drift. The feature was noted in a small grouping of flutings which shared a unique morphology.




Mean Value









3D Perspective View

Schematic Cross Section (Longitudinal)



Kettle Map: 74E14

Definition

Kettle - A steep-sided, bowl-shaped depression commonly without surface drainage (closed depression) in drift deposits, often containing a lake or swamp, and formed by the melting of a large, detached block of stagnant ice that had been wholly or partly buried in the drift. Kettles range in depth from 1 to tens of meters, and with diameters up to 13 km.




Mean Value









3D Perspective View



Longitudinal Dune Map: 74L03

Definition

Dune - A low mound, ridge, bank or hill of loose, windblown, subaerially deposited granular material (generally sand), either barren and capable of movement from place to place, or covered and stabilized with vegetation, but retaining its characteristic shape.




Mean Value









3D Perspective View



Parabolic Dune Map: 74L03

Definition

Parabolic dune - A dune with a long, scoop-shaped form, convex in the downwind direction so that its horns point upwind, whose ground plan, when perfectly developed, approximates the form of a parabola.




Mean Value









3D Perspective View



Upland Gully Map: 74E08

Definition

Gully - An incised channel with steep sidewalls cut into an otherwise uniform slope. Gully formation is a result of vertical incision of flowing water. Incision may occur as a constant process or during and immediately following heavy precipitation events.

No longitudinal cross section is presented for this upland gully as it is the across channel cross section that is considered to define and describe this landform type.




Mean Value









3D Perspective View



Clearwater River Valley – No Terraces Map: 74D11

Definition

River valley - An elongate, relatively large, externally drained depression of the Earth's surface that is primarily developed by stream erosion or glacial activity. Floodplain - A general term for the nearly level to gently sloping, lowest surface of a valley. The floodplain is generally directly influenced by high water and experiences continual modification by flood events. Landforms include axial stream channels, levees, and floodplain steps. Schematic Cross Section

Summary of landform measurements and statistics1∗


Mean Value


Floodplain Characteristics

Valley Sidewall Characteristics

Length (m) Na na na na Width (m) 2500 3000 2000-3000 2000-2500 Height (m) 125 150 100-150 75-100 Slope Length (m) 700 1000 500-1000 1000-2000 Slope Gradient (%) 8% 25% 1-2% 15-30%

1 The mean slope value for the Clearwater Valley is a mean of the flat slopes of the valley bottom and the steeper slopes on the valley sides. Mean slope is therefore not very useful or meaningful for this landform. The controlling value for slope should be more meaningful.





3D Perspective View1

1 3D perspective is taken from 25m DEM.



Athabasca River Valley – With Terraces Map: 74L03

Definition

River valley - an elongate depression of the Earth's surface; carved by a river during the course of its development.

Terrace - A step-like surface, bordering a valley floor or shoreline, which represents the former position of a flood plain, or lake or seashore. The term is usually applied to both the relatively flat summit surface (tread), cut or built by stream or wave action, and the steeper descending slope (scarp, riser), graded to a lower base level of erosion. Practically, terraces are considered to be generally flat alluvial areas above the 100 yr. flood stage.




Mean Value


Floodplain and Terrace

Characteristics Valley Sidewall Characteristics

Length (m) Na na Na na Width (m) 2500 3000 2000-3000 2000-2500 Height (m) 125 150 100-150 75-100 Slope Length (m) 700 1000 500-1000 1000-2000 Slope Gradient (%) 8% 20% 1-2% 15-30%





3D Perspective View



Clearwater River Valley – No Terraces Map: 74D11

Definition

River valley - An elongate, relatively large, externally drained depression of the Earth's surface that is primarily developed by stream erosion or glacial activity. Floodplain - A general term for the nearly level to gently sloping, lowest surface of a valley. The floodplain is generally directly influenced by high water and experiences continual modification by flood events. Landforms include axial stream channels, levees, and floodplain steps.




Mean Value


Floodplain Characteristics

Valley Sidewall Characteristics

Length (m) Na na na na Width (m) 1500 2000 1500-2000 2000-2500 Height (m) 100 130 100-150 75-100 Slope Length (m) 500 800 500-1000 400-500 Slope Gradient (%) 8% 20% 1-2% 15-30%





3D Perspective View





6.0 Characterization of Complex Landscapes 6.1 Complex Landscapes – Generalized Statistics This section describes and summarizes the morphology of a limited number of complex landscape types identified as being widespread within the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. The baseline information used in this assessment was from existing “open legend” ALI mapping. A review of the morphological data contained in the ALI database led to recognition of 21 unique repeating “closed legend” landform types similar to those defined for use in the AGRASID digital soils database for Alberta. The descriptions provided in Table 2 are generalized morphological descriptions for each of the 21 defined landscape assemblages. These generalized descriptions are based on the interpretation of new detailed analysis and the existing AGRASID datasets that have been compiled for similar topography in the Province. For 12 of the 21 AGRASID landscapes (representing the majority of the area), fine spatial resolution DEM data (5 m enhanced) was obtained. This enhanced DEM data was used to compile detailed statistical descriptions of the principal morphological attributes of each of these landscapes. The morphological measures used to characterize each of the described landform types are identified and described in Tables 3 and 4. It should be noted that the values for morphological measures presented in Table 2 are meant to represent typical ranges for the general case of a single landform type. Individual examples of a particular landform type will invariably exhibit ranges for these morphological measures that differ from those provided for the general case in Table 2. Individual examples will typically exhibit a narrower range of morphological values, but may exhibit a range that extends outside the range reported for the general case and may even exhibit a range that is wider than that reported for the general case. In order to provide a more detailed survey of the dominant landscapes in the region, morphological descriptions of different slope positions (including upper, middle, lower, and depressions) were included for each of the landscape assemblages. Table 4 contains the criteria used to define these characteristics. Table 5 is the detailed morphological analysis of all of the landscape assemblages based on unique slope positions. It should be noted that the generalized descriptions provided in Table 2 may not directly correlate with the detailed topographic descriptions provided in Table 5. These detailed descriptions based on different slope positions may vary significantly from the generalized description of the landscape. The average of all slope positions more closely reflects the data presented in Table 2.



Table 2. Generalized morphological descriptions for the 21 AGRASID landform models

AGRASID Landscape Model Slope1 Watershed Off-site

Code Description Gradient

(%) Length

(m) Relief (m)

# / 100ha Drainage (%)

FP1 meander floodplain 1-2 100-150 2-5 5-10 95-100 FP3 confined, terraced 0-1 100-150 1-2 10-15 95-100 L1 level plain 0-1 >800 1 5 75 U1l undulating – low 2-5 100-150 2-5 20-30 80-100 U1h undulating – high 2-5 150-200 5-20 5-15 40-60 H1l hummocky – low 5-9 100-150 5-10 60 10-20 H1m hummocky –medium 9-15 100-150 5-30 60 10-20 H1h hummocky –high 15-30 200 20 50 15 D1l longitudinal dune – low 2-5 25-50 1-2 20-30 30-50 D1m longitudinal dune – medium 9-15 200-300 10 40 25 D1h longitudinal dune – high 15-30 300-400 20 30 35 I3m inclined to steep – medium 9-15 300-500 40 23 100 I3h inclined to steep – high 15-30 300-500 50-100 5-10 95-100 I4m inclined with BR – medium 9-15 300-500 50 2 95 I4h inclined with BR – high 15-30 300-500 150 1 100 SC1h steep valley with floodplain 0-30 200-300 0-20 5-15 80-100 SC3 v-shaped valley 15-30 200-300 40-50 15-20 90-100 O1 level organic 0-2 100-150 2-5 20-30 90-100 O4 sloping organic 1-2 100-150 10 6 100 O5 organic with mineral 0-2 100-150 2-5 5-10 80-100 W3 single water body 0 1000 0 1 0

1 Gradient is the 80th percentile, length and relief are the median of the "descriptive" value. 2 Those in bold are the analyzed sites used as controls – those in italics are estimated values based on existing AGRASID interpretations.



Table 3. Attributes used to describe each landform in the standard landform description.

No. Attribute Units Derivative

Determined from the DEM 1 Slope gradient % SLOPE 2 Aspect ° ASPECT 3 Descriptive relief: (pit to peak relief) m Pit2PeakZ 4 Effective relief: (cell to pit relief) m Z2Pit 5 Descriptive Slope Length (divide to channel) m LStr2Div 6 Effective slope length: (cell to channel) m L2Str 7 Watershed Index: Density of watersheds #/100 ha. CATDEN 8 Drainage Index: % off-site drainage % off-site PCTOFF

Determined from the Landform Segmentation Model (LSM) 9 Upper Slope Landform Segment % UPS 10 Mid-slope Landform Segment % MID 11 Lower slope Landform Segment % LOW 12 Depression Landform Segment % DEP

Table 4. Attributes used to describe each of the 4 basic landform segments.

Landform Attribute Definition of the Attribute Measurement Units

Landform segment Landform category code

Areal extent Proportion of the area percent

Slope Mean slope gradient for site percent

Controlling slope gradient Slope gradient (80th percentile) percent

Minimum slope length Slope length (20th percentile) m

Controlling slope length Slope length (80th percentile) m

Controlling relief Relief (80th percentile) m



Table 5. Detailed Morphological descriptions of the 21 AGRASID Landform Models in the region

Landform Segmentation Model - Landform segments AGRASID landscape model UPS1 MID LOW DEP prop slope relief length prop slope relief length prop slope relief length prop slope relief length

Code Description (site #) (%) (%) (m) (m) (%) (%) (m) (m) (%) (%) (m) (m) (%) (%) (m) (m) FP1 meander floodplain (3) 12 0.8 3.4 261 60 0.9 2.3 196 12 1.0 1.4 148 15 0.5 0.8 82 FP3 confined, terraced (3) 17 0.5 2.1 152 65 0.5 1.5 153 6 1.0 1.0 142 11 0.3 1.4 103 L1 level plain 0 - - - 45 0.5 - 225 45 0.5 - 225 10 0.5 - 50 U1l undulating – low (1) 15 1.1 3.7 98 62 1.4 2.5 63 16 1.4 1.8 43 6.5 0.5 1.4 26 U1l undulating – low (4) 18 0.8 6.7 274 58 1.3 5.1 304 17.3 1.1 4.1 89 6.4 0.6 3.6 44 U1h undulating – high (5) 17 2.5 14 131 56.1 3.3 10.8 120 21.4 2.3 7.5 120 5.8 0.5 5.2 42 U1h undulating – high (7) 14 1.8 10.3 191 56.3 2.3 6.5 143 21.3 1.8 4.1 113 8.6 0.5 0.7 55 U1h Undulating – high (8) 16 1.2 10.6 297 59.1 1.5 7.8 193 16 1.4 7.8 149 8.4 0.4 4.5 55 H1l hummocky – low (9) 16 5.3 9.7 130 50.6 6.1 5.3 97 28.3 3.3 1.7 60 5.3 0.7 0.7 57 H1m hummocky –med (10) 24 7.1 46 408 47.4 11.3 31.9 297 26.7 5.6 19.8 226 1.5 0.5 14.0 100 H1h hummocky –high 35 15 - 70 30 18 - 60 25 10 - 50 10 1 - 20 D1l longitudinal dune – low (2) 16 2.3 3.8 52 56 3.1 2.7 39 25 2.5 1.2 22 2.7 0.6 0.7 15 D1m Longitudinal dune - med 20 6 - 60 60 6 - 180 15 5 - 45 5 1 - 15 D1h longitudinal dune - high 15 15 - 70 65 18 - 250 15 10 - 60 5 1 - 20 I3m inclined to steep – med 15 8 - 75 70 10 - 350 15 7 - 75 - - - - I3h inclined to steep – high (5) 10 14.8 50.6 213 42 9.4 18.6 155 29 2.5 3.8 126 19.4 0.5 1.3 73 I4m inclined with BR - med 15 8 - 75 70 10 - 350 15 7 - 75 - - - - I4h inclined with BR - high 10 15 - 100 80 25 - 600 10 15 - 100 - - - -

