/SOLRIS_Data_Specification

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS) Data Specifications November 27, 2006

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Science & Information Branch

27/11/2006

Disclaimer This instructional documentation has been prepared by Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources (the “Ministry�). No warranties or representations, express or implied, statutory or otherwise shall apply or are being made by the Ministry with respect to the documentation, its accuracy or its completeness. In no event will the Ministry be liable or responsible for any lost profits, loss of revenue or earnings, claims by third parties or for any economic, indirect, special, incidental, consequential or exemplary damage resulting from any errors, inaccuracies or omissions in this documentation; and in no event will the Ministry’s liability for any such errors, inaccuracies or omissions on any particular claim, proceeding or action, exceed the actual consideration paid by the claimant involved to the Ministry for the materials to which this instructional documentation relates. Save and except for the liability expressly provided for above, the Ministry shall have no obligation, duty or liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise, including any liability or negligence. The limitations, exclusions and disclaimers expressed above shall apply irrespective of the nature of any cause of action, demand or action, including but not limited to breach of contract, negligence, strict liability, tort or any other legal theory, and shall survive any fundamental breach or breaches.

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

1

1.1 Data Specifications Sheet Date: November 27, 2006 Section 1: Data Standard Information This section identifies the name, abbreviation, and extent of the Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System, and provides contact information for the producer and custodian of this data layer.

Layer Name: Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (2000-2002) Layer Abbreviation:

SOLRIS

Layer Description:

Regional, ecologically based, land cover /land use inventory.

Represents the landscape current to 2000-2002.

References:

SOLRIS Methodology Pilot Study

Production:

Science and Information Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Product Contact:

Ian Smyth, Remote Sensing Specialist, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Science & Information Branch, ian.smyth@ontario.ca

Extent:

Ecoregions 6E and 7E.

Custodian:

Science and Information Branch, MNR

Section 2: GIS Data Layer Specifications This section identifies the geospatial criteria for this data layer.

1. File Information File Type:

SHAPEFILE and GRID

Projection File Name:

SOLRIS_2000_V1.prj

Geometry Type X Grid 2. Coordinate System

Point

Line

X Polygon

Geographic X UTM Horizontal Coordinate System: GCS North American 1983

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

Raster

Lambert

2

Section 3: SOLRIS ELC Units - This section provides additional information on data classes.

Unit Name

Open Cliff and Talus

Open Shoreline

Open Bluff

Open Sand Barren and Dune

CODE

CTO

BBO

BLO

SBO

NUM

Description Vertical or near-vertical exposed bedrock > 3 m in height / slopes of rock rubble at the base of cliffs.

Subject to active processes / < 25% vegetative cover Substrate consists of unconsolidated parent or mineral material. Subject to active processes / < 25% vegetative cover

MMU (ha.)

Input Source

Possible Confusion

0.5

NHIC Rare Community Data Base

NHIC feature deemed correct

0.5

Features derived spectrally from Landsat ETM automated analysis and associated with NRVIS water bodies.

Results visually assessed from ortho imagery and corrected where required.

8

Steep to near-vertical exposure of unconsolidated material > 2 m in height.

Subject to active processes / < 25% vegetative cover

0.5

Features derived spectrally from Landsat ETM automated analysis and associated with NRVIS water bodies. Differentiated from shoreline with high resolution ortho imagery where available.

Rare event, with no conservation value

10

Exposed sands formed by extant or historical shoreline or aeolian processes. Subject to active processes / < 25% vegetative cover

0.5

NHIC Rare Community Data Base

NHIC feature deemed correct

2

6

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

3

Open Tallgrass Prairie

TPO

20

Tallgrass Savannah

TPS

21

Tallgrass Woodland

TPW

22

Forest

Coniferous Forest

FO

FOC

Ground layer dominated by prairie gramminoids; variable cover of opengrown trees. Tree cover < 25%; shrub cover < 25% Ground layer dominated by prairie gramminoids; variable cover of opengrown trees, 25% < tree cover < 35% Ground layer dominated by prairie gramminoids; variable cover of opengrown trees, 35% < tree cover < 60%

0.5

NHIC Rare Community Data Base

NHIC feature deemed correct

0.5

NHIC Rare Community Data Base

NHIC feature deemed correct

0.5

NHIC Rare Community Data Base

NHIC feature deemed correct

27

Tree cover > 60%. Upland tree species > 75% canopy cover > 2 m in height

Perimeters visually extracted from high resolution ortho or satellite imagery. Attribute for forest type could not be derived spectrally from Landsat automated analysis due to size of feature.

28

Tree cover > 60%. Upland conifer tree species > 75% canopy cover > 2 m in height

Perimeters visually extracted from high resolution ortho or satellite imagery. Attribute derived spectrally from Landsat automated analysis

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

.25

Automated classification procedure is constrained to forest area polygons.

Proportions of forest type not determinable due to size of feature. Forest may be confused with swamp and idle land.

