Global Change Master Directory (GCMD)

Data Sets

Services / Tools

Ancillary Descriptions

Are you using a browser that doesn't support JavaScript or have you disabled JavaScript?

If you have disabled JavaScript, you must re-enable JavaScript to use this page.
Or you can view this record using the Text Only Format.

C-CAP US (United States) Coastal Land Cover Project: Massachusetts 2001

Entry ID: CZM_moris_ccap_ma_01_raster

[ Update this Record ]

Summary

Abstract: This data set contains the 1995-era and 2000-era classifications of US Coast zone 65 and can be used to analyze change. This imagery was collected as part of the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics program in a multi- agency effort to provide baseline multi-scale environmental characteristics and to monitor environmental change. This data set utilized 41 full or partial Landsat 5 and 7 scenes which were analyzed according to the Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) protocol to determine land cover. Note: These data were reprojected from their native projection into North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) / Massachusetts State Plane coordinate system, Mainland Zone (Fipszone 2001) meters by the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management on Oct. 12, 2006.

Purpose: To improve the understanding of coastal uplands and wetlands, and their linkages with the distribution, abundance, and health of living marine resources.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: The metadata in this record is for USGS zone 65, which includes parts of Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York. This Classification and change analysis is based on Landsat TM scenes: p11r30 ...

Related URL

Link: VIEW EXTENDED METADATA

Description: View Original Metadata document from the CZM website.

Geographic Coverage

(Click for Interactive Map)

Spatial coordinates

N: 45.57

S: 39.8

E: -68.51

W: -75.46

Data Set Citation

Dataset Originator/Creator: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal

Dataset Title: C-CAP US (United States) Coastal Land Cover Project: Massachusetts 2001

Dataset Release Date: 2006-05-08

Dataset Release Place: NOAA CSC, Charleston, SC

Dataset Publisher: NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP)

Data Presentation Form: remote-sensing image

Online Resource: http://www.csc.noaa.gov

Dataset Originator/Creator: This layer contains the early-date and late-date (1995-2000 change) classifications based on Landsat TM (Thematic Mapper) and Landsat ETM (Enhanced Thematic Mapper) for the US coastal zone 65 NOAA C-CAP program. It allows the user to analyze change between the two eras of classifications. The C-CAP US coastal zone 65 program list of products includes the classification of 2000-era Landsat 7 data, 1995-era Landsat 5 data, and this change information.

Dataset Title: C-CAP zone 65 1995-2000-Era Land Cover Change Analysis

Dataset Release Date: 2006-05-08

Dataset Release Place: NOAA CSC, Charleston, SC

Dataset Publisher: NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP)

Online Resource: http://www.csc.noaa.gov

Temporal Coverage

Start Date: 1994-06-15

Stop Date: 2003-10-12

Location Keywords

OCEAN > ATLANTIC OCEAN > NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN > CAPE COD