SC1h valley with floodplain - steep (5) 16 11.1 30.6 146 40.7 14.4 14.6 108 34.9 4.0 3.2 78 8.3 0.6 1.4 78

SC3 v-shaped valley (1) 39 7.6 40.9 449 42.9 22.1 28.4 101 18.6 15.0 17.3 63 - - - - SC3 v-shaped valley (6) 26 2.0 18.3 126 48.8 3.1 9.3 87 20.7 3.3 4.9 60 5.0 0.4 2.4 41 O1 level organic (4) 13 0.5 3.0 318 65.1 0.5 2.5 372 7.9 0.8 2.4 191 13.8 0.4 2.4 190 O5 organic with mineral (5) 11 4.0 12.7 137 52.7 3.3 7.5 132 21.8 2.3 2.3 102 14.1 0.3 1.3 83 O5 organic with mineral (7) 8 0.6 2.6 170 62.2 0.5 1.3 105 6.5 0.8 0.9 88 23.2 0.2 1.2 102

**Bold text indicates sampled locations using enhanced 5m DEM data. Other sites were extrapolated from original AGRASID classification.



5.3 Complex Landscape Descriptions and Statistics

Complex Landscapes are described in this section in a standard two page template. The first page contains a general description or definition of the landscape assemblage. These descriptions contain references to the specific statistics derived from the DEM analysis. In those cases where multiple examples are provided, the description of the landscape type is omitted for the second or third example. Following the description is a schematic cross-sectional diagram based on a selected transect across a representative landscape within the project area. This cross-section contains the origin and terminal points, as well as, the length and relief noted along the section. A summary of the landform measurements and statistics, as derived from the DEM data, is presented at the bottom of the page. Table 6 is an example of the general statistics provided for each complex landscape type. Table 6. Example of general landscape measurements and statistics.

Landform characteristic Mean Value


Range of Dominant Class

Range of Sub-dominant class

Vertical Relief (m) 3.4 4.0 2-5 1-2 Slope Length (m) 150 250 100-150 150-200 Slope Gradient (%) 1.4 3.0 1-2 2-5 Number of catchments per 100 ha 8 5-10 Percent of landscape that drains off-site 100 95-100

The vertical axis displays the five main landform characteristics including:

• Vertical relief, • Slope length, • Slope gradient (%), • Number of catchments per 100 hectares, and • Percent of the landscape that drains off-site.

Likewise, four landscape values are presented on the horizontal axis. These include:

• Mean Value: is the average value derived from the interpretation of the cross section.

• Controlling Value: defines the perceived limits of the landscape. It represents the limiting value on the landscape where 80% of the landscape has values less than this value. There is no requirement, or expectation, that the controlling value should lie within a dominant or sub-dominant class. The Controlling Value usually occupies some outlier class as it represents the value occupied by the last 20% of the landscape. This is best illustrated by the following example. If a landscape is predominantly class 2 slopes (50% of the area), sub-dominantly class 1 slopes (30% of the area), and contains a limited area (20%) of steeper class 3 slopes, then the limiting or controlling slope gradient is the class 3 slope. This steeper slope class limits or controls the kinds of activities which can be applied to that landscape type.



• Range of Dominant Class: the range of values expected for the majority of the landscape type (70-80% of the area).

• Range of Sub-dominant Class: the range of values which are significant to defining the landscape, however; are limited in their aerial extent (20-30% of the area).

The second page of the template contains images of a two-dimensional shaded relief (hillshade image) and/or an Orthophoto illustration (IRS Image). These images were derived during the analysis of the landscape and are included to provide graphical representation of the landscape type. A three-dimensional perspective is also provided. This perspective view drapes the slope position classes over the DEM which provides a realistic model of the landscape unit. It should be noted that vertical exaggeration exists and should be considered when comparing multiple landscape types. A detailed summary of morphological statistics, based on unique slope position is provided in the final table on the second page. These statistics are separated into upper slopes (UPS), middle slopes (MID), lower slopes (LOW), and depression areas (DEP). As well, a combined average of all slope positions (ALL) is provided. Table 7 contains an example of the specific statistics provided for each complex landscape type. In an effort to better describe the landscape, it was necessary to identify and describe individual components within the overall landscape. The component descriptions provided here are meant to assist in developing realistic reconstructions of complex landscapes. It is important to note that the values depicted in these tables are unique to each slope position and may not directly correlate to the average values contained in Table 2. Table 7. Example of morphological statistics by landscape position.

UNIT COLOR AREA (%) SLOPE LENGTH RELIEF

UPS 12.2 0.81 261.9 3.39 MID 60.3 0.85 195.5 2.27 LOW 12.7 1.02 147.6 1.43 DEP 14.8 0.45 81.9 0.79 ALL 100 0.81 180.5 2.44

The morphological characteristics depicted in this table are as follows:

• Area (%) – the percentage of the total area occupied by that slope position; • Slope – the representative slope gradient within that slope position; • Length – the representative slope length within that slope position; • Relief - the representative amount of relief noted within that slope position.



Complex Landform Descriptions and Statistics



Flood Plain landscape Symbol: FP1

Description

Floodplain (FP1) landforms typically have nearly level to gentle slopes in the range of 1-2 % and relatively short slope lengths (100-150 m). These landforms typically are associated with meandering stream channels. They are usually poorly drained. Schematic Cross Section

Summary of landform measurements and statistics1


Mean Value




Vertical Relief (m) 3.4 4.0 2-5 1-2 Slope Length (m) 150 250 100-150 150-200 Slope Gradient (%) 1.4 3.0 1-2 2-5

Number of catchments per 100 ha 8 5-10

Percent of landscape that drains off-site 100 95-100

1 Statistics presented are only for one described “FP1” unit.




3D Perspective View

Morphological measurement statistics by landform position





Flood Plain landscape Symbol: FP3

Description

Floodplain (FP3) landforms typically have nearly level to gentle slopes in the range of 1-2 % and relatively short slope lengths (100-150 m). These landforms typically are confined and may have terraces associated with them. They have well integrated surface drainage. Schematic Cross Section



Mean Value







1 Statistics presented are only for one described “FP3” unit.




3D Perspective View



UPS 17.3 0.54 152.6 2.11 MID 65.4 0.50 152.6 1.46 LOW 6.4 1.0 141.5 1.03 DEP 11.0 0.32 103 1.35 ALL 100 0.50 118 1.54



Undulating landscape (low relief) Symbol: U1l

Description

Undulating (low relief) landforms typically have nearly level to gentle slopes in the range of 1-2 % and relatively short slope lengths (100-150 m) with numerous small knolls rising 2-5 meters above base level. These landforms typically have frequent reversals of slope, numerous shallow closed depressions and poorly integrated surface drainage. Two examples of low-relief undulating landscapes are presented below. Schematic Cross Section



Mean Value







1 Statistics presented are only for one described “U1l” unit.




3D Perspective View



UPS 15.3 1.06 97.5 3.66 MID 61.7 1.4 62.8 2.52 LOW 16.6 1.4 42.8 1.81 DEP 6.4 0.52 29.2 1.44 ALL 100 1.27 64 2.67



Undulating Organic landscape Symbol: U1l




Mean Value







1 Statistics presented are only for one described “U1l” unit.

NOTE: Undulating landforms typically have slope gradients of 2-5% which translates into an apparent total relief of 2 – 5 meters over distances over which most human observers tend to appreciate relief. Within short distances of 100 – 200 m most human observers will tend to consider that undulating landforms exhibit a total relief of only 2-5 m. If relief is computed as the total change in elevation from the top to the bottom of any slope that can drain continuously, total relief for undulating landforms can often approach or exceed 10-20 m over total slope lengths that can approach or exceed 1000 m.




3D Perspective View






Undulating landscape (high relief) Symbol: U1h

Description

Undulating (high relief) landforms typically have gentle to moderate slopes in the range of 2-5 % and relatively short slope lengths (150-200 m) with numerous small knolls rising 2-5 meters above base level. These landforms typically have frequent reversals of slope, numerous shallow closed depressions and poorly integrated surface drainage. Three examples of high-relief undulating landscapes are provided below.




Mean Value







1 Statistics presented are only for one described “U1h” unit.

NOTE: The sub-dominant relief at this site is large (10-20 m) because the site has integrated surface drainage. Many areas drain to the base of the slope and this causes the computer algorithm to compute large values for total relief.




3D Perspective View



UPS 16.7 2.52 130.9 13.99 MID 56.1 3.34 120.4 10..83 LOW 21.4 2.34 120.4 7.45 DEP 5.8 0.50 42.0 5.19 ALL 100 2.72 110.5 11.02







Mean Value





Number of catchments per 100 ha 3.5 1-5






3D Perspective View










Mean Value











3D Perspective View






Hummocky landscape (low relief) Symbol: H1l

Description

Hummocky (low relief) landforms typically have gentle to moderate slopes in the range of 5-9 % and relatively short slope lengths (100-150 m) with numerous small knolls rising 5-10 meters above base level. These landforms typically have frequent reversals of slope, numerous shallow closed depressions and poorly integrated surface drainage. Schematic Cross Section



Mean Value







1 Statistics presented are only for one described “H1l” unit.

NOTE: In hummocky landscapes, such as the one illustrated here, it is very common for the dominant slope class (here 2-5%) to be of lower gradient than the steeper slope class of 5-9% that is typically considered to be definitive of hummocky landscapes. This is because in such hummocky landscapes it is the steeper but less extensive portions of the landscape with slopes of 5-9% that control the landscape and define it as hummocky not the more gentle 2-5% slopes that may occupy the largest extent of the landscape.




3D Perspective View






Hummocky landscape (moderate relief) Symbol: H1m

Description

Hummocky (moderate relief) landforms typically have moderate slopes in the range of 9-15 % and long slope lengths (200-300 m) with numerous small knolls rising 5-30 meters above base level. These landforms typically have frequent reversals of slope, numerous shallow closed depressions and poorly integrated surface drainage. Schematic Cross Section



Mean Value







1 Statistics presented are only for one described “U1m” unit.

NOTE: The general description of a hummocky landform indicates that local relief is generally in the range of 5-30 m. In this particular site, total relief was computed to be just slightly greater than 50 m for most portions of the site. This is because most of the site was occupied by long continuous slopes that drained into the central valley and so total relief was equal to total elevation difference at the site for most of the site.