Automated classification procedure is constrained to forest area polygons.

Proportions of forest type may not be exact. Forest may be confused with swamp and idle land.

4

Mixed Forest

Deciduous Forest

FOM

FOD

29

Tree cover > 60%. Upland conifer tree species > 25% and deciduous tree species > 25% of canopy cover > 2m in height

.25

Perimeters visually extracted from high resolution ortho or satellite imagery. Attribute derived spectrally from Landsat automated analysis

30

Tree cover > 60%. Upland deciduous tree species > 75% of canopy cover > 2 m in height

.25

Perimeters visually extracted from high resolution ortho or satellite imagery. Attribute derived spectrally from Landsat automated analysis

0.5

Derived from Landsat change detection analysis

0.5

Derived from Landsat change detection analysis

0.5

Derived from Landsat change detection analysis - further differentiation from idle land using textural analysis of Landsat ETM

Annual Crop Agriculture

CUC

32

Fields managed as continuous annual crop inferred from 3 observed sequential time periods â&#x20AC;&#x201C; No rotation with hay or pasture

Mixed Crop Agriculture

CUM

33

Fields rotated with annual and perennial crop (e.g. hay, improved pasture)

Perennial Crop Agriculture

CUU

34

Grazing land

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

Automated classification procedure is constrained to forest area polygons.

Proportions of forest type may not be exact. Forest may be confused with swamp and idle land.

Automated classification procedure is constrained to forest area polygons.

Proportions of forest type may not be exact. Forest may be confused with swamp and idle land.

Automated classification procedure is constrained to rural areas. May include specialty crops and nurseries.

Results visually assessed from ortho imagery and corrected where required.

Automated classification procedure is constrained to rural areas. May include specialty crops and nurseries.

Results visually assessed from ortho imagery and adjusted where required.

Automated classification procedure is constrained to rural areas. Results visually assessed from ortho imagery and adjusted where required

5

Idle Land

Plantations - Tree Cultivated

CUI

CUP

35

Idle land > 10 years - out of agricultural production

36

Tree cover > 60%, minimum 2 m in height, linear organization, uniform tree type.

Hedge Rows

CUH

37

Orchards

CUO

38

Vineyards

CUV

39

Other Transportation

COT

Tree cover > 60%, minimum 2 m in height, linear arrangement, minimum 10 m width, maximum 30m width.

Continuous regular arrangement of undifferentiated fruit trees.

Continuous linear arrangement of grape vines.

40

to be determined

42

Highways, roads

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

0.5

Derived from Landsat change detection analysis - further differentiation from unimproved hay/pasture using textural analysis of Landsat ETM

Automated classification procedure is constrained to rural areas. May include nurseries, urban brown fields or clearings within forest areas. Results visually assessed from ortho imagery and adjusted where required. Idle land may be confused with wetlands and upland forest.

0.5

Perimeters visually extracted from high resolution ortho or satellite imagery

Forest type not differentiated.

Mostly coniferous species.

May be confused with upland forest. May include nurseries or Christmas tree plantations.

.25

Perimeters visually extracted from high resolution ortho or satellite imagery

Confusion may exist with trees under 2m in height

Perimeters visually extracted from high resolution ortho or satellite imagery Perimeters visually extracted from high resolution ortho or satellite imagery

Mapped extensively in Niagara Fruit Belt - Rare event in other areas Mapped extensively in Niagara Fruit Belt - Rare event in other areas

Derived from the National Road Network - buffered to standard road allowance of 22 m

National Road Network data deemed correct

.25

.25

0.5

6

Perimeters visually extracted from high resolution ortho or satellite imagery Perimeters visually extracted from high resolution ortho or satellite imagery

Automated classification procedure is constrained to licensed area. Results visually assessed from ortho imagery and adjusted where required.

Results visually assessed from ortho imagery and adjusted where required Results visually assessed from ortho imagery and adjusted where required

Combined NRVIS Evaluated Wetlands and modelled/interpreted unevaluated wetlands from TI, orthos and satellite imagery

Possible confusion with upland forest and idle land.

Results visually assessed from ortho imagery and adjusted where required.

0.5

Derived from NRVIS Evaluated Wetlands database

Rare event, with practical limitations of remote sensing/GIS in discerning vegetation types

0.5

Derived from NRVIS Evaluated Wetlands database

Rare event, with practical limitations of remote sensing/GIS in discerning vegetation types

Extraction

COE

43

Pits, quarries

0.5

Built-up Area Pervious

COP

44

Urban recreation areas, e.g. golf courses playing fields.

.25

Built-up Area Impervious

COI

45

Residential, industrial, commercial and civic areas.

