Identification_Information: Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: NOAA Coastal Services Center/Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP) Publication_Date: 20020911 Title: C-CAP Great Lakes 2000-Era Land Cover Metadata Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: Map Publication_Information: Publication_Place: NOAA CSC, Charleston, SC Publisher: NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) Online_Linkage: http://www.csc.noaa.gov Larger_Work_Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: This product is one state of the Great Lakes study area of which this project includes the classification of 2000 Landsat 7 data, 1995 Landsat 5 data, and change information. Publication_Date: 20020911 Title: C-CAP Great Lakes Land Cover Project Publication_Information: Publication_Place: NOAA CSC, Charleston, SC Publisher: NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) Other_Citation_Details: This Classification is based on Landsat TM scenes: p23r28 (4/19/2000), (7/23/2001), p23r29 (5/19/2000), (6/23/2001), p23r30 (5/3/2000), (7/9/2001), p23r31 (5/3/2000), p24r28 (4/24/2000), p24r29 (4/24/2000), (7/13/2000), p24r30 (4/24/2000), (7/27/2000), p25r28 (3/17/2001), (10/6/1999) p25r27 (4/18/2001), (7/4/2000), (10/11/2001) p25r28 (3/17/2001), (10/6/1999) p26r27 (4/25/2001), (7/3/2000), p26r28 (4/25/2001), (6/28/2001) Online_Linkage: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs Description: Abstract: This data is the 2000 era or late-date classification of the Great Lakes. This data set consists of about 23 partial Landsat 7 Thematic Mapper scenes which were analyzed according to the Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) protocol to determine land cover. The data were field validated and subsequently mosaicked to produce a land cover inventory for a portion of the US Great Lakes Coastal Zone. Purpose: To improve the understanding of coastal uplands and wetlands, and their linkages with the distribution, abundance, and health of living marine resources. Time_Period_of_Content: Time_Period_Information: Range_of_Dates/Times: Beginning_Date: 19991006 Ending_Date: 20011011 Currentness_Reference: Date of the Landsat scenes Status: Progress: Complete Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: 5 years Spatial_Domain: Bounding_Coordinates: West_Bounding_Coordinate: -92.548214 East_Bounding_Coordinate: -86.497155 North_Bounding_Coordinate: 47.191349 South_Bounding_Coordinate: 42.370087 Keywords: Theme: Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: None Theme_Keyword: Land Cover Analysis Theme_Keyword: Change Detection Analysis Place: Place_Keyword_Thesaurus: None Place_Keyword: Great Lakes Place_Keyword: Coastal Zone Place_Keyword: Wisconsin Access_Constraints: None, except for a possible fee. 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. Native_Data_Set_Environment: ERDAS Imagine 8.4 on Dell Pentium 3 Windows 2000 Data_Quality_Information: Attribute_Accuracy: Attribute_Accuracy_Report: A team of field investigators participated in field collection of verification points in October 2001 and July 2002. Data validation teams consisted of personnel from the NOAA Coastal Services Center. Each team was equipped with a portable color laptop computer linked to a Global Positioning System (GPS). The field laptop runs software that supports the classified data as a raster background with the road network as a vector overlay with a simultaneous display of live GPS coordinates. Accuracy assessment points were generated with ERDAS Imagine software using a stratified random sample in 3x3 pixel homogeneous windows. This data collected was used to produce accuracy assessments for the Great Lakes C-CAP data. Both windshield survey methods of collection and airplane reconnaissance were implemented to collect the accuracy assessment points. NOAA implemented an accuracy assessment. The accuracy assessment plan included the collection of field points. Only areas containing at least 3 x 3 contiguous pixel clumps were assessed. Transects were created and random points were generated along those transects. The results have been shared with EarthSat. The overall accuracy for the Great Lakes region is 91.4% correct. All of the states are also independently higher than the 85% accurate required by NOAA C-CAP. Kappa coefficient was used to determine the overall accuracy of 90.2%. The class accuracies were determined by the producer's accuracy, or error of omission. These were supposed to be all above 80% but three categories were below in the overall and in many states individually: Mixed Forest, Scrub/Shrub, and Palustrine Scrub/Shrub. These are the more subjective classes in that they have hard to define boundaries. No fuzzy assessments were implemented, and an error matrix was created. The overall accuracies by state are as follows: NY - 85.1%, PA - 94.3%, OH - 91.6%, IN - 92%, IL - 100%, WI - 96.1%, MN - 91.8%. Pre-processing steps: Each Landsat TM scene was geo-referenced by USGS EROS DATA CENTER. Then EarthSat staff verified the scenes for spatial accuracy to within 1 pixel. The data was geo-referenced to Albers Conical Equal Area, with a spheroid of GRS 1980, and Datum of WGS84. The data units is in meters. Ancillary Datasets: Non-TM image datasets used are NWI, TIGER2000, and field-collected points. Both datasets were rasterized to 30 