GIS Co-operative Project Final Report Figure 33.0 Screenshot of Map 141A Dorset-Eagle Lake

Transcription

1 Figure 33.0 Screenshot of Map 141A Dorset-Eagle Lake 35

2 (2.6) Methodology Overview The following flow-chart is a breakdown of the methodology beginning with the data pre-processing stage. Figure 34.0 Methodology Visualization Non Spatial Data ARIP Report Attribute Import to Excel Pre-process Import Information Non Spatial and Spatial Data Add Domains Query Hardcopy Map Geodatabase Add Relationships Spatial Data ARIP.shp files LIO.shp files Pre-process Import The Land Between.shp files 36

3 3.0 PROJECT RESULTS (3.1) Deposit Analysis GIS Co-operative Project Final Report 2010 The purpose of deposit analysis is to obtain information regarding the depth of soils in areas that contain deposits. The information will be queried to decide whether or not a specific area is suitable for agriculture. If it is, what kind of agriculture can be grown? And are there restrictions? These queries were performed in ArcMap and Mircosoft Excel by using key identifiers and structured query language to pull the information from the tables that are relevant to the query. Soil depth was categorized into four different soil depth categories. Soil Thickness Classes: Thickness Class 1 = > 6 m Thickness Class 2 = 3 6 m Thickness Class 3 = 1.5 to 3 m Thickness Class 4 = < 1.5 m Once soils were divided into the four different soil depth classes two other parameters for soil suitability could be applied. These were soils within 1000 m of roads and soils outside of wooded areas. Applying these parameters the soils could be further divided into eight soil suitability classes for statistical analysis. (3.1.0) Statistical Analysis The total amount of soil in this region with under 35% gravel and thus appropriate for agriculture is m 2. This soil can be further divided into eight soil suitability classes, with soil suitability class number one being the most viable for agriculture and soil suitability class number eight being the least viable for agriculture. Soil Suitability Class #1: Soil Suitability Class #2: Soil Thickness Class 1, 2, and 3* Soil Thickness class 4* Total Area = m 2 Total Area = m 2 Soil Suitability Class #3: Soil Suitability Class #4: Soils inside wooded Areas Soil Thickness Class 1, 2, and 3* Soil Thickness class 4* Total Area = m 2 Total Area = m 2 37

4 Soil Suitability Class #5: Soil Suitability Class #6: Soil not within 1000m of roads Soil not within 1000m of roads Soil Thickness Class 1, 2 and 3* Soil Thickness Class: 4* Total Area = m 2 Total Area = m 2 Soil Suitability Class #7: Soil Suitability Class #8: Soils not within 1000m of roads Soils not within 1000m of roads Soil Thickness Class 1, 2, and 3* Soil Thickness class 4* Total Area = m 2 Total Area = m 2 Total sum of Soil Suitability Classes = m 2 (verification of complete coverage of all soils) *Soil Thickness Classes: Thickness Class 1 = > 6 m Thickness Class 2 = 3 6 m Thickness Class 3 = 1.5 to 3 m Thickness Class 4 = < 1.5 m Appendix A may be referred to for visual verification of each location of the soil individual suitability classes within Haliburton County. Soil Polygon Analysis All Soils Soil Polygon Count: 734 Soil Area Sum: Minimum: 4.51 Maximum: Mean: Standard Deviation: Figure 35.0 Frequency Distribution of Soil Polygon Area for All Soils 38

5 Soil Suitability Class # 1 Soil thickness Class 1, 2, and 3 Soil Area Sum: Minimum: 6.82 Maximum: Mean: Standard Deviation: Figure 36.0 Frequency Distribution of Soil Polygon Area for Soil Suitability Class #1 Soil Suitability Class #2 Soil thickness class 4* Soil Area Sum: Minimum: 4.51 Maximum: Mean: Standard Deviation: Figure 37.0 Frequency Distribution of Soil Polygon Area for Soil Suitability Class #2 39

6 Soil Suitability Class #3: Soil Thickness Class 1, 2, and 3 Soil Area Sum: Minimum: Maximum: Mean: Standard Deviation: Figure 38.0 Frequency Distribution of Soil Polygon Area for Soil Suitability Class #3 Soil Suitability Class #4: Soils inside wooded Areas Soil Thickness class 4 Soil Area Sum: Minimum: 6.35 Maximum: Mean: Standard Deviation: Figure 39.0 Frequency Distribution of Soil Polygon Area for Soil Suitability Class #4 40

7 Soil Suitability Class #5: Soil not within 1000m of roads Soil Thickness Class 1, 2 and 3 Soil Area Sum: Minimum: Maximum: Mean: Standard Deviation: Figure 40.0 Frequency Distribution of Soil Polygon Area for Soil Suitability Class #5 Soil Suitability Class #6: Soil not within 1000m of roads Soil Thickness Class: 4 Soil Area Sum: Minimum: Maximum: Mean: Standard Deviation: Figure 41.0 Frequency Distribution of Soil Polygon Area for Soil Suitability Class #6 41