3D Perspective View






Duned landscape (low relief) Symbol: D1l

Description

Duned (low relief) landforms typically have gentle to moderate slopes in the range of 2 -5% and relatively short slope lengths (25-50 m) with well-defined sharp ridges rising 1-2 meters above the local base level. These complex, duned, low relief landforms have relatively frequent reversals of slope, but exhibit fewer shallow closed depressions than do complex hummocky landforms and exhibit somewhat better integrated surface drainage than complex hummocky landforms. Schematic Cross Section



Mean Value




Vertical Relief (m) 1.7 3.0 1-2 2-5 Slope Length (m) 80 150 25-50 100-150 Slope Gradient (%) 3.1% 5.0% 2-5% 1-2%


Percent of landscape that drains off-site 44% 30-50%

1 Statistics presented are only for one described “D1l” unit.




3D Perspective View






Inclined 3 landscape (high relief) Symbol: I3h

Description

Inclined (high relief) landforms typically have steep slopes in the range of 15 - 35% and long slope lengths (300-500 m). These simple, moderate relief landforms usually are located adjacent to wide floodplains or rivers. Schematic Cross Section



Mean Value







1 Statistics presented are only for one described “I3h” unit.

NOTE: The most extensive slope class at this site was 1-2%. This slope class occupied the large relatively level area at the base of the slope as illustrated in the 3D view. The subdominant slope class of 15-30% more correctly describes the inclined portion of the landscape that this site was selected to illustrate. Slope length is long because almost all parts of the site exhibit surface drainage into the local valley floor.




3D Perspective View






Valley with Confined Floodplain landscape Symbol: SC1h

Description

Valley with confined floodplain (SC1h) landforms typically have moderate to steep side slopes in the range of 15-30% and relatively short slope lengths (100-150 m) with nearly level to flat bottoms in the range of 1-2% with slope lengths of 100-150 m. Landform measurements and statistics presented below provide average values.




Mean Value







1 Statistics presented are only for one described “SC1h” unit.

NOTE: At this site, the portion of the site occupied by the relatively level, low gradient (1-2% slope) valley floor was considerably smaller than the extent of the site occupied by the steeper valley sides. Thus, for this particular site, steeper slope gradient classes and slope length classes are most extensive and lower gradient slopes are less common.




3D Perspective View






Stream Channel landscape Symbol: SC3

Description

Stream Channel (SC3) landforms are V-shaped valleys with no terraces or floodplain. They typically have steep side-slopes in the range of 15-30% and long slope lengths (200-300 m). These landforms may have narrow stream channels located at the bottom of the steep side-slopes. Two examples of stream channels are provided below. Schematic Cross Section



Mean Value







1 Statistics presented are only for one described “SC3” unit.




3D Perspective View



UPS 38.5 7.60 149.2 40.85 MID 42.9 22.09 100.5 28.43 LOW 18.6 14.95 62.6 17.29 DEP 0 NA NA NA ALL 100 17.62 121.6 38.45



Stream Channel landscape Symbol: SC3




Mean Value








NOTE: The morphological statistics presented for this site are dominated by the presence of a significant area of relatively level to gentle sloping terrain in the uplands that are adjacent to and enclose the stream channel and its valley. The dominant (1-2) and sub-dominant (2-5) slope classes are characteristic of the more level uplands and the valley floor (floodplain) and are not representative of the slopes that occupy the valley walls. The valley walls are dominated by steeper slopes with gradients of 9-15% and 15-30%. The relief and slope length classes are most characteristic of the valley walls.




3D Perspective View






Organic landscape Symbol: O1

Description

Organic (O1) landforms typically have level slopes in the range of 0-2 % and long slope lengths (250 m). These landforms contain organic soils. They typically have poorly integrated surface drainage. Schematic Cross Section



Mean Value







1 Statistics presented are only for one described “O1” unit.




3D Perspective View






Organic/mineral landscape Symbol: O5

Description

Organic/Mineral (O5) landforms typically have nearly level to gentle slopes in the range of 1-2 % and relatively short slope lengths (100-150 m) with numerous small knolls rising 2-5 meters above base level. These landforms typically have frequent reversals of slope, numerous shallow closed depressions and poorly integrated surface drainage. Two examples of organic/mineral landscapes are presented below. Schematic Cross Section



Mean Value







1 Statistics presented are only for one described “05” unit.




3D Perspective View






Organic/mineral landscape Symbol: O5




Mean Value







1 Statistics presented are only for one described “05” unit.




3D Perspective View






Inclined to Steep River Valley landscape Symbol: I3h

Description

Inclined to steep (I3H) landforms are steeply inclined unidirectional slopes most often associated with the valley walls of deeply eroded river valleys. They typically have steep slopes in the range of 15-30% and long slope lengths (500-700 m). These landforms are typically dissected themselves by v-shaped gullies and draws. Three slightly different examples of inclined to steep landforms associated with river valleys are provided below to illustrate some of the wide range in morphology of these important landforms. Many oil sands extraction operations affect river valley landforms. Schematic Cross Section



Mean Value




Vertical Relief (m) 48.6 80.0 50-100 NA Slope Length (m) 385 600 500-700 300-500 Slope Gradient (%) 17.3 22.0 15-30 9-15



1 Statistics presented are only for one described “I3H” unit.




3D Perspective View



UPS 22.9 12.42 648.0 84.0 MID 50.6 20.67 387.0 50.0 LOW 26.4 15.22 139.0 15.0 DEP 0.0 NA NA NA ALL 100 17.34 381.0 40.0




Description

Inclined to steep (I3H) landforms are steeply inclined unidirectional slopes most often associated with the valley walls of deeply eroded river valleys. They typically have steep slopes in the range of 15-30% and long slope lengths (500-700 m). These landforms are typically dissected themselves by v-shaped gullies and draws. Two examples of inclined to steep landforms associated with river valleys are provided below. Schematic Cross Section



Mean Value




Vertical Relief (m) 50.3 85.0 50-100 NA Slope Length (m) 394 600 300-500 500-700 Slope Gradient (%) 19.2 27.0 9-15 15-30



1 Statistics presented are only for one described “I3H” unit.




3D Perspective View



UPS 23.9 12.45 714.0 69.0 MID 53.5 23.10 504.0 53.0 LOW 15.22 17.22 237.0 25.0 DEP 0.0 NA NA NA ALL 100 14.78 486.0 50.0




Description

Inclined to steep (I3H) landforms are steeply inclined unidirectional slopes most often associated with the valley walls of deeply eroded river valleys. They typically have steep slopes in the range of 15-30% and long slope lengths (500-700 m). These landforms are typically dissected themselves by v-shaped gullies and draws. Two examples of inclined to steep landforms associated with river valleys are provided here. Schematic Cross Section



Mean Value




Vertical Relief (m) 37.6 80.0 50-100 20-50 Slope Length (m) 440 700 500-700 300-500 Slope Gradient (%) 13 21.0 15-30 9-15







3D Perspective View



UPS 35.6 7.04 500 85.69 MID 35.8 19.64 400 62.01 LOW 27.6 9.61 200 14.36 DEP 0.9 NA NA NA ALL 100 12.2 400 75.9





7.0 Landscape Assemblages by Eco-district The study region includes eight unique Eco-districts. Of these, 6 districts are entirely contained within the study areas and two form portions of the region (Figure 6). This section addresses the amount of each ARGASID unit found within each of the Eco-districts. Table 8 represents the Eco-district by area and percent ALI coverage. In order to achieve this goal, the original ALI map for the region was reclassified based on the 21 AGRASID landform models identified for this region. The new landform map was intersected with the Eco-district map and statistics for each district were compiled. Table 9 is an example of the statistics developed for each Eco-district. The summary tables containing a breakdown of each Eco-district by AGRASID landform model, area and percent of AGRASID type per district area are presented in Appendix B.

Figure 6. Eco-districts in the Athabasca Oil sands Region

Table 8. Percent of ALI coverage within each Eco-district

Eco-district

Area of Eco-

district within Study region

Percent cover of ALI within Eco-

district

21 100 90.9 22 100 99.5 23 17 16.5 31 100 98.1 32 100 100.0 38 47 46.8 41 100 100.0 43 100 99.8



Table 9. Example of Eco-district Statistics

Where column headers are defined by:

ECO_AGR - all unique combinations of ECO-district number / assigned codes Count - number of records in study area ECO - eco district number A_AGR - assigned class SUM_AREA - Sum of areas for this class recorded AREA - Area of specific ECO-district (within study area) PERC - Percent of eco district in study area A_AGR_PERC - Percent of assigned class in an entire ECO-district (adjusted by

percent in partial ECO-districts ) 7.1 Vegetation Communities by Landscape Assemblage Any attempt to recreate the ecological communities following disturbance requires an understanding of the interaction between the landscape and vegetation communities. A secondary task of this project was to identify general plant communities on unique landscape assemblages in the different Eco-districts. This task was completed by assigning vegetation communities based on the Alberta Ground Cover Classification codes to unique AGRASID codes (Resource Data Division 2002; Beckingham 1996). Appendix C contains the tabular results of merging vegetation cover with unique landscapes in the different Eco-districts. The first table in Appendix C is derived from the Alberta Ground Cover Classification legend used for this analysis. The second table is a results table representing the landscape unit and associated vegetation community. It should also be noted that through communications with Alberta Resource Data Division, some errors in the vegetation cover layer were identified. Those minor errors have been included in this project. As such, the vegetation information provided in this project is to be treated as a general broad level vegetation survey for any particular area. If more detailed vegetation data is required, it is suggested the provincial Alberta Vegetation Inventory information be utilized.

EC

O_A

GR

CO

UN

T

EC

O

A_A

GR

AS

ID

SU

M_A

RE

A

AR

EA

PE

RC

A_S

GR

_PER

C

21 117 21 8846921.5612 5722515157.31802 100 0.2 21D1h 76 21 D1h 172830251.0728 5722515157.31802 100 3.0 21D1l 79 21 D1l 252511612.3271 5722515157.31802 100 4.4 21D1m 38 21 D1m 108102091.4002 5722515157.31802 100 1.9 21FP3 291 21 FP3 585041159.7951 5722515157.31802 100 10.2



8.0 Future Research Considerations In the process of completing this project, a number of omissions and gaps in the data were noted. Most importantly, the conversion from ALI to AGRASID legends was not comprehensive as a number of ALI polygons contained either missing or incomplete data. This limited the accuracy of the statistics, as a certain proportion of the interpretation will be null. In order to compensate for these discrepancies, the ALI data would have to be reviewed in detail and those polygons with incomplete data interpreted. Another option, which would enhance the understanding of the topography of this region, would be a more detailed landform mapping project which identifies landforms and materials using the most recent mapping protocols. The ALI data were collected a number of decades ago and as such may be slightly out of date with respect to current mapping standards. This project focused on the identification of landforms and landscape assemblages within the region. For a majority of these landforms, statistical analysis was completed. Future research should focus on the sampling of similar landforms and the generation of more detailed statistics. This greater sample intensity would provide a more accurate representation of the landscape and assemblages found in this region. In an effort to provide the best ecological data, other datasets should be combined with the coverages created in this project. The addition of Alberta Vegetation Inventory, wildlife suitability ratings and detailed soil surveys would greatly enhance the ability of the CEMA group to recreate the landscape and ecological associations.





