SAR_Mar8_2011

EcositeEcosite--based Land Coverbased Land CoverMapping in Eastern OntarioMapping in Eastern Ontario

March 8, 2011

Ecosite-based Land Cover

• Critical starting point for several projects

• How was it developed?– History– Development methods

• How can it be used?– Appropriate questions and scales– Rule-based system

• What are its limitations

Development: History

• Initially developed for National Agri-environmental Standards Initiative (NAESI)

• Modifications and enhancements– Broader study area (different data sources)– Additional project requirements– Wider spectrum of ecological conditions

• Data layers delivered July 2008, complete system delivered January, 2010

Study Area

Development Methods: Principles• Existing data sources• Complete landscape depiction

– Forest– Wetland– Agricultural– Developed

• Classification developed to meet wide range of modeling requirements– Wildlife habitat– Landuse patterns

• Maximize spatial and thematic detail to aggregate as required

Land Cover Classification

• OMNR Ecological Land Classification– Ecosite level– Link to other reporting and wildlife matrices

• Based on:– Forest Resources Inventory (FRI)– SOLRIS– Soils (County soils mapping - moisture, texture)– Terrain (10m DEM - terrain indices)

• FRI polygons as mapping units– Avoids averaging of species composition

Methods: Forest Classes

Forest Classes: FRI Data Preparation

Forest Classes: FRI Data Preparation• Created consistent attributes

– Varied considerably among datasets

• Parsed species strings– Allowed additive queries (e.g. Pw + Pr > 80%)

• Dissolved OBM Tiles– Allowed consistent overlay of other values

Forest Classes: Soils Data Preparation

• County-based Soils for EOMF

• Link to CanSIS on soil name to obtain:– Soil Drainage– Soil Texture– Soil Type (Organic/Mineral)

• FRI Soil Moisture– Available in Enhanced FRI– Predicted for other areas



Forest Classes: Terrain Analysis

• Compiled 10m DEM tiles• Standard terrain measures

– Slope, aspect• Terrain and wetness indices

– Curvature, slope position, flow accumulation• 3D Visualization used to assess usefulness• Four selected

– Relative Slope Position– Terrain Complexity Index– Topographic Convergence Index– Topographic Relative Moisture Index

Terrain Analysis: DEM Compilation

Terrain Analysis: Relative Slope Position

Terrain Analysis: Terrain Complexity

Terrain Analysis: Topographic Convergence

Terrain Analysis: Relative Moisture

• Composite scores – Simplifies rules based on soils and terrain attributes– Used to differentiate DRY/Fresh from Fresh/Moist sites

Ecosites: Combine Soils, Terrain, FRI

Attribute Dry Site Criteria ScoreRelative Slope Position Upland > Lowland 1

Upland > Lowland and Upland > Mid-Slope 1

Terrain Complexity High > Low 1

Topographic Convergence Drains out > Drains In 1

Topographic Relative Moisture Low Moisture > High Moisture 1

Low Moisture > High Moisture and Low > Moderate 1

Soil Drainage Drainage = Rapidly or Well or Moderately Well 1

Soil Texture Texture = Very Coarse or Coarse or Moder. Course 1

_________________________________________________________________________________

Total 8

Ecosites: Combine Soils, Terrain, FRI

Attribute Wet Site Criteria ScoreRelative Slope Position Lowland > Upland 1

Lowland > Upland and Lowland > Mid-Slope 1

Terrain Complexity Low > High 1

Topographic Convergence Drains In > Drains Out 1

Topographic Relative Moisture High Moisture > Low Moisture 1

High Moisture > Low Moisture and High > Moderate 1

Soil Drainage Drainage = Imperfectly or Poor or Very Poor 1

Soil Texture Texture = Medium or Moderately Fine or Fine 1

_________________________________________________________________________________

Total 8

Ecosites: Other Composite Attributes• Used to assign broad ecosite groupings

• Forest– MNRCODE = 300 and (Stocking >= .5 or Closure >= 50)

• Forest Type– Deciduous: Deciduous species >= 70%

– Coniferous: Coniferous species >= 70%

– Mixed: Deciduous >= 30% and Coniferous >= 30%

• Plantation– FRI Cvr_typ and Std_Mod attributes

– WG determines type

Ecosites: Other Composite Attributes• Swamp

– Stocking, height and soil moisture– Comparison with Evaluated wetlands, SOLRIS

• Dry Fresh / Fresh Moist– Dry Fresh

• FRI Moisture = D or DM or ( M and Dry Site > Wet Site)

– Fresh Moist• FRI Moisture = W or WM or ( M and Wet Site > Dry Site)