8 Soil Suitability Class #7 Soils not within 1000m of roads Soil thickness class 1, 2, and 3 Soil Area Sum: Minimum: Maximum: Mean: Standard Deviation: Figure 42.0 Frequency Distribution of Soil Polygon Area for Soil Suitability Class #7 Soil Suitability Class #8 Soils not within 1000m of roads Soil thickness class 4 Soil Area Sum: Minimum: Maximum: Mean: Standard Deviation: Figure 43.0 Frequency Distribution of Soil Polygon Area for Soil Suitability Class #8 42

9 (3.2) Spatial Analysis The Haliburton area is delineated in ARIP report maps 141A, B, C and map 151. Soils that lie within these eight soil suitability classes are dispersed in varying degrees throughout this area as seen in Appendix A. In the South of Haliburton County the soils within the classes are condensed along the Irondale river running through Snowdon and Glamorgan townships. In the East the soils are thinly dispersed though Monmouth, Cardiff, and Dudley townships. In the far West there are very small amounts of the soils dispersed through Anson and Lutterworth townships. In the North there is a high concentration of soils throughout Minden, Dysart, Stanhope, and Guilford townships. Finally, in the far North there are very thinly dispersed soils in Sherborne and Mcclintock townships. More specifically, soils within ARIP 141A lie primarily in the South of map around Halls Lake, Beech Lake, Maple Lake, Green Lake, Pine Lake, Cranberry Lake with other very small soil areas in the North. Soils within ARIP map 141B are located in the north by Boshkung Lake, in the East and West in between Bob Lake and Horseshoe Lake, and alongside Kashagawigamog Lake, around Grass Lake, Head Lake, Haas Lake, and run alongside the Irondale River in the South Soils within ARIP map 141C continues along the Irondale River, as well as by Pusey lake, Ubermere lake, and Paudash Lake in the East Soils within ARIP map 151 are primarily around the Minden River in the South and Pine Springs in the North. 43

10 44 GIS Co-operative Project Final Report CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS (4.1) Final Deliverables The project goals and objectives were met. Included in this project are: 1. Five hard-copy maps of soil capacity for agriculture in Haliburton Highlands. Please refer to Appendix A for map example. (digital copies available on CD) 2. A detailed report of project background, detailed methodology, an analysis that determines capacity for agriculture by area in Haliburton, findings, and all project details including database query method. (available on CD) 3. A one-page report created for Farms at Work specific to their purpose, history and mission. This is to be included within the Farms at Work webpage. (available on CD) 4. Soil suitability shapefiles equipped with attributes, metadata, and a database. (available on CD) 5. On June 22, an open-house presentation will be open to the public. (4.2) Findings/Summary Within Haliburton County eight soil suitability classes were delineated. All soils in these classes are composed of less than 35% gravel. These soil suitability areas compose a total area of m 2. Soil suitability class number one holds the most suitable soils for agricultural purposes. The criteria for soil class 1 was the base for the creating the remaining seven suitability classes. For example, the most suitable soils in Haliburton County would be located outside of the wooded areas and within 1000m of roads; however soils that are located inside these wooded areas were included but held a lower suitability rating. Future planning for land use and agriculture planning can be enhanced by taking these factors into consideration. Soil suitability is therefore divided according to distance to roads, location inside or outside of wooded areas, and soil thickness. Soil suitability areas ordered by decreasing area are shown below. Soil Suitability Class #3: Total Area = m 2 Soil Suitability Class #1: Total Area = m 2 Soil Suitability Class #4: Total Area = m 2

11 Soil Suitability Class #7: Total Area = m 2 Soil Suitability Class #2: Total Area = m 2 Soil Suitability Class #8: Total Area = m 2 Soil Suitability Class #5: Total Area = m 2 Soil Suitability Class #6: Total Area = m 2 Locations of these soil suitability classes can be seen on the hardcopy maps by referring to Appendix A. (4.3) Benefits and Limitations of the Project The Haliburton Highlands Soil Mapping Capacity for Agriculture is a project that will provide baseline and foundational data that will fill gaps in surficial mapping of the Algonquin Highlands area. The focus area in question is owned by The Land Between. This project is important because it will close a large gap in the surficial deposit mapping of Ontario and will provide information for government and conservation agencies in the future. The necessity of this Co-op project is to provide a stepping stone for integrating key baseline data for many aspects of planning, stewardship and development in the Highlands area. Government and conservation agencies will benefit by being able to utilize the final map products and supporting documents, however the main goal is to provide a final product for The Land Between which concerns themselves with the improvement and maintenance of the Highlands area. The project represents a much warranted effort to map soils in an area that has been overlooked in historic and inventories in the Haliburton County. A knowledge gap will be filled and will allow Team JOH to be showcased as pioneers providing the first sources of digital information for this particular area. Limitations of this project include the raw data that was acquired had overlapping on the edges of the ARIP reports causing spatial inaccuracy issues. Edge matching and rubbersheeting were used to rectify the overlapping issues. Also, the verification that was conducted used a geological survey map #5505 which partially covered the focus area using the LIO waterbodies shapefile for control points. 45