9.0 Conclusion The objectives of this project were to identify and quantify unique simple landforms and complex landform assemblages. In an effort to meet those objectives, the landscape was interpreted using the provincial 25 m DEM data and enhanced 5 m DEM data. This process provided the opportunity to quantify the landforms and landscapes using proven geomorphometry principles. As stated before, both “specific” and “general” geomorphometry principles were used to describe the landforms within the region. The identification of 13 simple landforms provides a broad representation of some of the unique features that occur in the region. Although this is not an exhaustive list of the landforms found in this region, it does provide an excellent cross-section of the region’s prominent landforms. In terms of landscape assemblages, 21 unique landscapes were noted in the region. Of those, 12 were interpreted in detail using enhanced 5 m DEM data. This allowed for accurate and precise measure of landscape attributes. The summaries from this analysis will be fundamentally important to the recreation of these complex landscapes during any reclamation endeavor. It is the belief of the authors that this report can be used to accurately reflect many of the common landforms and landscapes found within the study region. This report has addressed the issue of accurately quantifying broad landscapes and has generated statistics which will be useful in the development of reclamation plans. This report also addresses the integration of vegetation communities and the landscape. It is the combination of these two attributes that will allow for successful ecological reclamation.





10.0 References Beckingham, J.D. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta. Canadian Forest Service, Northwest

Region. Edmonton.

Brierley, J.A., B.D. Walker, G.M. Coen, P.E. Smith, L.C. Marciak and W.L. Nikiforuk (eds). 1997. AGRASID Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory Database Pre-Release Version. Compiled by CAESA Soil Inventory Project Working Group. Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Publications. CD-ROM.

Evans IS. 1972. General geomorphometry, derivatives of altitude and descriptive statistics. In: Chorley, R. J. (ed.) Spatial analysis in geomorphology. Methuen, London, p. 17-90.

Fels J.E., and K.C. Matson. 1996. A cognitively based approach for hydro-geomorphic land classification using digital terrain models, In 3rd International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Jan 21-25, 1996, National Centre for Geographic Information and Analysis, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. CD-ROM (1996).

Irwin, B.J., S.J. Ventura and B.K. Slater. 1997. Fuzzy and isodata classification of landform elements from digital terrain data in Pleasant Valley, Wisconsin. Geoderma. 77: 137-154.

MacMillan, R. A. and W. W. Pettapiece. 2000. Alberta Landforms: Quantitative morphometric descriptions and classification of typical Alberta landforms. Technical Bulletin No. 2000-2E. Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre, Swift Current, SK. 118 pp. Available on-line at: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/soils/soils.nsf/> Accessed Feb 15, 2001.

MacMillan, R.A., W.W. Pettapiece, S.C. Nolan and T.W. Goddard. 2000a. A generic procedure for automatically segmenting landforms into landform elements using DEMs, heuristic rules and fuzzy logic. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 113 (1):81-109.

MacMillan, R.A. and W.W. Pettapiece. 1997. Soil landscape models: Automated landform characterization and generation of soil-landscape models. Technical Bulletin No. 1997-1E. Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AB. 75 p.

MacMillan, R.A. and W. W. Pettapiece. 1996. Automated generation of soil-landscape models. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Alberta Soil Science Workshop. February 19 and 20, 1996, Edmonton, Alberta. pp. 68-77.

Mark, DM. 1975a. Geomorphometric parameters: a review and evaluation. Geografiska Annaler 57 A, 3-4, pp. 165-177.

Meijerink AMJ. 1988. Data acquisition and data capture through terrain mapping units. ITC Journal 1:23-44.

Pike RJ. 1988. The geometric signature: quantifying landslide terrain types from digital elevation models. Mathematical Geology 20(5):491-511.

Resource Data Division, Alberta Sustainable Natural Resources. Alberta Ground Cover Classification Strata. AGCCPhase4a Classification. Modified Dec. 20, 2002.

Rowe, JS. 1996. Land classification and ecosystem classification. (in) Global to Local: Ecological land classification. RA. Sims, IGW. Corns and K. Klinka (editors). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. pp. 11-20.

Skidmore, A.K. 1990. Terrain position as mapped from gridded digital elevation data. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 4:33-49.



Soil Inventory Working Group. 1998. AGRASID: Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory Database (Version 1.0). Edited by J.A. Brierley, B.D. Walker, P.E. Smith and W.L. Nikiforuk. Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development, publications. CD-ROM.

Speight, J. G. 1968. Parametric description of land form. In: G. A. Stewart (Editor), Land Evaluation. Macmillan of Australia. pp. 239-250.

Strahler, A. N. 1956. Quantitative slope analysis of erosional topography. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 67:571-596.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2002. National Soil Survey Handbook, title 430-VI. [Online] Available: http://soils.usda.gov/procedures/handbook/main.htm. Accessed: Jan. 2003

Weibel R. and DeLotto, JS. 1988. Automated terrain classification for GIS modeling. Proceedings of GIS/LIS, San Antonio, NM, Vol 2:618-627.

Zevenbergen, L. W. and C. R. Thorne. 1987. Quantitative analysis of land surface topography. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 12:47-56


Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd., LandMapper Environmental Solutions, Soil-Info Ltd., GISmo Solutions Ltd., AMEC, and Pettapiece Pedology

Appendix A

Look Up Table for Converting ALI Open Legend Codes to AGRASID Closed Legend Codes.




Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd., LandMapper Environmental Solutions, A-1 Soil-Info Ltd., GISmo Solutions Ltd., AMEC, and Pettapiece Pedology

Appendix A – Look-Up tables for ALI to AGRASID Conversion

Sym

bol

Ass

igne

d A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

Poss

ible

A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

A1-2 FP3 FP1, FP2A1-23 FP3 FP1, FP2A1-24 FP3 FP1, FP2A1-25 FP3 FP1, FP2

A1-29-10 SC1h A3 FP3 FP1, FP2

A31-2 FP3 FP1, FP2A34 FP3 FP1, FP2A35 FP3 FP1, FP2

A39-10 SC1h SC1h, SC2A4 H1l

A45 FP3 FP1, FP2A56 H1m

AAc1-2 L1 AAc1-23 U1l

AAc3 U1h FP1, FP2, FP3AAc31-2 U1h FP1, FP2, FP3

AAc34 U1h FP1, FP2, FP3AAc4 H1l FP1, FP2, FP3ABk6 I4h I3h, SC1h

ABk61-2 I4h I3h, SC1hABk67-8 I4h I3h, SC1h

ABk7-89-10

I4h I3h, SC1h

ABk9-10 I4h I3h, SC1hAc

Ac1-2 FP3 FP1, L1Ac1-23 FP3 FP1, U1lAc1-24 FP3 FP1, SC1lAc1-25 FP3 FP1, SC1hAc1-26 FP3 FP1, SC1h