.25

Swamp

Fen

Bog

SW

FE

BO

50

55

59

Open, shrub and treed communities - water table seasonally or permanently at, near, or above substrate surface - tree or shrub cover > 25% - dominated by hydrophytic shrub and tree species Open, shrub and treed communities - water table seasonally or permanently at, near, or above substrate surface. - tree cover (trees > 2m high) â&#x2030;¤ 25% - sedges, grasses and low (< 2 m) shrubs dominate, sedge and brown moss peat substrate Open, shrub and treed communities - water table seasonally or permanently at, near, or above substrate

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

0.5

Derived from NRVIS licensed pit/quarry data base. Active area derived spectrally from Landsat TM.

7

surface - tree cover (trees > 2m high) â&#x2030;¤ 25% sphagnum peat substrate

Marsh

MA

63

Open, shrub and treed communities - water table seasonally or permanently at, near, or above substrate surface - tree and shrub cover â&#x2030;¤ 25% - dominated by emergent hydrophytic macrophytes

Open Water

OA

66

No macrophyte vegetation, trees or shrub cover

68

Submerged or floating leaf macrophytes, emergent vegetation present but not dominant, not tree or shrub cover

Shallow Water

SA

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

0.5

Combined NRVIS Evaluated Wetlands and modelled/interpreted unevaluated wetlands from TI, orthos and satellite imagery

Possible confusion with hay, pasture and idle land. Results visually assessed from ortho imagery and adjusted where required.

0.5

Derived from NRVIS hydrology database

Results visually assessed from ortho imagery and adjusted where required.

0.5

Combined evaluated wetlands and modelled/interpreted unevaluated wetlands from TI, orthos and satellite imagery

Results visually assessed from ortho imagery and adjusted where required.

8

1.2 Class Descriptions: This section provides a more detailed description of derived class units.

Open Shoreline: Description: Substrate consists of unconsolidated parent or mineral material. Subject to active processes, and less than 25% vegetative cover. Vegetation cover varies from patchy and barren to more closed and treed Possible Confusion: May include portions of shallow water, which is characterized by submerged or floating leaf macrophytes, emergent vegetation present but not dominant, with no tree or shrub cover. May also include portions of sand dunes (active rolling sand, with variable stability and less than 60% tree cover), idle land, urban impervious, and bluffs or cliffs (active, steep to near - vertical exposures of unconsolidated material, with less than 10% tree cover). Docks, cottages and other shoreline structures below the MMU may be captured in this class.

Interpretation: Typically appears as bright linear or sinuous features in true colour or false-coloured imagery. This class undergoes active processes (wave energy, erosion and deposition) limiting these features to large waterbodies. Such active processes may result in variable shoreline widths and varying degrees of debris and plant cover.

Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.5 hectares.

Coniferous / Mixed / Deciduous Forest: Description: A terrestrial vegetation community with at least 60% tree cover (definition of “forest” by Lee et al 1998) of which more than 75% is either coniferous or deciduous canopy cover to be considered coniferous or deciduous forest, respectively. A mixed forest class has at least 60% tree cover, with more than 25% conifer canopy cover, and also more than 25% deciduous canopy cover. A tree is defined as a woody plant usually with a single main stem and capable under the right condition, of reaching heights of several metres or more (Lee et al. 1998). Cover is described as the area of ground covered or the relative proportion of coverage a particular plant species, vegetation layer or plant form represents (Lee et al. 1998).

Possible Confusion: Identifying tree versus tall shrub cover may be difficult since a tall shrub is defined as “A shrub species that has the potential to grow > 2 m tall, or that forms part of a community in which at least some of the individuals are > 2 m tall” (Lee et al. 1998). Similarly, confusion may arise with thicket communities which are characterized by <10% tree cover and >25% tall shrub cover (Lee et al. 1998). Class confusion may also be present with swamps (coniferous, mixed or deciduous) where hydrological conditions such as gently flowing water that occurs seasonally or persist for long periods may not be apparent. Other areas of confusion include plantations and hedgerows as well as speciality crops such as Christmas trees, orchards, and nurseries. Refer to definitions of these classes for clarification.

Interpretation: Several considerations are made in interpreting forested areas (e.g., texture, shape, tone and location / context). Discerning whether trees versus tall shrubs are present is aided in part by the size of crowns, and the resulting shadow Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

9

length. The proportion of conifer versus deciduous is best examined from spring orthophotography. The percent cover charts in Lee et al. (1998) provide a guide for estimating percent cover. The Woodland Editing Strategies document (SOLRIS 2005c) also describes a method of how a Âź hectare square graphic can be used to aid in estimating percent cover. Other distinguishing features include irregular stand boundary (in contrast to well defined and linear plantations), and relatively coarse texture from canopies of uneven age and composition. Deciduous species are gray beige in appearance (true colour, leaf-off spring imagery), and light red or yellow pale orange in false-colour and Landsat 4-5-3 band combinations, respectively. In contrast, coniferous species are dark green in appearance (true colour spring imagery), and dark red or orange in false colour and Landsat 4-5-3 band combinations, respectively. Deciduous species typically have billowy closed-canopy conditions versus coarse and irregular canopies of conifers. Site conditions and substrate type are variable. But poorly drained, lower elevation organic areas are likely swamp or idle land Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.25 hectares.