meter pixels and used to mask the 233 cluster thematic layer of the image. This stratified thematic layer was then labeled for appropriate categories. The NWI was used to classify the wetland categories and the TIGER2000 was used for the human developed categories. The TIGER2000 data was also rasterized to 90 meter pixels in order to include some of the low intensity developed with occurred more than one pixel from the roads. These ancillary data were used in a visual capacity as well as a rule-based model approach. Field-Collected Data: EarthSat’s method of field point collection is the windshield survey method. This means field crew drive around secondary roads in the study area and record land cover at as many points as possible within the given amount of time. The type information recorded at each location are as follows: · Canopy cover · Vegetation types by species (where applicable) · Land Cover characterization · Soils (if relevant) · Special conditions and remarks · Photography/video index number · Date/time · X, Y location (Z if relevant) These data are then associated with the image by X, Y point and are written to Arc/Info vector files. The above recorded information is located in the attributes. Also digital photos were taken at certain points. These points were determined by getting a mix of typical examples of a feature as well as atypical. Points were taken for all classes of features. To facilitate point collection EarthSat requested an additional module from ERDAS to run in the IMAGINE software as an add-on to the current GMID module. GMID only shows where on the image you are located but does not allow attribute information to be recorded for a point. The new module, RGMID, allows the field worker to select a pixel from the image and record observations in text fields. Then these points are exported to an Arc/Info vector file. The first fieldwork expedition was performed by four teams. The Great Lakes region study area was broken into four roughly even fieldwork zones broken up by state, corresponding to the four teams. The teams consisted of at least one EarthSat employee and at least one NOAA employee. All teams had three workers. The first field trip took place between October 15 and 26, 2001. Each team collected over 1000 points per day. One person drove the car while another navigated and pointed out features. The third team member logged the points on the lap-top computer. Points were selected that were larger than one pixel footprint, i.e. 3x3 pixels. Each team collected about 20 digitally photographed points per day as well. Point collection lasted at least eight hours per day. The generalized route of collections within the study areas were pre-determined using DeLorme Street Atlas USA. A proposed path for collection was printed out by day before the teams went to the field. These paths were for the most part followed but there were many deviations in order to collect interesting or confusing points. The paths were determined by length (about 5-7 hour trips per day), by how well the entire study area was covered, and by how many different feature types and physiographic regions could be covered. The data and equipment required for the fieldwork is as follows: Ancillary datasets: · TIGER 2000 · NWI – mosaic into states · State road map and Delorme state atlas www.delorme.com Hardware: · Lap-tops with IMAGINE and data · 2 GARMINs and external antennae, redundant data cables · Digital Cameras · 4 backup devices · 8 extra batteries · 4 DC to AC adapters, and splitters · Car fuses, flashlights, basic tools · Mobile phones (if available) · Calculator · 2 sets of cable · Compass · Notebooks with complete field instructions and contact numbers Imagery: · Make note of interesting points beforehand · Cluster Images to 233 clusters · If time and early-date scenes available do CCA for binary change layer · If time, rough classification of late date The purpose of the first trip was to gather training points and digital photographs and to understand the landscape before mapping intensely. Also the points collected were rasterized, resampled to 3 by 3 pixels and summarized with the thematic cluster layer to produce initial classifications. Training of EarthSat field staff involved testing the systems, setting up and breaking down the equipment, taking points while driving local areas, and processing the collected files to make sure the data was useable. The second field trip occurred eight months later, toward the end of the classifying of the late-date imagery. It was decided that there was not enough understanding of the Grassland and Cultivated categories and their differences in the imagery. The focus of the second field trip was to understand this distinction and to better categorize these features on the late-date classification. This field trip was deemed necessary after discussions with NOAA at the May 7 meeting. This field trip was not planned before that meeting. It took place the last week of May for the New York State, and the first week of June for the other states. The field trips lasted for about one week. The plan for the second fieldwork involved five EarthSat employees. Four employees were broken into two teams of two and one worker went alone. The teams were outfitted with the same equipment as in the previous field trip. Two teams started at the same place and worked their