Ac1-27-8 SC1h FP1, SC2Ac3 U1h FP3

Ac31-2 U1h FP3Ac34 U1h FP3Ac35 U1h FP3Ac36 H1l

Ac37-8 SC1h SC2Ac4 H1l

Ac41-2 H1l Ac43 H1l U1hAc45 H1l H1mAc46 H1m H1l

Ac47-8 SC1h SC2Ac49-10 SC1h SC2

Ac5 H1m

Sym

bol

Ass

igne

d A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

Poss

ible

A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

Ac51-2 H1m Ac53 H1m Ac54 H1m H1lAc56 H1h H1m

Ac57-8 SC1h H1mAc6 H1h I3h

Ac61-2 H1h I3hAc63 H1h Ac64 H1h Ac65 H1h

Ac67-8 H1h SC1hAc69-10 H1h SC1h

Ac78 SC1h I3hAc7-8 SC1h I3h

Ac7-83 SC3 Ac7-84 SC3 Ac7-85 SC3 Ac7-86 SC3

Ac7-89-10 SC1h I3hAc9-10 SC1h I3h

Ac9-101-2 SC3 Ac9-104 SC3 Ac9-105 SC3 Ac9-106 SC3

Ac9-107-8 SC3 AcA4 H1l

AcAc1-2 L1 AcAc1-27-

8SC1h SC2

AcAc3 U1h AcAe43 H1l AcBk1-2 L1 FP3, FP1, FP2

AcBk1-23 U1l FP3, FP1, FP2AcBk1-24 U1l FP3, FP1, FP2

AcBk3 U1h FP3, FP1, FP2AcBk34 U1h FP3, FP1, FP2AcBk35 U1h FP3, FP1, FP2AcBk4 H1l

AcBk43 H1l U1h, H5lAcBk47-8 H1l H5l

AcBk5 H1m H5mAcBk51-2 H1m H5m

AcBk56 H1h H1hAcBk5-6 H1h H5m

AcBk6 H1h H5hAcBk61-2 H1h H5h



Sym

bol

Ass

igne

d A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

Poss

ible

A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

AcBk63 H1h H5hAcBk7-89-

10 SC1h I4h

AcL1-2 L1 FP1, FP2, FP3AcL1-23 U1l L1, FP1, FP2,

FP3AcL3 U1h

AcTa1-2 L1 U1lAcTa1-23 U1l L1

AcTa3 U1h AcTa34 U1h AcTa4 H1l

AcTa45 H1l AcTa54 H1m AcTa56 H1h AcTa63 H1h

AcTg AcTg1-2 L1 U1l

AcTg1-23 U1l AcTg1-24 U1l AcTg1-26 U1l

AcTg3 U1h AcTg31-2 U1h U1l

AcTg34 U1h H1lAcTg35 H1l AcTg36 H1l AcTg4 H1l

AcTg41-2 H1l AcTg43 H1l AcTg45 H1l H1mAcTg46 H1m H1mAcTg5 H1m

AcTg51-2 H1m AcTg53 H1m AcTg54 H1m AcTg56 H1h H1mAcTg6 H1h

AcTg61-2 H1h AcTg63 H1h AcTg64 H1h AcTg65 H1h H1m

AcTg67-8 SC1h H1h, I3hAcTg7-8 SC1h H1h, I3h

AcTg7-89-10

SC1h I3h

AcTg9-107-8

SC1h I3h

AcTgL1-2 U1l L1

Sym

bol

Ass

igne

d A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

Poss

ible

A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

AcTgL1-23 U1l AcTgL3 U1h

AcTgL31-2 U1h L1AcTgL34 U1h

AcTgL3-4 U1h H1lAcTgL4 H1l AcTgL5 H1l

AcTgL56 H1h H1mAcTgL67-8 SC1h H1h, I3h

AcTgL9-103

SC3

Ae Ae1-2 L1

Ae1-23 U1l U1hAe1-24 H1l U1hAe1-25 H1l Ae1-26 H1l

Ae3 U1h Ae31-2 U1h

Ae34 U1h Ae35 H1l Ae36 H1l

Ae4 D1l H1lAe41-2 D1l H1l

Ae43 D1l H1lAe45 D1l D1m, H1l, H1mAe46 D1m D1l, H1l

Ae47-8 D1l Ae49-10 D1l

Ae5 D1m Ae51-2 D1m

Ae54 D1m Ae56 D1h D1m, H1m

Ae57-8 D1h D1m, H1mAe6 D1h H1h

Ae61-2 D1h H1hAe63 D1h H1hAe64 D1h H1hAe65 D1h H1h

Ae67-8 D1h H1hAe7-8 I4h

Ae7-81-2 SC3 AeA1-23 U1l

AeA4 H1l AeAc

AeAc1-2 L1 FP1, FP2, FP3, L3



Sym

bol

Ass

igne

d A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

Poss

ible

A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

AeAc1-23 U1l FP1, FP2, FP3, L3

AeAc1-24 U1l FP1, FP2, FP3, L4

AeAc1-26 U1l AeAc1-27-

8 SC2

AeAc3 U1h AeAc31-2 U1h FP1, FP2, FP3,

L3, U1lAeAc34 U1h H1lAeAc35 H1l U1hAeAc36 H1l

AeAc37-8 H1l AeAc4 H1l

AeAc41-2 H1l AeAc43 H1l AeAc45 H1l H1mAeAc46 H1m H1l

AeAc47-8 H1l AeAc5 H1m

AeAc56 H1h H1mAeAc57-8 H1h

AeAc6 H1h AeAc61-2 H1h

AeAc63 H1h AeAc64 H1h H1mAeAc65 H1h H1m

AeAc67-8 H1h I3hAeAc7-8 SC1h I3h

AeAc7-83 SC1h I3h, SC2AeAc7-86 H1h I3h

AeBk3 U1h AeBk43 U1h AeL1-2 L1

AeL1-23 U1l AeL3 U1h

AeL34 U1h AeTa4 H1l AeTa5 H1m

AeTg1-23 U1l AeTg3 U1h

AeTg31-2 U1h AeTg34 U1h H1l

AeTg4 H1l AeTg41-2 H1l

AeTg5 H1m AeTg56 H1h H1m

Sym

bol

Ass

igne

d A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

Poss

ible

A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

AeTg61-2 H1h AeTgL1-2 L1

AeTgL1-23 U1l L1AeTgL3 U1h AeTgL5 H1m

Af3 U1h FP3, L3AfTg1-2 L1 FP3

AfTg3 U1h FP3AL1-2 L1

AL1-23 U1l AO1-2 L1 O5

ATa1-2 L2 ATa1-23 U1l

ATa3 U1h ATg1-2 L1

ATg1-23 U1h U1lATg3 U1h

ATg34 U1h H1lATg36 U1h H1l

ATg41-2 H1l ATg5 H1m

ATg56 H1h H1mATg6 H1h

ATg61-2 H1h ATg67-8 H1h

ATg7-81-2 SC3 ATgL1-2 L1

ATgL1-23 U1l ATgL3 U1h ATgL4 H1l

ATgL45 H1l H1mBk4 H1l H5l

Bk46 H1l H5lBk56 H1h H5m, H5h

Bk67-8 I4h Bk7-89-10 I4h

Bk9-10 I4h SC1hL

L1-2 L1 L1-23 U1l L1

L3 U1h L31-2 U1h

L34 U1h H1lL41-2 H1l

L43 H1l L5 H1m

L54 H1m H1l



Sym

bol

Ass

igne

d A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

Poss

ible

A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

L56 H1h L67-8 SC1h I3h

LAc1-2 L1 LAc1-23 U1l LAc1-24 U1h L1

LAc3 U1h LAc35 H1l U1hLAc43 H1l U1h

LAc5 H1m LAc67-8 H1h

LBk1-2 L1 LBk34 U1h

LBk3-4 U1h H1lLBk4 H1l H5l

LBk67-8 SC1h I4hLTa1-23 U1l

LTa3 U1h LTa34 U1h H1l

LTg1-2 L1 LTg1-23 U1l LTg1-24 U1h

LTg3 U1h LTg34 U1h H1l

LTg4 H1l LTg5 H1m

LTg67-8 H1h I3hLTg9-10 SC1h I3h

O O1 O1-2 O1

O1-23 O5 O1O1-24 O5 O1-26 O6

O3 O4 O1O34 O4 O1O36 O4 O1

O39-10 O4 O4 O4

O45 O4 O5 O4 O6 O4

O7-8 O4 OA1-2 O5

OA1-23 O1 OA1-24 O2 OA1-25 O5 O1OA1-26 O5 O1

OA1-27-8 O1 SC1h

Sym

bol

Ass

igne

d A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

Poss

ible

A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

OA1-29-10 O4 SC1hOA3 O5

OA31-2 O5 OA4 O5 Oac O5

OAc1-2 O5 L1OAc1-23 O5 OAc1-24 O5 OAc1-25 O5

OAc3 O5 OAc31-2 O5

OAc34 O5 OAc35 O5 OAc36 O5 OAc43 O5

OAe1-2 O5 L1OAe1-23 O5 OAe1-24 O5

OAe3 O5 OAL1-2 O5

OAL31-2 O5 OBk1-2 O5 O1

OL O5 OL1-2 O5 L1

OL1-23 O5 OL12-3 O5 L1OL1-24 O5 OL1-25 O5

OL3 O5 OL31-2 O5

Ota O5 OTa1-2 O5

OTa1-23 O5 OTg O5

OTg1-2 O5 OTg1-23 O5 OTg1-24 O5

OTg3 O5 OTg31-2 O5

OTg34 O5 OTg36 O5 OTg4 O5

OTg43 O5 OTg5 O5 OTgL O5

OTgL1-2 O5 OTgL1-23 O5



Sym

bol

Ass

igne

d A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

Poss

ible

A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

OTgL3 O5 OTgL31-2 O5 OTgL3-4 O5

Ta Ta1-23 U1l

Ta3 U1h Ta34 U1h H1l

Ta4 H1l Ta45 H1l H1mTa46 H1m H1l

Ta5 H1m Ta54 H1m H1lTa56 H1h H1m

Ta6 H1h Ta65 H1h H1m

Ta67-8 SC1h H1hTaBk56 H1h H5hTaBk6 H1h H5h

TaBk67-8 SC1h H1hTaBk7-89-

10 SC1h I4h

Tg Tg1-2 L1

Tg1-23 U1l Tg1-24 U1h Tg1-25 U1h

Tg3 U1h Tg31-2 U1h

Tg34 U1h H1lTg35 H1l U1hTg36 H1l

Tg4 H1l Tg43 H1l U1hTg45 H1l H1mTg46 H1m H1m

Tg47-8 H1m Tg5 H1m

Tg51-2 H1m Tg53 H1m Tg54 H1m H1lTg56 H1h H1m

Tg57-8 H1m H1hTg6 H1h

Tg61-2 H1h Tg63 H1h Tg64 H1h Tg65 H1h

Sym

bol

Ass

igne

d A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

Poss

ible

A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

Tg67-8 SC1h H1hTg69-10 SC1h H1h

Tg7-8 SC1h I3hTg7-81-2 SC1h I3h

Tg7-83 SC1h Tg7-86 SC1h I3h

Tg7-89-10 SC1h I3hTg9-10 SC1h I3h

Tg9-101-2 SC1h I3hTgAc3 U1h TgBk3 U1h

TgBk34 U1h H1l, H5lTgBk36 U1h TgBk4 H1l H5l

TgBK45 H1l H5m, H5lTgBk45 H1l H5m, H5lTgBk46 H1l H5m, H5lTgBk5 H1m H5m

TgBk56 H1m H5mTgBk6 H1h H5h

TgBk61-2 H1h H5hTgBk65 H1h H5h

TgBk67-8 H1h H5hTgL1-2 L1

TgL1-23 U1l TgL3 U1h

TgL31-2 U1h TgL34 U1h H1l

TgL4 H1l TgL41-2 H1l TgL47-8 SC1h

TgL5 H1m TgL56 H1h H1m

TgL6 H1h TgL67-8 SC1h H1h

TgL69-10 H1h SC1hTgL7-8 SC1h I3h

TgL7-89-10

SC1h I3h

TgL9-10 SC1h I3hTgLA51-2 H1m

TgLBk6 H1h H5hTgLBk67-8 SC1h H5hTgLBk7-8 SC1h I3h

TgLBk7-89-10

SC1h I3h

TgLTa3 U1h



Sym

bol

Ass

igne

d A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

Poss

ible

A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

TgLTg3 U1h TgLTg5 H1m TgLTg6 H1h

TgLTg67-8 SC1h H1hTgTa4 H1l

Sym

bol

Ass

igne

d A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

Poss

ible

A

GR

ASI

D

Land

form

TgTg3-4 U1h H1lWN/A W3

X X1-2



Appendix B

Percent area of each AGRASID unit with individual Eco-districts




Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd., LandMapper Environmental Solutions, B-1 Soil-Info Ltd., GISmo Solutions Ltd., AMEC, and Pettapiece Pedology

Appendix B – AGRASID codes by Ecodistrict

Ecod

istr

ict/

/ A

CR

ASI

D

Num

ber o

f R

ecor

ds

Ecod

istr

ict

AG

RA

SID

C

lass

Sum

of A

reas

fo

r thi

s C

lass

Are

a (m

2) o

f Sp

ecifi

c Ec

odis

tric

t

Perc

ent o

f Ec

odis

tric

t in

St

udy

Are

a Pe

rcen

t of

Ass

igne

d C

lass

in E

ntire

Eo

cdsi

trct

i21 117 21 8846921.56 5722515157.32 100 0.221D1h 76 21 D1h 172830251.07 5722515157.32 100 3.021D1l 79 21 D1l 252511612.33 5722515157.32 100 4.4

21D1m 38 21 D1m 108102091.40 5722515157.32 100 1.921FP3 291 21 FP3 585041159.80 5722515157.32 100 10.221H1h 74 21 H1h 134966184.74 5722515157.32 100 2.421H1l 71 21 H1l 146688153.14 5722515157.32 100 2.6

21H1m 31 21 H1m 35618206.42 5722515157.32 100 0.621I4h 13 21 I4h 14518378.06 5722515157.32 100 0.321L1 58 21 L1 135067495.61 5722515157.32 100 2.421L2 1 21 L2 83356.26 5722515157.32 100 0.021O1 248 21 O1 902540670.62 5722515157.32 100 15.821O2 1 21 O2 2706378.90 5722515157.32 100 0.021O4 8 21 O4 7102510.97 5722515157.32 100 0.121O5 408 21 O5 560957144.99 5722515157.32 100 9.821O6 2 21 O6 15300688.76 5722515157.32 100 0.3

21SC1h 24 21 SC1h 15306681.52 5722515157.32 100 0.321SC2 1 21 SC2 816504.95 5722515157.32 100 0.021SC3 6 21 SC3 15143398.38 5722515157.32 100 0.321U1h 325 21 U1h 1219772720.45 5722515157.32 100 21.321U1l 107 21 U1l 685952388.10 5722515157.32 100 12.021W3 951 21 W3 173243859.18 5722515157.32 100 3.0