Annual Crop, and Mixed Crop Agricultural: Description: The agricultural land-use classes for annual crop, and mixed crop designation were derived from a change analysis of spring Landsat imagery. The spatial variation of land-use within a field was estimated by classifying the presence or absence of vegetation over three images sequentially sampled within a 10 yearâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; time series. While crop type can not be identified, the absence of vegetation (ploughed fields) in 3 spring images (out of a possible 3 date time series) implies annual cropping and was defined here as a annual crop class. The annual crop class is a seeded crop type such as corn, beans or spring grain. It may however include other cropping operations such as speciality crops of ginseng, tobacco and sod. This class does not include orchards, vineyards, or plantations. In contrast, the presence of vegetation across 1 or 2 dates in the imagery time series infers a rotational system considered to be a mixed crop agricultural class. A rotational system is generally composed of annual crops rotated with perennial crops (hay / pasture).

Possible Confusion: Inferences of land-use were based on the presence or absence of vegetation. Without crop records or explicitly identifying crop type, it is possible that the potential for error exists if the underlying assumption does not hold true.

The assumption is that appropriately obtained spring imagery should only have annual crops that are in a bare field state, and that all hay, pasture and idle land areas are in a vegetated state. Where this assumption may not hold true is when crops such as winter wheat that are planted in the fall, appear vegetated in the spring (unlike most other row crops) causing possible confusion with hay or pasture (SOLRIS 2002b). Confusion may also arise in areas of disturbance or vernal pooling where re-vegetation occurs later in the spring and thus considered fallow leading to the site being deemed more intensive. Ideally, the classification of imagery over a series of consecutive dates would be preferred over sequentially sampled images however the availability of consecutive sequences of cloud-free satellite imagery for the entire project area within a spring acquisition window precludes such a Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

10

possibility. Nevertheless, it has been statistically determined that the probability of correctly predicting annual crop (given equal weight to the occurrence of vegetated vs. non-vegetated within three observation periods over 10 years) is at a minimum 64%. With the mixed crop class the field by definition may be either vegetated or non-vegetated; therefore the predictive probability of this occurrence is 100%. It should be noted that the probability of each occurrence type has been improved significantly through visual checking with ortho-imagery.

Interpretation: The applied methodology does not explicitly identify crop type, but it does allow distinctions to be made between areas of cultivation such as annual crop and mixed crop agricultural classes versus less intense (or uncultivated) operations.

Distinguishing features of managed classes is the evidence of furrows, defined fields often with no fence boundaries, and generally large operations (150-250 ha in size).

As described by Huffman and Dumanski (1986), mixed crop systems are generally of moderate size (100 ha), with the operations often associated with dairy or beef production. It would therefore be expected that mixed crop agricultural classes would be associated with pasture land surrounded by fences and larger farm structures (e.g., silos).

Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.5 hectares.

Hay- Pasture Description: As described in Annual crop and Mixed crop Agricultural classes, change analysis of spring Landsat imagery was classified to gain a measure of landuse. The presence of vegetation across all three dates of the change analysis implies perennial cropping and is thus defined as hay crop, improved and unimproved pasture. While crop type is not explicitly identified, this class is typically characterized perennial cover, with minimal evidence of recent cultivation.

Possible Confusion: Inferences of land-use were made based on the presence and absence of vegetation. Without crop records or explicitly identifying crop type, it is possible that confusion may arise with Idle Land class or more intensive practices.

The potential for error exists if the underlying assumption does not hold true. The assumption is that appropriately obtained spring imagery should only have annual crops that are in a bare field state, and that all hay, pasture areas are vegetated.

Where this assumption may not hold true is when crops such as winter wheat that are planted in the fall, appear vegetated in the spring (unlike most other row crops) causing possible confusion with hay or pasture (SOLRIS 2002b). Some confusion may also arise in areas of disturbance or vernal pooling where re-vegetation occurs later in the spring and thus considered fallow leading to the site being deemed more intensive. Transitional areas, where there is a reversion to a natural vegetation state may yield confusion with the Idle Land class. Ideally, the classification of imagery over a series of consecutive dates would be preferred over sequentially sampled images however the availability of consecutive sequences of cloud-free satellite imagery for the entire project area within a spring acquisition window precludes such a possibility. Nevertheless, it has been statistically determined that the probability of correctly predicting hay/pasture (given equal weight to the occurrence of vegetated vs. non-vegetated within three observation periods over 10 years) is at a minimum 64%. It should be noted that the probability of each Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

11

occurrence type has been improved significantly through visual checking with ortho-imagery.