Science Keywords

OCEANS > BATHYMETRY/SEAFLOOR TOPOGRAPHY > SEAFLOOR TOPOGRAPHY

ISO Topic Category

ELEVATION

OCEANS

Quality ATTRIBUTE ACCURACY REPORT:
While the accuracy of a 1995-era classification is hard to determine based on 2000-era ground truth, the 1995-era classification is composed of approximately 96.9% of the final 2000-era classification. This is because only the areas of change between 1995 and 2000 were classified for the early-date classification. Then the classified early-date layer was overlaid ... onto the late-date classification. Therefore the accuracy assessment for the late-date classification is still a good estimate of the accuracy of the early-date classification. According to accuracy assessment performed by Sanborn, the overall accuracy is 85.1% and 0.848 Kappa. The accuracy results shown below are from US coastal zone 65. A total of 518 points are located in US Coastal zone 65. Each class accuracy is as follows: (Errors of Omission/Commission) 0 Background (N/A) 1 Unclassified (Cloud, Shadow, etc)(N/A) 2 High Intensity Developed (85%/79%) 3 Medium Intensity Developed (80%/62%) 4 Low Intensity Developed (17%/18%) 5 Open Spaces Developed (57%/31%) 6 Cultivated Land (89%/80%) 7 Pasture/Hay (80%/97%) 8 Grassland (80%/67%) 9 Deciduous Forest (80%/92%) 10 Evergreen Forest (85%/94%) 11 Mixed Forest (86%/67%) 12 Scrub/Shrub (62%/62%) 13 Palustrine Forested Wetland (85%/82%) 14 Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland (82%/85%) 15 Palustrine Emergent Wetland (70%/61%) 16 Estuarine Forested Wetland (N/A) 17 Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland (N/A) 18 Estuarine Emergent Wetland (92%/97%) 19 Unconsolidated Shore (94%/94%) 20 Bare Land (96%/81%) 21 Water (99%/100%) 22 Palustrine Aquatic Bed (50%/25%) 23 Estuarine Aquatic Bed (N/A) 24 Tundra (N/A) 25 Snow/Ice (N/A) The validation points were both collected in the field and photo interpreted. The accuracy assessment selection methods were developed to minimize spatial autocorrelation between the training and accuracy assessment. The first pool of accuracy assessment sites came from field data and photo interpretation of black and white digital orthophotos and digital color infrared imagery (primarily Ikonos data). These sites were collected prior to initial mapping and were collected at the same time as the training data. The sites were selected to capture the physical and spectral diversity of the land cover. After the first criteria was met, the accuracy assessment sites were buffered to see if they fell within 1000 meters of another accuracy assessment site of the same class or within 1000 meters of a training site of the same class. Those that fell within the 1000 meter buffer were eliminated. All sites were to be from a homogeneous 3x3 area. After an analysis of the point distribution, it became clear that there were not enough samples for every class. The remaining points were selected from the initial draft final classification and had to be a homogeneous 3x3 area. Sampling was limited to areas where there was high resolution color infrared imagery. The imagery included the previous Ikonos imagery, but also included an additional 20 scenes of Ikonos imagery. The additional Ikonos imagery provided sampling areas across the entire study area. Classes which had a proportionally larger representative land area had larger numbers of samples . When possible, we tried to identify 50 samples of each of the classes. Exceptions were for the following classes (actual sample numbers): Cultivated Crops (37) - Grassland/Herbaceous (20)- Evergreen Forest (40) - Mixed Forest (28) - Scrub/Shrub (21) - Palustrine Forest Wetland (33) - Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland (28) Palustrine Emergent Wetland (20)- Estuarine Emergent Wetland (38) - Unconsolidated Shore (17) - Bare Land (23) - Palustrine Aquatic Bed (4). A total of 518 accuracy assessment points were used excluding urban classes. 572 accuracy assessment points were used including urban points. All classes have a minimum of 50 accuracy assessment points except for the classes mentioned above. These classes are limited in the study area and to some extent in the imagery that was available to sample from.

Post-Processing Steps: None Known Problems: None Spatial Filters: None

LOGICAL CONSISTENCY REPORT: Tests for logical consistency indicate that all row and column positions in the selected latitude/longitude window contain data. Conversion and integration with vector files indicates that all positions are consistent with earth coordinates covering the same area. Attribute files are logically consistent.

COMPLETENESS REPORT: Tests for logical consistency indicate that all row and column positions in the selected latitude/longitude window contain data. Conversion and integration with vector files indicates that all positions are consistent with earth coordinates covering the same area. Attribute files are logically consistent.

HORIZONTAL POSITIONAL ACCURACY REPORT: Landsat scenes were georeferenced by Eros Data Center (EDC). Spatial accuracy assessed by Sanborn is found to be to 2 pixels accuracy or less.

VERTICAL POSITIONAL ACCURACY REPORT: There was no terrain correction in the geo-referencing procedure.

Access Constraints ACCESS CONSTRAINTS: None, except for a possible fee.

DISTRIBUTION LIABILITY: This product is available for distribution.

Use Constraints USE CONSTRAINTS: Data set is not for use in litigation. While efforts have been made to ensure that these data are accurate and reliable within the state of the art, NOAA, cannot assume liability for any damages, or misrepresentations, caused by any inaccuracies in the data, or as a result of the data to be used on a particular system. NOAA makes no warranty, expressed or implied, nor does the fact of distribution constitute such a warranty.

FEES: none

Ancillary Keywords

US Coast

Coastal Zone

Data Set Progress

COMPLETE

Originating Center

Data Center

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management

Data Center URL: http://www.mass.gov/czm/
Dataset ID: C-CAP zone 65 1995-2000-Era Land Cover Change Analysis

Data Center Personnel
Name: CLEARINGHOUSE MANAGER NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER Phone: (843)740-1210 Fax: (843)740-1224 Email: clearinghouse at csc.noaa.gov Contact Address: 2234 South Hobson Avenue City: Charleston Province or State: SC Postal Code: 29405-2413 Country: USA

Distribution

Distribution Size: 76 MB

Distribution Format: ERDAS Imagine image file (.img)

Fees: See Use Constraints.

Personnel

METADATA SPECIALIST NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER

Role: TECHNICAL CONTACT

Phone: 800-789-2234

Fax: 843-740-1224

Email: metadata at csc.noaa.gov

Contact Address:

2234 South Hobson Ave

City: Charleston

Province or State: South Carolina

Postal Code: 29405

Country: USA

METADATA SPECIALIST NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER

Role: DIF AUTHOR

Phone: 800-789-2234

Fax: 843-740-1224

Email: metadata at csc.noaa.gov

Contact Address:

2234 South Hobson Ave

City: Charleston

Province or State: South Carolina

Postal Code: 29405

Country: USA

Creation and Review Dates

DIF Creation Date: 2006-05-26

Last DIF Revision Date: 2009-01-22

Reformat as FGDC document

View Text Only Format

[ Update this Record ]