22 523 22 3593981.62 3173895742.46 100 0.122D1h 11 22 D1h 21757366.73 3173895742.46 100 0.722D1l 11 22 D1l 13701249.80 3173895742.46 100 0.4


22H1m 137 22 H1m 223650711.18 3173895742.46 100 7.022I4h 3 22 I4h 689633.24 3173895742.46 100 0.022L1 10 22 L1 12255879.33 3173895742.46 100 0.422O1 209 22 O1 276502102.16 3173895742.46 100 8.722O4 48 22 O4 46891136.11 3173895742.46 100 1.522O5 98 22 O5 95127148.48 3173895742.46 100 3.022O6 1 22 O6 706533.61 3173895742.46 100 0.0

22SC1h 42 22 SC1h 97445005.97 3173895742.46 100 3.122SC2 2 22 SC2 4097618.58 3173895742.46 100 0.122SC3 26 22 SC3 46951647.77 3173895742.46 100 1.522U1h 268 22 U1h 675116798.15 3173895742.46 100 21.322U1l 42 22 U1l 65634087.39 3173895742.46 100 2.122W3 2951 22 W3 357589236.02 3173895742.46 100 11.3

23 8 23 2278870.71 642158043.34 17 0.123D1h 1 23 D1h 4501982.86 642158043.34 17 0.1



Ecod

istr

ict/

/ A

CR

ASI

D

Num

ber o

f R

ecor

ds

Ecod

istr

ict

AG

RA

SID

C

lass

Sum

of A

reas

fo

r thi

s C

lass

Are

a (m

2) o

f Sp

ecifi

c Ec

odis

tric

t

Perc

ent o

f Ec

odis

tric

t in

St

udy

Are

a Pe

rcen

t of

Ass

igne

d C

lass

in E

ntire

Eo

cdsi

trct

23D1l 1 23 D1l 1706.78 642158043.34 17 0.023FP3 91 23 FP3 242766344.41 642158043.34 17 6.423H1h 3 23 H1h 209873.80 642158043.34 17 0.023H1l 8 23 H1l 3866272.28 642158043.34 17 0.1

23H1m 7 23 H1m 2917632.65 642158043.34 17 0.123I4h 1 23 I4h 285825.90 642158043.34 17 0.023L1 8 23 L1 9217924.29 642158043.34 17 0.223L2 5 23 L2 2074771.49 642158043.34 17 0.123O1 74 23 O1 98766927.30 642158043.34 17 2.623O5 79 23 O5 182827867.80 642158043.34 17 4.8

23SC1h 1 23 SC1h 683078.62 642158043.34 17 0.023U1h 16 23 U1h 22481314.74 642158043.34 17 0.623U1l 16 23 U1l 41205846.03 642158043.34 17 1.123W3 194 23 W3 9528134.46 642158043.34 17 0.3

31 12 31 3059741.39 1700877319.21 100 0.231D1l 2 31 D1l 3058864.95 1700877319.21 100 0.2


31H1m 108 31 H1m 226536617.46 1700877319.21 100 13.331L1 16 31 L1 12599494.15 1700877319.21 100 0.731O1 100 31 O1 129337900.95 1700877319.21 100 7.631O5 169 31 O5 132083907.34 1700877319.21 100 7.8

31SC1h 69 31 SC1h 139661248.84 1700877319.21 100 8.231SC3 1 31 SC3 687520.58 1700877319.21 100 0.031U1h 226 31 U1h 298749679.37 1700877319.21 100 17.631U1l 21 31 U1l 20545621.25 1700877319.21 100 1.231W3 212 31 W3 9050795.63 1700877319.21 100 0.5

32 85 32 15850894.34 4249324834.30 100 0.432D1h 12 32 D1h 5106734.70 4249324834.30 100 0.132D1l 7 32 D1l 5109898.70 4249324834.30 100 0.1


32H1m 118 32 H1m 120105846.99 4249324834.30 100 2.832L1 53 32 L1 87559587.55 4249324834.30 100 2.132O1 383 32 O1 990525778.70 4249324834.30 100 23.332O2 2 32 O2 4969377.07 4249324834.30 100 0.132O4 4 32 O4 1926767.42 4249324834.30 100 0.032O5 578 32 O5 1230283163.98 4249324834.30 100 29.032O6 1 32 O6 658897.02 4249324834.30 100 0.0

32SC1h 39 32 SC1h 45327461.37 4249324834.30 100 1.132SC3 2 32 SC3 1070900.05 4249324834.30 100 0.0



Ecod

istr

ict/

/ A

CR

ASI

D

Num

ber o

f R

ecor

ds

Ecod

istr

ict

AG

RA

SID

C

lass

Sum

of A

reas

fo

r thi

s C

lass

Are

a (m

2) o

f Sp

ecifi

c Ec

odis

tric

t

Perc

ent o

f Ec

odis

tric

t in

St

udy

Are

a Pe

rcen

t of

Ass

igne

d C

lass

in E

ntire

Eo

cdsi

trct

32U1h 291 32 U1h 595529747.20 4249324834.30 100 14.032U1l 98 32 U1l 219484878.82 4249324834.30 100 5.232W3 636 32 W3 110639787.94 4249324834.30 100 2.6

38 17 38 3590021.89 6048709904.52 47 0.038D1l 10 38 D1l 7437026.09 6048709904.52 47 0.0

38FP3 322 38 FP3 214985457.77 6048709904.52 47 1.738H1h 27 38 H1h 22420761.05 6048709904.52 47 0.238H1l 44 38 H1l 65167019.45 6048709904.52 47 0.5

38H1m 9 38 H1m 7509587.31 6048709904.52 47 0.038I4h 1 38 I4h 1134539.25 6048709904.52 47 0.038L1 175 38 L1 411195752.73 6048709904.52 47 3.238O1 618 38 O1 1307969665.40 6048709904.52 47 10.238O2 3 38 O2 1648783.00 6048709904.52 47 0.038O4 4 38 O4 1261123.07 6048709904.52 47 0.038O5 851 38 O5 1962879008.07 6048709904.52 47 15.3

38SC1h 44 38 SC1h 32993316.93 6048709904.52 47 0.238SC3 3 38 SC3 4231887.14 6048709904.52 47 0.038U1h 267 38 U1h 842852126.06 6048709904.52 47 6.538U1l 307 38 U1l 1060082141.77 6048709904.52 47 8.238W3 2209 38 W3 101351687.54 6048709904.52 47 0.8

41 6 41 5731057.29 1600750031.45 100 0.441D1h 1 41 D1h 150249.33 1600750031.45 100 0.041D1m 1 41 D1m 105796.83 1600750031.45 100 0.041FP3 24 41 FP3 21915362.31 1600750031.45 100 1.441H1h 10 41 H1h 7629621.80 1600750031.45 100 0.541H1l 47 41 H1l 69424681.58 1600750031.45 100 4.3

41H1m 8 41 H1m 6424012.86 1600750031.45 100 0.441L1 23 41 L1 11959071.33 1600750031.45 100 0.741O1 174 41 O1 349752802.08 1600750031.45 100 21.841O5 281 41 O5 605357240.45 1600750031.45 100 37.8

41SC1h 7 41 SC1h 7579432.10 1600750031.45 100 0.541U1h 165 41 U1h 388953839.13 1600750031.45 100 24.341U1l 66 41 U1l 114832076.07 1600750031.45 100 7.241W3 146 41 W3 10934788.27 1600750031.45 100 0.7

43 74 43 11490840.80 2791989506.53 100 0.443D1l 2 43 D1l 42105.34 2791989506.53 100 0.0

43FP3 108 43 FP3 88655195.49 2791989506.53 100 3.243H1h 12 43 H1h 20767022.68 2791989506.53 100 0.743H1l 44 43 H1l 76032146.16 2791989506.53 100 2.7

43H1m 4 43 H1m 2370723.20 2791989506.53 100 0.143L1 35 43 L1 70301049.60 2791989506.53 100 2.543O1 177 43 O1 452893945.41 2791989506.53 100 16.243O2 2 43 O2 1360765.17 2791989506.53 100 0.043O5 464 43 O5 1156651407.03 2791989506.53 100 41.4

43SC1h 38 43 SC1h 195587212.13 2791989506.53 100 7.0



Ecod

istr

ict/

/ A

CR

ASI

D

Num

ber o

f R

ecor

ds

Ecod

istr

ict

AG

RA

SID

C

lass

Sum

of A

reas

fo

r thi

s C

lass

Are

a (m

2) o

f Sp

ecifi

c Ec

odis

tric

t

Perc

ent o

f Ec

odis

tric

t in

St

udy

Are

a Pe

rcen

t of

Ass

igne

d C

lass

in E

ntire

Eo

cdsi

trct

43U1h 178 43 U1h 405045807.82 2791989506.53 100 14.543U1l 87 43 U1l 282738005.00 2791989506.53 100 10.143W3 134 43 W3 28053280.69 2791989506.53 100 1.0



Appendix C

Vegetation associations to AGRASID units within individual Eco-districts




Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd., LandMapper Environmental Solutions, C- 1 Soil-Info Ltd., GISmo Solutions Ltd., AMEC, and Pettapiece Pedology

Appendix C - Vegetation associations by AGRASID unit.

AGCC or AGCC Group AGCC Classes within Group EcositesPeatland classes graminoid wetland graminoid rich fen

shrubby wetland shrubby rich fen undifferentiated wetlands (wooded fens) treed rich fen sphagnum bog shrubby bog lichen bog shrubby bog black spruce bog treed bog

Riparian classes riparian poplar dogwood, horsetail closed riparian shrub dogwood, horsetail open riparian shrub dogwood, horsetail closed Aw, Pb, and/or Bw dogwood, horsetail closed Sw dogwood, horsetail, Labrador

tea horsetailUpland forest classes closed white spruce low bush cranberry

closed undifferentiated coniferous low bush cranberry closed coniferous dominated mixedwood low bush cranberry closed deciduous dominated mixedwood low bush cranberry closed Sw leads conifer low bush cranberry closed coniferous and deciduous mixedwood low bush cranberry

Steep land forest classes closed coniferous and deciduous mixedwood low bush cranberry open coniferous and deciduous mixedwood low bush cranberry closed upland shrub low bush cranberry exposed soil, rock

Closed pine leads conifer Labrador tea - mesicClosed Sb leads conifer Labrador tea - subhygric,

Labrador tea - horsetailOpen Pj, Closed Pj lichen

Open Pj, Closed Pj, closed deciduous dominated mixedwood, open and

closed opine mixedwood

lichen, blueberry


Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd., LandMapper Environmental Solutions, C- 2 Soil-Info Ltd., GISmo Solutions Ltd., AMEC, and Pettapiece Pedology

AGCC or AGCC Group AGCC Classes within Group EcositesPeatland classes with

upland forestAs in Peatland classes, with Upland forest classes

above As in Peatland classes &

Upland forest classes above Peatland classes with

closed Sb leads coniferAs in Peatland classes, with Sb leads conifer & Upland

forest classes above As in Peatland classes, with

Labrador tea - subhygric and/or Labrador tea - horsetail

Riparian classesPeatland classes

As in Peatland classes and Riparian classes above As in Peatland classes and Riparian classes above