Interpretation: The applied methodology does not explicitly identify crop type, but it does allow distinctions to be made between areas of cultivation such as annual crop and mixed crop agricultural classes versus uncultivated operations. Distinguishing features are the absence of furrows (cultivation), small parcel sizes (20 ha), and limits often surrounded by a fence. Small horse and beef cow-calf enterprises are the most common operations associated with this class (Huffman and Dumanski 1986).

Remnant hay bales within fields from feeding livestock over winter are indicative of these operations. The relatively small parcels primarily occur in urban fringe areas as hobby farms.

Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.5 hectares.

Idle Land: Description: A land use representing those portions of an agricultural area that are not in active production (Huffman and Dumanski 1986). This class also includes areas not formerly in agricultural production, such as ditches or right-of-ways along transportation and utility corridors. It is also a default class for capturing tree farms (ornamental and Christmas tree) rural residential and farmstead properties including barns, storage sheds, driveways and lawns. The idle land sites are generally in a state of reversion to early successional species and/or characterized as highly disturbed environments (e.g., transportation corridors) with shrub and earlysuccessional species present. This class was generated from change analysis of Landsat spring imagery (previously described in annual crop and mixed crop agriculture classes), with vegetation apparent across all three time series dates for areas not already deemed forest, wetland or urban. The pattern of vegetation across all three dates is the same for unimproved â&#x20AC;&#x201C; hay pasture class, but an additional step was taken using Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) panchromatic imagery to account for coarse textural differences arising from shrub species. The idle land class usually occurs on poorer land where slopes, river valleys, rock outcrops or shallow soils are present.

Possible Confusion: Inferences of land-use intensity were made based on the presence and absence of vegetation. Without crop records or explicitly identifying crop type, it is possible that confusion may arise with unimproved hay â&#x20AC;&#x201C; pasture class. The potential for error exists if the underlying assumption does not hold true. The assumption is that appropriately obtained spring imagery should only have row crops that are in a bare field state, and that all hay, pasture and idle areas are vegetated. Where this assumption may not hold true is when crops such as winter wheat that are planted in the fall, appear vegetated in the spring (unlike most other row crops) causing possible confusion with hay or pasture (SOLRIS 2002b).

Confusion may arise in transitional areas where reversion to a natural vegetation state is not characterized by coarse texture of shrubs resulting in areas being deemed unimproved-hay pasture. Class confusion may also be present with thicket swamps and marshes where hydrological conditions such as gently flowing water that occurs seasonally or persist for long periods may not be apparent. Since the idle class is a

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

12

default for tree farms, farmsteads and highly disturbed areas (e.g., transportation corridors), several other possible areas of confusion may arise.

Interpretation: The applied methodology does not explicitly identify crop type, but it does allow distinctions to be made between areas of cultivation such as annual crop and mixed crop agricultural classes versus less intense (or uncultivated) operations.

Distinguishing features of unmanaged classes are the absence of furrows (cultivation), irregular parcel sizes, and limits not often surrounded by a fence. The idle land class is associated with transportation and utility corridors. Site conditions are variable, but generally occur on poorer land where slopes, river valleys, rock outcrops or shallow soils are present.

Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.5 hectares.

Plantation: Description: A treed community with at least 60% tree cover in which the majority of trees have been planted (Lee et al 1998). A tree is defined as a woody plant usually with a single main stem and capable under the right condition, of reaching heights of several metres or more (Lee et al. 1998). Cover is described as the area of ground covered or the relative proportion of coverage a particular plant species, vegetation layer or plant form represents (Lee et al. 1998).

Possible Confusion: Class confusion may be present with natural forest communities (coniferous, mixed or deciduous), and speciality crops such as Christmas trees, orchards, and nurseries. Identifying tree versus tall shrub cover may also be difficult since a tall shrub is defined as “A shrub species that has the potential to grow > 2 m tall, or that forms part of a community in which at least some of the individuals are > 2 m tall” (Lee et al. 1998). Similarly, confusion may arise with thicket communities which are characterized by <10% tree cover and >25% tall shrub cover (Lee et al.

1998). In some instances, confusion may arise with swamps where hydrological conditions such as gently flowing water that occurs seasonally or persist for long periods may not be apparent.

Interpretation: Well defined stand boundaries and evidence of linear tree planting are key identifiers. Discerning whether trees versus tall shrubs are present is aided in part by the size of crowns, and the resulting shadow length. The percent cover charts in Lee et al. (1998) provide a guide for estimating percent cover. The Woodland Editing Strategies document (SOLRIS 2005c) also describes a method of how a ¼ hectare square graphic can be used to aid in estimating percent cover.

Image tones and texture typically appear relatively darker and smoother than forest communities since most plantations are even-aged coniferous plantings.

Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.25 hectares.