way in opposite directions. The starting place was Chicago. Team A traveled from the starting location to the destination of Cleveland, OH, and then back to Chicago. Team B traveled from the starting location to Duluth, MN, and back to Chicago. The length of this field trip was one week. Also, one employee drove the agricultural areas of New York State. This portion of the fieldwork was completed in five days, from May 24 to May 28, 2002. Fields of hay, pasture, row crops, and especially winter wheat were targeted during the collection of points. The data was used in the re-classification of the cultivated and grassland categories. After the field points were collected they were rasterized and an ArcView project was made to view the vector points. The ArcView project contains hyperlinks to the digital photos so that when the appropriate points are selected, a digital photo pops up automatically. This was made for each team area. These field point ArcView projects were then submitted to NOAA as a deliverable. They were made for both field trips. The vector field points were rasterized in order to summarize them with the thematic clustered data to produce a rough classification. After the points were rasterized they were increased in size from one pixel to nine. This allowed for more pixels to enter into the calculations in the summary. Post-Processing Steps: After each scene was classified, a mosaicking algorithm was applied to all the scenes in a team area to join the data into four team areas. Also the four team areas were mosaicked into one study region. This mosaic algorithm first creates a hierarchy of classes so that when the overlay takes place, the preferred classes dominate. The hierarchy of classes is as follows in descending order of dominance: class 1, 20, 19, 16, 17, 6, 8, 7, 9, 5, 4, 13, 14, 15, 10, 11, 12, 18, 22, 21, 3, 2. This hierarchy was applied to the overlap between the scenes being mosaicked. The hierarchy was applied automatically in most cases but in some areas the discrepancy in the overlap was highlighted and changed. Thus the overlap areas in the mosaicking process were assessed. Then the scenes were converted to Arc-Info Grid format (raster) in Imagine 8.4. Known Problems: None Spatial Filters: A spatial majority filter was applied to the cultivated category (class 4) and in some instances to class 5. The filter was applied with a .85 or .75 majority threshold within a 3x3 matrix. This reduced speckle within agricultural fields. Also a spatial auto-correlation algorithm was applied to the land cover. This algorithm uses low pass filters and recodes stray pixels to most likely classes based on surrounding pixels. 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: The classification scheme does not included all anticipated land covers. There are no pixels representing class 21 (Aquatic Vegetation). All pixels have been classified. The NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Report 123, discusses the interagency effort to develop the land cover classification scheme and defines all categories. Positional_Accuracy: Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy: Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Report: Landsat scenes were georeferenced by Eros Data Center. Spatial accuracy accessed by Earth Satellite Corporation is found to be to 1 pixel accuracy or less. Vertical_Positional_Accuracy: Vertical_Positional_Accuracy_Report: There was no terrain correction in the georeferencing procedure. Lineage: Source_Information: Source_Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: Earth Satellite Corporation Publication_Date: unknown Title: Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) Late-Date Classification of Wisconsin Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: remote-sensing image Publication_Information: Publication_Place: Sioux Falls, SD Publisher: EROS Data Center Online_Linkage: http://edc.usgs.gov/eros-home.html Type_of_Source_Media: cdrom Source_Time_Period_of_Content: Time_Period_Information: Range_of_Dates/Times: Beginning_Date: 19991006 Ending_Date: 20011011 Source_Currentness_Reference: publication date Source_Citation_Abbreviation: EROS Source_Contribution: EROS Process_Step: Process_Description: This classification is to fulfill the final delivery of the NOAA C-CAP. The dataset was created by Earth Satellite Corporation. This version of the classification is a final version. The study area is the US Great Lakes Coastal Region. This product is one of a series of 7 states covering a portion of that region. The process history of this file is as follows: First, Landsat 7 data covering the study area was ortho-rectified at EROS Data Center. Next the datasets were assessed for spatial (horizontal) accuracy by Earth Satellite Corporation. Scenes with an offset greater than 1 pixel were not accepted. The data was then subset by the boundaries of the study area. Cloud cover was removed and in some cases was replaced by same-era data using a statistical prediction technique with the software Cubist. The individual scenes were then classified. Unsupervised classification was used to create a signature file: 233 classes, 20 iterations, 0.999 convergence threshold, 3X3 skip factor. The signature file was then run through a Supervised Classification process: Maximum Likelihood, no non-parametric rule. The resulting