Riparian classes, closed Sb As in Riparian classes above, or closed black spruce As in Riparian classes above, with Labrador tea - horsetail

Steepland forest classesRiparian classes

As in Steepland forest classes and Riparian classes above

As in Steepland forest classes and Riparian classes above

Upland forest classes, riparian classes

As in Upland forest classes and Riparian classes above As in Upland forest classes and Riparian classes above

Water & Emergent wetlands and/or Peatland classes

Water and Emergent wetlands and/or Peatlands classes as described above

Marsh and/or Peatland classes above


Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd., LandMapper Environmental Solutions, C-3Soil-Info Ltd., GISmo Solutions Ltd., AMEC, and Pettapiece Pedology

ECO_AGR COUNT Eco-district AGRASID Type

Vegetation Cover (AGCC) Area

21 117 21 884692221D1h 76 21 D1h Open Pj, Closed Pj 17283025121D1l 79 21 D1l Open Pj, Closed Pj 252511612

21D1m 38 21 D1m Open Pj, Closed Pj 10810209121FP3 21 FP3 Riparian classes 58504116021H1h 74 21 H1h Open Pj, Closed Pj, closed deciduous

dominated mixedwood 134966185

21H1l 71 21 H1l Open Pj, Closed Pj, closed deciduous dominated mixedwood

146688153

21H1m 31 21 H1m Open Pj, Closed Pj, closed deciduous dominated mixedwood

35618206

21I4h 13 21 I4h Steep land forest classes 1451837821L1 58 21 L1 Open Pj, Closed Pj 13506749621L2 1 21 L2 Riparian classes, closed Sb 8335621O1 248 21 O1 Peatland classes 90254067121O2 1 21 O2 Peatland classes 270637921O4 8 21 O4 Peatland classes 710251121O5 408 21 O5 Peatland classes with upland forest 56095714521O6 2 21 O6 Peatland classes with upland forest 15300689

21SC1h 24 21 SC1h Steep land forest classes Riparian classes

15306682

21SC2 1 21 SC2 Riparian classes Peatland classes

816505

21SC3 6 21 SC3 Steep land forest classes 1514339821U1h 325 21 U1h Open Pj, Closed Pj, closed deciduous

dominated mixedwood 1219772720

21U1l 107 21 U1l Open Pj, Closed Pj 68595238821W3 951 21 W3 Water & Emergent wetlands or

Peatland classes 173243859


22D1m 9 22 D1m Open Pj, Closed Pj 1829363622FP3 97 22 FP3 Riparian classes 21468823322H1h 221 22 H1h Open Pj, Closed Pj, closed deciduous

dominated mixedwood, open and closed pine mixedwood

501539913

22H1l 237 22 H1l Open Pj, Closed Pj, closed deciduous dominated mixedwood, open and

closed pine mixedwood

477925235

22H1m 137 22 H1m Open Pj, Closed Pj, closed deciduous dominated mixedwood, open and


223650711

22I4h 3 22 I4h Steep land forest classes 68963322L1 10 22 L1 Open Pj, Closed Pj, closed deciduous


12255879

22O1 209 22 O1 Peatland classes 276502102





22O4 48 22 O4 Peatland classes 4689113622O5 98 22 O5 Peatland classes with upland forest 9512714822O6 1 22 O6 Peatland classes with upland forest 706534


97445006

22SC2 2 22 SC2 Riparian classes Peatland classes

4097619

22SC3 26 22 SC3 Steep land forest classes 4695164822U1h 268 22 U1h Open Pj, Closed Pj, closed deciduous


675116798

22U1l 42 22 U1l Open Pj, Closed Pj, closed deciduous dominated mixedwood, open and


65634087

22W3 2951 22 W3 Water & Emergent wetlands or Peatland classes

357589236


23FP3 91 23 FP3 Riparian classes 24276634423H1h 3 23 H1h Upland forest classes 20987423H1l 8 23 H1l Upland forest classes 3866272

23H1m 7 23 H1m Upland forest classes 291763323I4h 1 23 I4h Steep land forest classes 28582623L1 8 23 L1 Riparian classes 921792423L2 5 23 L2 Riparian classes 207477123O1 74 23 O1 Peatland classes 9876692723O5 79 23 O5 Peatland cover with upland forest 182827868


683079

23U1h 16 23 U1h Upland forest classes, riparian classes 22481315

23U1l 16 23 U1l Upland forest classes, riparian classes 41205846

23W3 194 23 W3 Water & Emergent wetlands or Peatland classes

9528134

31 12 31 305974131D1l 2 31 D1l Open Pj, Closed Pj 3058865



235457003



406376071







226536617

31L1 16 31 L1 Open Pj, Closed Pj, closed deciduous dominated mixedwood, open and


12599494

31O1 100 31 O1 Peatland classes 12933790131O5 169 31 O5 Peatland cover with upland forest 132083907


139661249

31SC3 1 31 SC3 Steep land forest classes 68752131U1h 226 31 U1h Open Pj, Closed Pj 29874967931U1l 21 31 U1l Open Pj, Closed Pj 2054562131W3 212 31 W3 Water & Emergent wetlands or





200925716



315636035



120105847

32L1 53 32 L1 Open Pj, Closed Pj, closed deciduous dominated mixedwood, open and


87559588

32O1 383 32 O1 Peatland classes 99052577932O2 2 32 O2 Peatland classes 496937732O4 4 32 O4 Peatland classes 192676732O5 578 32 O5 Peatland cover with upland forest 123028316432O6 1 32 O6 Peatland cover with upland forest 658897


45327461

32SC3 2 32 SC3 Steep land forest classes 107090032U1h 291 32 U1h Upland forest classes 59552974732U1l 98 32 U1l Upland forest classes 21948487932W3 636 32 W3 Water & Emergent wetlands or



38FP3 322 38 FP3 Riparian classes 21498545838H1h 27 38 H1h Upland forest classes 22420761





38H1l 44 38 H1l Upland forest classes 6516701938H1m 9 38 H1m Upland forest classes 7509587

38I4h 1 38 I4h Steep land forest classes 113453938L1 175 38 L1 Closed Sb leads conifer 41119575338O1 618 38 O1 Peatland classes 130796966538O2 3 38 O2 Peatland classes 164878338O4 4 38 O4 Peatland classes 126112338O5 851 38 O5 Peatland cover with upland forest 1962879008


32993317

38SC3 3 38 SC3 Steep land forest classes 423188738U1h 267 38 U1h Upland forest classes 84285212638U1l 307 38 U1l Upland forest classes 106008214238W3 2209 38 W3 Water & Emergent wetlands or


41 6 41 573105741D1h 1 41 D1h Open Pj, Closed Pj 15024941D1m 1 41 D1m Open Pj, Closed Pj 10579741FP3 24 41 FP3 Riparian classes 2191536241H1h 10 41 H1h Closed pine leads conifer 762962241H1l 47 41 H1l Closed pine leads conifer 69424682

41H1m 8 41 H1m Closed pine leads conifer 642401341L1 23 41 L1 Closed Sb leads conifer 1195907141O1 174 41 O1 Peatland classes 34975280241O5 281 41 O5 Peatland cover with closed Sb leads

conifer 605357240


7579432

41U1h 165 41 U1h Closed pine leads conifer 38895383941U1l 66 41 U1l Closed Sb leads conifer 11483207641W3 146 41 W3 Water & Emergent wetlands or



43FP3 108 43 FP3 Riparian classes 8865519543H1h 12 43 H1h Upland forest classes 2076702343H1l 44 43 H1l Upland forest classes 76032146

43H1m 4 43 H1m Upland forest classes 237072343L1 35 43 L1 Closed Sb leads conifer 7030105043O1 177 43 O1 Peatland classes 45289394543O2 2 43 O2 Peatland classes 136076543O5 464 43 O5 Peatland cover with upland forest 1156651407


195587212

43U1h 178 43 U1h Upland forest classes 40504580843U1l 87 43 U1l Closed Sb leads conifer 28273800543W3 134 43 W3 Water & Emergent wetlands or




Appendix D

Location of Digital Data integrated into the Athabasca Oil Sands Region




Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd., LandMapper Environmental Solutions, D-1Soil-Info Ltd., GISmo Solutions Ltd., AMEC, and Pettapiece Pedology

Appendix D

Location of Digital Data Integrated into the Athabasca Oils Sands Region

Documentation for compiled preliminary data sets These preliminary DEM, ALI and image data sets were validated for suitability for required terrain analysis. This project phase utilized data provided by the Base Features Project, Resource Data Branch, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. These data include CEMA_LANDFORMS McKay Study Area CDROM contains ALI information, seamless and tiled detailed DEM, IRS and LandSat images. A non-corrected, less detailed 25m DEM (as hillshades and selected DEM coverages) is also provided for entire study area. Data sets were prepared within ARC/INFO 7.2 environment (except for the geo-referencing of LandSat images, which was done in GlobalMapper). The projection and datum of all delivery data is UTM Z12, NAD 83 with double precision accuracy maintained throughout all processes. Digital data supplied for this project were used to create a series of outputs that facilitate the interpretation of landforms and landscapes in an automated or user assisted fashion. These outputs included: mckay.apr An ArcView 3.2 project providing data overview. dem_leg.avl ArcView legend file for DEM colors. 250k_blocks Shape polygons for 1:250K scale NTS blocks CEMA_Landforms_data_des.doc Microsoft WORD file, data description document. Landforms_bdy Outline of study area generated from eco-district polygons.

250blocks_DEM This directory contains hillshades and 25m grid files (for selected

blocks) representing a 25m BF DEM data for overview and selection of locations where a more detailed 1:5K scale DEM may be required.

G74E Binary ArcInfo grid of 74E NTS block

HSH74E Hillshade grid created with parameters of 35 50 3

(corresponding to azimuth, angle of sun and vertical exaggeration)

info ARC/INFO directory required for binary data structures.



3DEM_sample This directory contains sample images (of ALI data and color hillshade / hydro) suitable for use in 3DEM program for creation of 3D scenes and VRML models.

74e04.bin .hdr raster DEM data in 3Dem format (can be created by ArcView

utilities prepared by GISmo) 74e_ali.JPG corresponding jpeg image (non-georeferenced) that may be

attached in 3DEM. Displays hillshade and ALI attribute selected for analysis

74e04.JPG corresponding color hillshade / hydro jpeg image (non-

georeferenced) that may be attached in 3DEM. Related Datasets for Landform Interpretation ALI Alberta Land Inventory data set directory contains data documentation from Resource Data, seamless coverage for study area, and tiles of 1:50k shape ALI polygons (suitable for draping in Global Mapper environment) BND This directory contains boundaries of 1:50K tiles as used for clipping data (AV poly. shapes). Boundaries are squared off, extended by 300m and enforced to proper (divisible by grid size) origins. DEM_50K_Tiles This directory contains binary grids of DEM and hillshades for 1:50K tiles from detailed DEM enhancement process (ie. where the original 25m grids are supplemented by TIN points and hydrological corrections process). These files are intended as primary data to be used with ALI and images in the GlobalMapper environment. (seamless larger DEM data is available in a separate directory) HYDRO This directory contains stream networks and double line hydrography for study area. This file also contained the Eco-districts coverage. Specific files are as follows: slnet A clip hydro network as per BF specifications for study area. hydpol A clip hydro polygons as per BF specifications for study area. ecodistricts A partial ecodistricts coverage for study area.

info ARC/INFO directory required for binary data structures.