Hedgerow: Description: A terrestrial vegetation community of at least 60% tree cover (definition of “forest” by Lee et al 1998) that is naturally occurring or planted as a linear feature, with a minimum width of 10 metres and a maximum of 30 metres. Hedgerows not connected to existing forested areas were to be excluded. A tree is defined as a woody plant usually with a single main stem and capable under the right condition, Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

13

of reaching heights of several metres or more (Lee et al. 1998). Cover is described as the area of ground covered or the relative proportion of coverage a particular plant species, vegetation layer or plant form represents (Lee et al. 1998).

Possible Confusion: Identifying tree versus tall shrub cover may be difficult since a tall shrub is defined as “A shrub species that has the potential to grow > 2 m tall, or that forms part of a community in which at least some of the individuals are > 2 m tall” (Lee et al. 1998). Similarly, confusion may arise with thicket communities which are characterized by <10% tree cover and >25% tall shrub cover (Lee et al. 1998). Class confusion may also be present with swamps (coniferous, mixed or deciduous) where hydrological conditions such as gently flowing water that occurs seasonally or persist for long periods may not be apparent. Other areas of confusion include plantations or tree farms where harvesting operations may result in similar geometries to hedgerow features. Refer to definitions of these classes for clarification.

Interpretation: Several considerations are made in interpreting forested features such as hedgerows. The principle identifiers for hedgerow are the geometry (i.e., linear shape) and overall size (10 - 30 wide, with a MMU of 0.25 ha). Only hedgerows adjoining woodlots were to be captured, which forms an additional identifier for interpreting this class. Discerning whether trees versus tall shrubs are present is aided in part by the size of crowns, and the resulting shadow length. The percent cover charts in Lee et al. (1998) provide a guide for estimating percent cover. The Woodland Editing Strategies document (SOLRIS 2005c) also describe a method of how a ¼ hectare square graphic can be used to aid in estimating percent cover.

Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.25 hectares.

Orchard: Description: A continuous regular arrangement of undifferentiated fruit trees including hardy (e.g., apple, pears and plums) and tender fruit (e.g., peaches and cherries) cropping systems.

Possible Confusion: Since orchards may be at various stages of maturity, possible confusion may arise with vineyards, and ornamental tree farms.

Interpretation: As described in SOLRIS (2005e), orchards appear as linear, uniformly spaced rows of trees that give the appearance of a grid like pattern. From spring orthophotography, individual trees are detectable by the pale brownish colour of the branches and bark. Alignment and spacing of individual trees at intervals of 6 metres or more are common, which is a greater spacing than vineyards. Field boundaries are well defined and linear. For most orchards, the key identification characteristics are row spacing, crown size, crown shape, total height, and type of pruning employed (often visible in shadow patterns on large-scale photographs).

Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.25 hectares.

Vineyard: Description: A continuous linear arrangement of grape vines.

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

14

Possible Confusion: Vineyards may be at various stages of maturity resulting in possible confusion with orchards, tree farms and even idle land classes. Vineyards are not likely to be confused with corn or other row crops of similar height and texture because of the wider spacing between individual rows. This confusion is further minimized by the known concentration of vineyards within the Niagara Region.

Interpretation: As described in SOLRIS (2005e), individual planting rows are visible, with alignment and spacing of individual plants at intervals of 3 metres or more (a narrower spacing than orchards). Vineyards present a uniformly linear pattern on aerial photographs. The densities of vine canopies can vary due to stress, vine age, and vine spacing. Field boundary usually linear, with a relatively smoother texture for vineyards than orchards due to smaller plant size and influence of width of row Alignment and spacing of individual plants are at a lesser distance than orchards.

Some vineyards maybe difficult to identify if the crop is young or stressed, but these areas should be included in the vineyard classification since it is likely to remain vineyard.

Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.25 hectares.

Extraction: Description: An open-pit aggregate extraction site. Associated infrastructure such as roads, buildings, weigh scales and ponds below the MMU of 0.5 hectare are included in this class. This class does not represent the intended land-use extent as typically outlined in operational plans or zoning permits, but instead delineates areas of exposed aggregate from current or past operations.

Interpretation: Examples of extraction are presented in SOLRIS (2005), with interpretative characteristics of exposed and disturbed areas over gravel deposits.

Aggregate mounds and processing equipment are typically present along with a small building and road infrastructure. The feature is generally not within a residential or urban area, with the operation having a fenced boundary that is typically treed. Image tones and texture typically appear relatively bright with darker tones evident from shadows and ponds. Exposed soil and aggregates appear cyan to white in false or true colour infrared imagery.

Possible Confusion: New residential development (urban pervious) and exposed rock can be confused with this class since they are characterized as bright white â&#x20AC;&#x201C; cyan in false or true colour infrared imagery. Abandon operations may also appear as idle land.

Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.5 hectares.

Urban Pervious: Description: Urban areas range from small hamlets at rural cross roads to large cities.

An area is considered urban when linear frequencies of structures were above 10 per 500 metres or 4 per 1 hectare box (SOLRIS 2005b). Areas within an urban feature are further defined as pervious if green spaces and other permeable surfaces (e.g., grass, shrubs and residential ornamentals) representing more than 80% per 0.5 hectare.