• Organic Dominated– Soils data too coarse– FRI Moisture = W and Organic > Mineral

Forest Classes: Assigning Ecosites

• Logical statements built to define Ecosites based on composite attributes and species

• Broad forest type and site groupings assigned

• Final Ecosite assignment by species composition

• Manual assignment of ambiguous stands

PJ + PW + PR >= 5DF(1)No(0)No (0)Conif. (2)Yes(1)FOC1 - Dry-Fresh Pine Conif. Forest

Species CompositionDF / FMOrganicSwampTypeForestClass

Ecosite Rules

Non-Forest Classes: Assigning from FRI

• Water layer from NRVIS

• Cultural Classes:– Meadow / Thicket: Stocking < 20– Savannah: Stocking >=20 and <= 30– Woodland: Stocking >=40 and <= 50

• Sand Barren, Pits and Quarrys– Std_Mod = ‘PQ’

• Rural Developed– Std_Mod = ‘DR’

Wetland Classes: Data Preparation



• NRVIS Water Layer

• Compared to FRI and Evaluated Wetlands

• Assigned to marsh where no overlap with wetlands

Agricultural Classes: Data Preparation

• Detailed 2001-2003 data from Agriculture & Agri- Food Canada– Polygon-based field boundaries– Landsat-based land cover and crop classification

• Ontario Land Cover Data– Landsat-based land cover



Hay / PastureCrop

• Agricultural classes from Ontario Land Cover


Hay / PastureCrop

• Smoothing applied


• Incorporated in final layer

Urban Areas: SOLRIS Urban Layer

Hedgerows: SOLRIS Forest Layer

Temporal Updates: SOLRIS

• Two cases identified• FRI = Forest and SOLRIS = Non-forest:

– Spatial alignment– Young forest, plantations– Forest harvest, development, conversion– Stand Break-up

• SOLRIS = Forest and FRI = Non-forest:– Spatial alignment– FRI stocking missing– Young or barren & scattered has matured

• Developed rules based on initial ecosite and associated spatial attributes

• Add attributes:– NAESI class– Age– Ownership– Prox. to Road– Prox. to Agri

SOLRIS: FRI Forest, SOLRIS Non-Forest

Proximity to road

Proximity to Agri

Age < 30Age >= 30Agricultural

SOLRIS: FRI Forest, SOLRIS Non-Forest

Rural DevelopedAgri - Row Crops

Cover Types: Input Layers

Urban Areas

Hedgerows

Evaluated Wetlands

NRVIS Wetlands

Agriculture

SOLRIS UpdatesEcosites from FRI

Roads

Railways

Transmission Lines (Overlay Forest)

Water

Cover Types: Input Layers

FRI and Agriculture Alignment

Roads not always removed

Cover Types: Overlay

Spatial gaps not separated from rural developed

Cover Types: Identifying Rural Developed

Buildings added

Cover Types: Filtering

Lakes, roads, not filtered or spread

Final Layer: Data Preparation

Final Layer: Linkage to Original Sources

Final Layer: Linkage to Original Sources

• Wide array of natural and anthropogenic land cover data combined into a single integrated context layer for habitat mapping and modeling– Vector version with original source linkages– Seamless raster layer

• Detailed set of repeatable ecosite rules based on FRI, soils and terrain

• Repeatable process to recreate products based on new input layers

Final Products

– Least Bittern– Southern Flying Squirrel– Eastern Prairie White-fringed

Orchid– Red-headed Woodpecker– Bald Eagle– Black Tern– Blunt-lobed Woodsia– Cerulean Warbler– Five-lined Skink– Golden-winged Warbler– Henslow’s Sparrow

Uses to Date

– Loggerhead Shrike– Red-shouldered Hawk– Short-eared Owl– Small-footed Myotis– Spotted Turtle– Stinkpot– Wood Turtle– Yellow Rail

• Habitat Models

Uses to Date: Least Bittern Habitat Model

Uses to Date: Red-shouldered Hawk Model

Uses to Date

• Integrated Landscape Management

• Significant Woodlands

Other Potential Uses

• Screening tool for SAR habitats

• Habitat for EIA / municipal planning

• Supporting recovery and restoration planning

Limitations• Best available …

– Wide array of spatial and temporal accuracy– Sources tracked and can be replaced as updated

• Filtering used to remove slivers– Not accurate property by property

• Dated FRI Information– Accuracy of resulting ecosites varies– Rules performed well with plot data– Plot data can provide successional trends

Contact Information:

David BaldwinPhone: (705)-253-4487Fax: (705)-253-1493Email: [email protected]: www.spatialworks.com

Documents

SAR_Mar8_2011