IRS This directory contains Indian Research Satellite images (geo-referenced tiff 5m) available for study area. Naming and formats as per RD delivery

LSAT This directory contains available LandSat images (geo-referenced by Global Mapper as Jpeg from original LL gif) obtained from http:\\toporama.cits.rncan.gc.ca. The imagery for 74d14 was not available. Seamless_DEM This directory contains seamless DEM for study area with hillshades demonstrating contour process and enhanced process using TIN data and hydro-correction.



CEMA Landforms project - Alberta Land Inventory



CEMA Landforms project - Landsat Images



CEMA Landforms project - IRS Images



APPENDIX E

Supplemental CD Information




Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd., LandMapper Environmental Solutions, E-1Soil-Info Ltd., GISmo Solutions Ltd., AMEC, and Pettapiece Pedology

LandMapper Environmental Solutions CD: May 28, 2003 This CD contains the following folder and the following contents.

1) Complex_Landforms This folder contains data pertaining to what were termed "complex landforms". These landforms are consistent with the concept of general geomorphometry as advanced by Evans. These kinds of landforms can be used to map and describe continuous surfaces comprehensively and completely.

All data and images for these sites are derived from high resolution, custom DEMs produced expressly for the CEMA Landforms Project. All DEMs were surfaced to a grid with dimensions of 5 m in the horizontal direction and a vertical accuracy of +/- 0.5 m in the vertical dimension. All DEMs were processed using the LandMapR(C) Suite of programs to compute a full suite of terrain derivatives and to classify each site into landform facet classes. Statistical summaries were produced for each unique landform type to generate quantitative descriptions of the morphology of each site.

The Complex_landforms folder contains 10 Sub-folders, 1 sub-folder for each of the 10 locations for which a high-resolution custom DEM was obtained. Each location contains data and illustrations for at least one landform type. Some sites contain data and illustrations for more than 1 type of landform, as 2 or more different landform types were judged to occur within the DEM for the area of the site.

Each Sub-folder for each location contains 6 or 7 sub-folders as follows:

a) 2D_Images Contains all 2D images produced for the site. Many of the JPG images are geo-registered and can be imported into GIS or Remote sensing software for viewing and analysis. Geo-registered JPG images will always be associated with a second file of the same root name but with an extension of *.jgw.

The 3D visualization software program 3DEM will import 2D images for draping or overlay over a DEM to produce static 3D views, dynamic rotation and fly-by movies and interactive 3D VRML worlds. All 2D images can be imported into 3DEM and draped over the DEM for the exact corresponding site or location, even if they are not geo-registered. Most 2D images show the location of the cross section transect used to illustrate the vertical dimension of the landscape for a given site and lanform type.

2D images can be viewed using the IrfanView freeware viewer included on the CD.

b) 3D_Images Contains 3D perspective views for a given site. These 3D perspective views were produced using one of two software platforms. 3DMapper was used to create 3D views that illustrate the LandMapper landform classification draped over the DEM. 3DEm was used to drape higher resolution JPG and BMP images over the DEM. These include 2D images produced using Global Mapper to fuse several source images into a single



combined image using various settings of transparency and DEM derived texture. Interested users can produce their own 3D views by loading the DEM and any desired 2D overlays into 3DEM or 3DMapper software and saving the desired 3D view.

c) 3DEM Contains DEM data in a format suitable for direct reading and use by the 3DEM software program. DEM files that can be read directly by 3DEM will have file extensions of *.bin or *.dem. As noted previously, 3DEM will permit loading of any 2D overlay image that occupies the same position and extent as the DEM. Thus, any of the 2D images in the corresponding 2D_Images folder should be capable of being imported into the 3DEM program for use in creating new, user designed 3D views.

d) 3DMapper The 3DMapper program reads in a combined base file that consists of a DEM and an orthoimage combined. These files will always have a name that contains the name *pair.3dm. 3DMapper can also read in both raster and vector files for display as overlays on the DEM. Raster overlay files always have the extension *.3dr. Vector files are ArcView shape files (SHP). 3DMapper imports data in the standard ArcView ASCII format (*.asc). These original ArcView ASCII files are generally included in the 3DMapper folder. Files with a name that includes *iwd_*.asc will contain the filtered 5m DEM data for the site. Files that include *ortho*.asc contain a coarse 5 m grid version of the original ortho image for the site. 3DMapper insists that the orthi image overlay have the exact same pixel resolution as the DEM (5 m). This results in a poorer that optimum quality for the image overlay. Orthoimages with a 5 m pixel resolution do not display well at scales much below 1:20,000.

e) Animations At a few of the sites, the 3DEM program was used to produce animations of rotation images or fly-bys in AVI format. This format can be played on almost any MPEG movie player typically installed as a default on most computers. If an AVI files doesn't open and play automatically when double clicked, you may not have a movie player installed. In that case, the IrfanView viewer included on this CD will play the AVI movies.

f) Cross_Sections This folder contains any cross sections produced using DEM data for the specific site in question. Cross Sections were all produced using the Global Mapper program. Cross sections are labeled with the UTM coordinates (NAD83, UTM Zone12N) for the start and end points of the cross section. Distances and elevations are in metres.

g) VRML_Files VRML means Virtual Reality Modeling Language. VRML files can be viewed and manipulated interactively using any number of free viewers and plug-ins. Plug-ins are components that plug-in to your existing Internet browser and use it to display and interact with VRML worlds. The Cortona freeware plug-in from www.parallelgraphics.com is included on this CD as an example of a freeware VRML plug-in. An stand alone VRML viewer is an alternative to a plug-in. The freeware GLView VRML viewer is included on this CD. If you click on a VRML file (extension



*.wrl) and it doesn't automatically open and display, you will need to install a program like Cortona or GLView to view the VRML files.

2. Simple Landforms This folder contains data pertaining to what were termed "simple landforms". These landforms are consistent with the concept of specific geomorphometry as advanced by Evans. These kinds of landforms can NOT be used to map and describe continuous surfaces comprehensively and completely. They apply to specific landforms with unique and recognizable forms but these landforms are seldom continuous and are not conducive to describing or mapping continuous surfaces.

All data and images for these sites are derived from the coarser resolution (25 m) provincial DEM. The provincial DEM data were surfaced to a grid with dimensions of 25 m in the horizontal direction and a vertical accuracy of +/- 10 m in the vertical dimension. The LandMapR(C) programs were not used to process the 25 m Provincial DEM data. All maps, images and results for the Simple landform types were generated using Global Mapper to make measurements of the length and width of features visible in plan view on 2D images of an area and by using cross sections to obtain an idea of variation in the vertical dimension.

The Simple_landforms folder contains 13 Sub-folders, 1 sub-folder for each of the 12 locations for which a coarse resolution provincial DEM was used. Each location contains data and illustrations for at least one simple landform type. Some sites contain data and illustrations for more than 1 type of simple landform, as 2 or more different simple landform types were judged to occur within the DEM for the area of the site.

Each Sub-folder for each location contains the same 6 or 7 sub-folders as previously described for the "Complex_landforms" folder. 3DMapper was not used to produce images for any of the simple landform locations. The ASCII DEM data included in the 3DMapper folder can be imported into 3DMapper, but there is not companion ortho image ASCII file required to construct a base pair file for 3DMapper. Also, there are no files of ASCII raster data available to import into 3DMapper as overlays to display landform classifications or other data.

3. Freeware_Programs This folder contains a number of freeware or shareware programs that are useful for viewing or interacting with DEM data. Users are encouraged to go to the web site identified in the help portion of each program and to download and register for the latest version of the program.

The following programs have been included on the CD.

3DEM: This is a very useful program for creating 3D perspective views with draped overlays of any co-registered 2D image that covers the same area as the DEM read into the program for a site. 3DEM will also create fly-bys and rotation animations. Creation of effective fly-bys is not always easy and takes some effort to learn. Creation of rotation animations is easy. 3DMapper will also export VRML files that can be viewed and



interacted with using a VRML viewer. This can be a lot of fun and the user is encouraged to try producing and viewing different VRML worlds.

3DMapper: This is a very easy to use and useful program for interactively creating and viewing 3D perspective views. Its major limitation is that it does not import and overlay bitmapped images that have a higher pixel resolution than the horizontal resolution of the currently loaded DEM. That limits the kind and usefulness of images that can be draped over the DEM using 3DMapper. The full commercial version will import and overlay vector shape files, but the freeware version will not.

Cortona_VRML_Plugin: This is a useful plugin that is required for viewing and interacting with VRML worlds. The user is advised to go to the source web site (www.parallelgraphics.com) and download the latest version of the Cortona plugin. It will install into your Internet browser and add a capability to view and interact with virtual reality worlds.

Global_Mapper: This is a really useful, powerful and easy to use program for importing and viewing almost any format of DEM, 2D image or GIS vector. It does not provide 3D viewing capabilities but does provide an indication of 3D relief through the use of hillshading and what it calls texture applications. This program is very useful for importing and converting between different types of files and for merging or sub-setting DEM and image files. It provides very easy to use capabilities for fusing images of different types and resolutions. It creates combined fused images through the use of transparency and the application of textures based on DEM hill shading. A full commercial version is available for only US$25 and is highly recommended. You can do almost everything you might want, however, with the freeware version.

IrfanView: This is a very fast and easy to use image display and editing package. It is great for rapidly opening up almost any kind of image and for converting among different types of bitmapped images and cropping images to remove unwanted portions.

4. LDT Input Data This folder contains the original DEM and image input data prepared by Land Data Technologies Inc. of Edmonton for each of the complex landform type locations in the CEMA Landforms Project. These data were purchased for the project, on behalf of CEMA and so are included in the deliverables to CEMA.

The main folder contains 10 separate sub-folders, one for each of the 10 sites for which high-resolution (5 m) DEM data were obtained.

Each sub-folder for each site contains an ASCII text file of x, y, z (elevation) points produced for each site by Land Data Technologies. These data were extracted from available stereo air photos using conventional “floating dot” photogrammetric techniques. The data in the ASCII text file (*.asc) are repeated in a standard DBF format data base table for each site, as this format was used to import the x, y, z data into ArcView for surfacing.



Each folder also contains 2 copies of an ortho-image created for the stie during the process of extracting the DEM data. The ortho-images are provided in two different file formats, specifically as geo-TIFFs and additionally as geo-registered JPGs. The ortho-image data were used in the construction of 2D and 3D illustrations of each of the simple landform types.

Documents

Report Title: Identify Characterize & Quantify the Types of Landforms …library.cemaonline.ca/ckan/dataset/ef103f1b-134c-4071-be... · 2015-01-29 · a plain, plateau, or mountain,