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

15

Urban pervious areas may include land cover features such as water, woodlands, and impervious features (e.g. parking lots) below the MMU of 0.5 hectare. This class does not represent the intended land-use extent as typically outlined in operational plans or zoning permits, but instead delineates pervious features that meet the aforementioned building density. New developments adjacent to or enclosed as urban are considered urban pervious. These new developments typically have early residential road patterns or partially built homes present. Interpretable recreation outside of an urban area such as golf courses, baseball diamonds, soccer fields and football fields are mapped as urban pervious. Similarly, cemeteries are classified as urban pervious. This class does not included permeable features within or adjacent to a farmstead.

Interpretation: Examples of urban pervious are provided in SOLRIS (2005b), with green spaces, golf courses, and ball diamonds clearly evident in orthophotography.

Primary identifiers are the shape and associated characteristics such as linear fairways, sand traps, and diamond pattern of ball fields. These permeable features are typically smooth, and even tone given the predominance of grass. False or true colour infrared imagery displays grass and low lying vegetation as pink - red in appearance. In contrast, urban pervious features within a new urban development appear cyan to white in false or true colour infrared imagery. These new developments are generally along the urban fringe and have residential road patterns.

Possible Confusion: Extraction sites and exposed rock can be confused with pervious surfaces that are characterized by bright white â&#x20AC;&#x201C; cyan in appearance. Estimating the percent vegetation cover above the 80% per 0.5 hectare may also be challenging to differentiate pervious versus impervious in fragmented areas such as subdivisions.

In the absence of orthophotography, recreational fields and cemeteries may appear as idle land or unimproved hay-pasture.

Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.25 hectares Urban Impervious: Description: Areas with buildings, pavement and most other anthropogenic features are generally impermeable and thus classified as urban impervious. These features along with residential, industrial, civic and commercial buildings are all found in urban areas and were spatially mapped when linear frequencies of structures were above 10 per 500 metres or 4 per 1 hectare box (SOLRIS 2005b). A road or railway line on its own is not an urban feature, but within an urban area it is considered as urban impervious. Green spaces and other pervious features may be included within urban impervious if the portion of pervious surfaces (e.g., grass, vegetation and bare ground) is less than 80% per 0.5 hectare. Urban areas range from small hamlets at rural cross roads to large cities. This class does not represent the intended land-use extent as typically outlined in operational plans or zoning permits, but instead delineates constructed features that meet the aforementioned building density. This class does not included constructed features such as farmsteads (silos, barns and house) or extraction sites. It does however include greenhouse complexes.

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

16

Interpretation: Examples of urban impervious are provided in SOLRIS (2005b), with buildings, residential areas and infrastructure clearly evident in orthophotography as light to cyan tones of constructed materials mixed with darker tones from roof tops and shadows. Vegetated areas less than 80% per hectare – typically present within residential subdivisions - are also characteristic of urban impervious features.

Satellite imagery such as Landsat and IRS display similar characteristics (albeit with coarser spatial resolution) with urban impervious features typically a cyan to almost white colour in false colour composites.

Possible Confusion: Extraction sites and exposed rock can be confused with impervious surfaces that are characterized by bright white – cyan in appearance.

Estimating the percent vegetation cover below the 80% per 0.5 hectare may also be challenging to differentiate pervious versus impervious in fragmented areas such as subdivisions.

Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.25 hectares

Swamp: Description: A mineral-rich wetland characterized by a cover of deciduous or coniferous trees (Lee et al. 1998). It is a wooded wetland with 25% cover or more of trees or tall shrubs. Occasionally swamp communities have a strong component of low shrubs. In this case, the tall shrub component must be dominant for the community to be considered a swamp. In swamps, standing to gently flowing waters occurs seasonally or persist for long periods on the surface. Frequently there is an abundance of pools and channels indicating subsurface water flow. The substrate is usually continuously waterlogged. Waters are circumneutral to moderately acid in reaction, and show little deficiency in oxygen or in mineral nutrients. The vegetation cover may consist of coniferous trees, tall shrubs, herbs and mosses. Many swamps are characteristically flooded in spring, with dry relict pools apparent later in the season (OMNR 1993 ab). There is usually no deep accumulation of peat (OMNR 1993a). Swamps include both forest swamps (having mature trees) and thicket swamps (or shrub carrs). Thicket swamps are characterized by thick growths of tall shrubs such as willow, dogwood and alder.

Both forest and thicket swamps have similar characteristics of water levels and chemistry. Both are assessed as “swamp” wetland type, but can be distinguished by the predominance of either “tree” or “shrub” form. Silver maple, elm, black ash and yellow birch are among the best indicators of a hardwood forest swamp while white cedar, tamarack and black spruce indicate conifer swamps. White cedar, however, also grows well in upland sites (OMNR 1993a,b).