clusters were labeled using the Earth Satellite Corporation developed addition to Imagine 8.5 called GeoTools. In GeoTools the "Summary" function was performed using the field-collected data and classified scene overlap to label the clusters of the image. Subsequent small corrections were made to the data by renaming a few clusters and, in some cases, AOIs were used. Then the classified data were stratified by NWI data to classify the wetland classes. In some scenes where the NWI overlayed a pixel, the pixel was changed to the wet version of its own class (i.e. deciduous changed to palustrine forest). In other scenes the entire NWI area plus other wet areas missed by NWI were classified separately. The human developed categories were refined by using TIGER2000 files (rasterized) to stratify a clustered file of 233 unlabeled classes. Then clusters were labeled for High Intensity Developed or Low Intensity Developed within the 30 meter rasterized TIGER2000 stratification. This process was also done using a 90 meter version of the rasterized TIGER2000 data only where AOI's were used to stratify out larger cities. Then a water model was used to refine the water category. The water model uses image algebra to determine water boundaries and gives several options for accepting water pixels. Also a model was developed to refine the cultivated category by distinguishing cultivated pixels from grassland pixels better. This model utilized different dates of same-year imagery to use greenness cycle as a criteria for classification. The model calculated an NDVI for each date which were then subtracted from each other and threshold of change applied. Sometimes the threshold was manually determined, and sometimes it was automated using 1 standard deviation on either side of 0. Cluster-busting and screen digitizing were used extensively in the production of these scenes. Also comments from the consultant and NOAA CSC staff on the rough and provisional classifications (the previous versions) were used to find and correct problem areas. Cultivated/Grassland differences were determined using several techniques. Up to 3 dates of imagery exists for the same year of the late-date. PCA was run on the different dates of the same year and layerstacked to produce a six band image of PCA. This was then clustered to produce a 233 cluster file. Then the cultivated and grassland categories were masked from this file and re-classified. After having performed a second field trip, the field collected points were used to summarize the masked clusters with the ground truth points. This created an automated Cultivated/Grassland distinction. This was then adjusted and corrected. Filtering and Spatial Auto-correlation were performed on the Cultivated and Grassland categories. A spatial majority filter was applied to the cultivated category (class 4)and in some instances to class 5. The filter was applied with a .85 or .75 majority threshold within a 3x3 matrix. This reduced speckle within agricultural fields. Also a spatial auto-correlation algorithm was applied to the land cover. This algorithm uses low pass filters and recodes stray pixels to most likely classes based on surrounding pixels. Scrub/shrub and forest categories were confused sometimes. This was alleviated by classifying the forest or scrub categories with the summer imagery if available. Mixed Forest and Scrub/Shrub were the least accurate classes. After each scene was classified, a mosaicking algorithm was applied to all the scenes in a team area to join the data into four team areas. Also the seven states were mosaicked into one study region and then cut out again by state to create the final state classifications. This mosaic algorithm first creates a hierarchy of classes so that when the overlay takes place, the preferred classes dominate. The hierarchy of classes is as follows in descending order of dominance: class 1, 20, 19, 16, 17, 6, 8, 7, 9, 5, 4, 13, 14, 15, 10, 11, 12, 18, 22, 21, 3, 2. This hierarchy was applied to the overlap between the scenes being mosaicked. The hierarchy was applied automatically in most cases but in some areas the discrepancy in the overlap was highlighted and changed. Thus the overlap areas in the mosaicking process were assessed. Then the scenes were converted to Arc-Info Grid format (raster) in Imagine 8.4. All processing was performed using Imagine 8.4 and 8.5 and Earth Satellite Corporation developed additions, models, and eml scripts. Attributes for this product are as follows: 0 Background 1 Unclassified (Cloud, Shadow, etc 2 High Intensity Developed 3 Low Intensity Developed 4 Cultivated Land 5 Grassland 6 Deciduous Forest 7 Evergreen Forest 8 Mixed Forest 9 Scrub/Shrub 10 Palustrine Forested Wetland 11 Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 12 Palustrine Emergent Wetland 13 Estuarine Forested Wetland 14 Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 15 Estuarine Emergent Wetland 16 Unconsolidated Shore 17 Bare Land 18 Water 19 Tundra 20 Snow/Ice 21 Palustrine Aquatic Bed Process_Date: 20020911 Process_Contact: Contact_Information: Contact_Person_Primary: Contact_Organization: NOAA Coastal Services Center Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) Contact_Person: CRS Program Manager Contact_Position: CRS Program Manager Contact_Address: Address_Type: mailing and physical address Address: 2234 S. Hobson