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.***
143
Embed
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,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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
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
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
"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
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
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”.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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).
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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).
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
∗ 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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
∗ 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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
∗ 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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
∗ 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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
∗ 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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
∗ 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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
∗ 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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
∗ 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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
∗ 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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
∗ 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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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∗
Landform characteristic
Mean Value
Controlling (80%) 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.
∗ 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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
Schematic Cross Section
Summary of landform measurements and statistics∗
Landform characteristic
Mean Value
Controlling (80%) 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%
∗ 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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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 statistics∗
Landform characteristic
Mean Value
Controlling (80%) 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%
∗ 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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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
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
Controlling (80%) 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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
• 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.
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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
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
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
Percent of landscape that drains off-site 70 60-80
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
Percent of landscape that drains off-site 55 40-60
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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
Percent of landscape that drains off-site 15 10-20
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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
Percent of landscape that drains off-site 87 80-100
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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
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
Percent of landscape that drains off-site 100 95-100
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
Percent of landscape that drains off-site 100 80-100
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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
Percent of landscape that drains off-site 95 90-100
1 Statistics presented are only for one described “SC3” unit.
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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
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
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
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. Two examples of inclined to steep landforms associated with river valleys are provided below. Schematic Cross Section
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. Two examples of inclined to steep landforms associated with river valleys are provided here. Schematic Cross Section
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_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.
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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
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
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
*.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
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.
IDENTIFY, CHARACTERIZE AND QUANTIFY LANDFORM TYPES CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
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.