Possible Confusion: The seasonal (ephemeral) nature of some swamps may result in confusion with upland forest classes (mixed, deciduous and coniferous) and idle land. Discerning the extent of a wetland – especially in low relief areas – may also be problematic. As well, the degree and type of cover may be difficult to quantify resulting in possible confusion with marshes and idle land.

Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.5 hectares.

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

17

Marsh: Description: Marshes are wet areas periodically inundated with standing or slowly moving water, and/or permanently inundated areas characterized by robust emergents, and to a lesser extent, anchored floating plants and submergents. Surface water levels may fluctuate seasonally, with declining levels exposing drawdown zones of matted vegetation or mud flats. Water remains within the rooting zone of plants during at least part of the growing season. The substratum usually consists of mineral or organic soils with a high mineral content, but in some marshes there may be as much as 2 m of peat accumulation. Waters are usually circumneutral to slightly alkaline and there is relatively high oxygen saturation. Marshes characteristically show zones or mosaics of vegetation, frequently interspersed with channels or pools of deep or shallow open water. They include open expanses of standing or flowing water which are variously called ponds, shallow lakes, oxbows, reaches or impoundments. Marshes may be bordered by peripheral bands of trees and shrubs but the predominant vegetation consists of a variety of emergent woody plants such as rushes, reeds, reed grasses, and sedges. Low shrubs such as sweetgale, red osier, and winterberry may also occur. Where open water areas occur, a variety of submerged or floating plants flourish MNR 1993a,b).

Possible Confusion: Discerning the extent of a wetland â&#x20AC;&#x201C; especially in low relief areas â&#x20AC;&#x201C; may be problematic. Determining the degree and type of cover may also lead to possible confusion with swamp and idle land classes. Shallow water marshes may result in confusion with shallow water and possibly open water classes.

Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.5 hectares.

Open Water: Description: Aquatic communities in which the permanent water is generally >2 m deep and the total vegetation cover is <25%. Lake water that is free of emergent vegetation or artificial obstruction (Arnup et al.1999, OMNR 1993a,b). No macrophyte vegetation, trees or shrub cover.

Possible Confusion: May include shallow water, which is characterized by submerged or floating leaf macrophytes. Portions may also include structural features (e.g., docks) and Open Shoreline or shallow water artefacts. Septic lagoons, golf course water features, and shallow (< 2 m) streams are not included in this class.

Interpretation: Typically appears as very dark black objects in true colour or falsecoloured imagery. These features become lighter in colour with increasing turbidity.

Reflected sunlight or waves may also brighten the appearance of open water.

Distinguishing shallow (< 2m) versus deep water may be problematic in some cases where high turbidity appears similar to shallow water conditions where backscattering from substrates such as sand are present. As well, ensuring the absence of any submerged or floating macrophytes can be difficult.

Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU): Approximately 0.5 hectares.

References:

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

18

Huffman, E. and J. Dumanski. 1986. Agricultural land use systems of the Regional Municipality of Niagara. Land Resource Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario. LRRI Contribution No. 84-02. 35 p.

Lee, H., Bakowsky, W., Riley, J., Bowles, J., Puddister, M., Uhlig, P. and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. 225 p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 1993a. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. Southern Manual. Third Edition (revised May 1994, December 2002), Conservation and Planning Section, Ministry of Natural Resources ,Peterborough, Ontario. 113pp. + appendices.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 1993b. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. Northern Manual. First Edition (revised May 1994, December 2002), Conservation and Planning Section, Ministry of Natural Resources , Peterborough, Ontario. 118pp. + appendices.

SOLRIS Technical Team. 2002b. Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS): Change monitoring methodology development. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources – Ducks Unlimited Canada Internal Publication. 63 p.

SOLRIS Technical Team. 2004. Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS): Methodology Development Revisions. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources – Ducks Unlimited Canada Internal Publication.69 p SOLRIS Technical Team. 2004b. Mapping Standards for Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS) – Establishment of a Minimum Mapping Unit. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources – Ducks Unlimited Canada Internal Publication. 2p SOLRIS Technical Team. 2005. SOLRIS Image Interpretation Manuals. Version 3.3 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Internal Publication. 27p SOLRIS Technical Team. 2005c. SOLRIS NRVIS Woodland Editing Strategies.

Version 3.3 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Internal Publication. 33p SOLRIS Technical Team. 2005b. SOLRIS Urban Boundary Delineation. Version 3.3 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Internal Publication. 18p

SOLRIS Technical Team. 2005d. SOLRIS Evaluated Wetland Editing. Version 3.3 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Internal Publication. 17p

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

19

SOLRIS Technical Team. 2005e. SOLRIS Vineyard and Orchard boundary delineation. In the Niagara Region Evaluated Wetland Editing. Version 1.1 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Internal Publication. 15p

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

20

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System Data Specifications

21