Ave. City: Charleston State_or_Province: SC Postal_Code: 29405 Country: USA Contact_Voice_Telephone: 843-740-1210 Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 843-740-1224 Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: clearinghouse@csc.noaa.gov Hours_of_Service: 8:00 am to 5:00 p.m. EST. Process_Step: Process_Description: Classification Process_Date: Unknown Process_Contact: Contact_Information: Contact_Organization_Primary: Contact_Organization: NOAA Coastal Services Center Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) Contact_Position: CRS Program Manager Contact_Address: Address_Type: mailing and physical address Address: 2234 S. Hobson Ave. City: Charleston State_or_Province: SC Postal_Code: 29405 Country: USA Contact_Voice_Telephone: 843-740-1210 Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 843-740-1224 Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: csc@csc.noaa.gov Hours_of_Service: Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time Spatial_Data_Organization_Information: Direct_Spatial_Reference_Method: Raster Spatial_Reference_Information: Horizontal_Coordinate_System_Definition: Planar: Map_Projection: Map_Projection_Name: Albers Conical Equal Area Albers_Conical_Equal_Area: Standard_Parallel: 29.5 Standard_Parallel: 45.5 Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: 96 West Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: 23 North False_Easting: 0.00000 False_Northing: 0.00000 Planar_Coordinate_Information: Planar_Coordinate_Encoding_Method: Row and column Coordinate_Representation: Abscissa_Resolution: 30 meter Ordinate_Resolution: 30 meter Planar_Distance_Units: Meters Geodetic_Model: Horizontal_Datum_Name: North American Datum 1983 Ellipsoid_Name: GRS80 Semi-major_Axis: 6378137.0 Denominator_of_Flattening_Ratio: 298.257 Entity_and_Attribute_Information: Detailed_Description: Entity_Type: Entity_Type_Label: US Great Lakes Coastal Zone Entity_Type_Definition: US Great Lakes coastal zone as delineated by NOAA using scene boundaries, hydrological units, and county boundaries Entity_Type_Definition_Source: unknown Attribute: Attribute_Label: Landcover Classification Attribute_Definition: Landcover Classification as determined by NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C- CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation Attribute_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995 Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 1 Unclassified Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: This class contains no data due to cloud conditions or data voids. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: N/A Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 2 High Intensity Developed Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Contains little or no vegetation. This subclass includes heavily built-up urban centers as well as large constructed surfaces in suburban and rural areas. Large buildings (such as multiple family housing, hangars, and large barns), interstate highways, and runways typically fall into this subclass. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 3 Low Intensity Developed Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Contains substantial amounts of constructed surface mixed with substantial amounts of vegetated surface. Small buildings (such as single family housing, farm outbuildings, and sheds), streets, roads, and cemeteries with associated grasses and trees typically fall into this subclass. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 4 Cultivated Land Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Includes herbaceous (cropland) and woody (e.g., orchards, nurseries, and vineyards) cultivated lands. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 5 Grassland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Dominated by naturally occurring grasses and non-grasses (forbs) that are not fertilized, cut, tilled, or planted regularly. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 6 Deciduous Forest Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Includes areas dominated by single stemmed, woody vegetation unbranched 0.6 to 1 meter (2 to 3 feet) above the ground and having a height greater than 6 meters (20 feet). Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 7 Evergreen Forest Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Includes areas in which more than 67 percent of the trees remain green throughout the year. Both coniferous and broad-leaved evergreens are included in this category. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 8 Mixed Forest Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Contains all forested areas in which both evergreen and deciduous trees are growing and neither predominate. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 9 Scrub/Shrub Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Areas dominated by woody vegetation less than 6 meters in height. This class includes true shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that are small or stunted because of environmental conditions. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 10 Palustrine Forested Wetland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by woody vegetation greater than or equal to 6 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt). Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 11 Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than or equal to 6 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 ppt. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 12 Palustrine Emergent Wetland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean- derived salts is below 0.5 ppt. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 13 Estuarine Forest Wetland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Includes all tidal wetlands dominated by woody vegetation greater than or equal to 6 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is above 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt). Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 14 Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Includes all tidal wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than or equal to 6 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is above 0.5 ppt. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 15 Estuarine Emergent Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes (excluding mosses and lichens) that are present for most of the growing season in most years. Perennial plants usually dominate these wetlands. All water regimes are included except those that are subtidal and irregularly exposed. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 16 Unconsolidated Shore Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Characterized by substrates lacking vegetation except for pioneering plants that become established during brief periods when growing conditions are favorable. Erosion and deposition by waves and currents produce a number of landforms, such as beaches, bars, and flats, all of which are included in this class. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 17 Bare Land Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Composed of bare soil, rock, sand, silt, gravel, or other earthen material with little or no vegetation. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 18 Water Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Includes all areas of open water with less than 30 percent cover of trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, emergent mosses, or lichens. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 19 Palustrine Aquatic Bed Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Includes wetlands and deepwater habitats dominated by plants that grow principally on or below the surface of the water for most of the growing season in most years. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 20 Estuarine Aquatic Bed Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Includes widespread and diverse Algal Beds in the Marine and Estuarine Systems, where they occupy substrates characterized by a wide range of sediment depths and textures. They occur in both the Subtidal and Intertidal Subsystems and may grow to depths of 30 m (98 feet). Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 21 Tundra Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Includes treeless cover beyond the latitudinal limit of the boreal forest in poleward regions and above the elevation range of the boreal forest in high mountains. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: 22 Snow/Ice Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Includes persistent snow and ice persist for greater portions of the year. Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Dobson, J. et al, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1995. Distribution_Information: Distributor: Contact_Information: Contact_Organization_Primary: Contact_Organization: NOAA Coastal Services Center Contact_Person: Clearinghouse Manager Contact_Position: Clearinghouse Manager Contact_Address: Address_Type: mailing and physical address Address: 2234 South Hobson Avenue City: Charleston State_or_Province: SC Postal_Code: 29405-2413 Country: USA Contact_Voice_Telephone: (843)740-1210 Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: (843)740-1224 Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: clearinghouse@csc.noaa.gov Hours_of_Service: Monday-Friday, 8-5 EST Resource_Description: CCAP Final Late-Date Classification Mosaic of Wisconsin Distribution_Liability: This dataset is not for redistribution. Standard_Order_Process: Digital_Form: Digital_Transfer_Information: Format_Name: Arc-Info Grid format (raster) Digital_Transfer_Option: Offline_Option: Offline_Media: CD-ROM Recording_Format: ISO 9660 Compatibility_Information: ISO 9660 format allows the CDROM to be read by most computer operating systems. Fees: none Metadata_Reference_Information: Metadata_Date: 20020911 Metadata_Review_Date: 20020911 Metadata_Contact: Contact_Information: Contact_Organization_Primary: Contact_Organization: NOAA Coastal Services Center Contact_Person: Metadata Specialist Contact_Position: Metadata Specialist Contact_Address: Address_Type: mailing and physical address Address: 2234 S Hobson Ave. City: Charleston State_or_Province: SC Postal_Code: 29405 Country: USA Contact_Voice_Telephone: 843-740-1210 Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 843-740-1224 Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: csc@csc.noaa.gov Hours_of_Service: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST. Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC CSDGM Metadata_Standard_Version: FGDC-STD-001-1998