Atlantic coast joint venture waterfowl implementation plan

səhifə	4/78
tarix	27.06.2016
ölçüsü	7.28 Mb.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 78

¹ BCR Abbreviations – LGL: Lower Great Lakes / St. Lawrence Plain (13), ANF: Atlantic Northern Forest (14), SCP: Southeastern Coastal Plain (27), AMT: Appalachian Mountains (28), PMT: Piedmont (29), NMC: New England / Mid-Atlantic Coast (30), PFL: Peninsular Florida (31)

Table 3.3. Classification categories for USGS Land Use Land Cover (LULC) data used as baseline condition for ACJV circa mid-1970s (http://www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/spdata/EPAGIRAS/meta/metadata.txt).

Anderson Level		Description
I	II
1		Urban or built-up land
	11	Residental
	12	Commercial and services
	13	Industrial
	14	Transportation, communication, utilities
	15	Industrial and commercial complexes
	16	Mixed urban or built-up land
	17	Other urban or built-up land
2		Agricultural land
	21	Cropland and pasture
	22	Orchards, groves, vineyards, nurseries and ornamental horticultural
	23	Confined feeeding operations
	24	Other agricultural land
3		Rangeland
	31	Herbaceous rangeland
	32	Shrub and brush rangeland
	33	Mixed rangeland
4		Forest land
	41	Deciduous forest land
	42	Evergreen forest land
	43	Mixed forest land
5		Water
	51	Streams and canals
	52	Lakes
	53	Reservoirs
	54	Bays and estuaries
6		Wetland
	61	Forested wetland
	62	Nonforested wetland
7		Barren land
	71	Dry salt flats
	72	Beaches
	73	Sandy areas not beaches
	74	Bare exposed rock
	75	Strip mines, quarries, gravel pits
	76	Transitional areas

Table 3.3 (cont.). Classification categories for USGS Land Use Land Cover (LULC) data used as baseline condition for ACJV circa mid-1970s (http://www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/spdata/EPAGIRAS/meta/metadata.txt).

Anderson Level		Descriptions
I	II
8		Tundra
	81	Shrub and brush tundra
	82	Herbaceous tundra
	83	Bare ground
	84	Wet tundra
	85	Mixed tundra
9		Perennial snow or ice
	91	Perennial snowfields
	92	Glaciers

Table 3.4 NLCD two-level land cover classification system.

Level		Description
I	II
10		Water
	11	Open Water
	12	Perennial Ice/Snow
20		Developed
	21	Low Intensity Residential
	22	High Intensity Residential
	23	Commercial/Industrial/Transportation
30		Barren
	31	Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
	32	Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits
	33	Transitional
40		Forested Upland
	41	Deciduous Forest
	42	Evergreen Forest
	43	Mixed Forest
50		Shrubland
	51	Shrubland
60		Non-Natural Woody
	61	Orchards/Vineyards/Other
70		Herbaceous Upland
	71	Grasslands/Herbaceous
80		Planted/Cultivated
	81	Pasture/Hay
	82	Row Crops
	83	Small Grains
	84	Fallow
	85	Urban/Recreational Grasses
90		Wetlands
	91	Woody Wetlands
	92	Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

Table 3.5 Percent of landscape by land cover category for each data set and percent change between the mid-1970s (LULC) and mid-1990s (NLCD). Note that not all classes were reconcilable between the two data sets, thus caution must be used in interpreting change for Urban/Recreational Grasses category which only exited in the NLCD data.

Class	LULC	NLCD	% Change
Open Water	6.79%	7.36%	0.58%
Developed	5.83%	4.69%	-1.15%
Bare Rock/Sand/Clay	0.06%	0.11%	0.04%
Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits	0.34%	0.22%	-0.13%
Transitional	0.51%	1.80%	1.29%
Deciduous Forest	21.15%	28.26%	7.10%
Evergreen Forest	14.97%	14.43%	-0.54%
Mixed Forest	17.91%	12.60%	-5.30%
Shrubland	0.31%	0.14%	-0.17%
Orchards/Vineyards/Other	0.62%	0.37%	-0.25%
Grasslands/Herbaceous	1.01%	1.20%	0.19%
Planted/Cultivated	23.36%	18.94%	-4.43%
Urban/Recreational Grasses		0.41%
Woody Wetlands	5.17%	7.32%	2.15%
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands	1.95%	2.16%	0.21%

Interpreting the changes in land cover composition between the 1970s LULC data and the1990s NLCD data is problematic due to inherent differences in how the data were collected and classified. The LULC data is based on interpreted aerial photographs using traditional photogrammetry techniques; whereas the NLCD data were from a digital sensor on a satellite in orbit and then processed by various computer-based classification algorithms. Some of the change in land cover classes between the two time periods (Table 3.5) is quite likely due to differences in how each data set was classified. In making a determination of what is a real change versus an issue with methodological differences, it is informative to look how individual pixels changed from the 1970s to the 1990s (Table 3.6). In order to correctly interpret this confusion matrix, it is important to keep in mind that the only valid comparisons are made oolumn-wise. For example, for pixels that were classified as Transitional (33) in the LULC data set, only 3.7% were still classified as Transitional in the mid-1990s. In accounting for this change, we see that 25% of the pixels were classified as Developed in the NLCD data set; an additional 31% were later classified as Forested. Examination of Table 3.6 shows that there is generally good agreement between the two classified data sets; remember there was a relatively low overall change over the 20 year interval.

Table 3.6. Matrix showing how land cover has changed in the ACJV between the 1970s and 1990s. Table shows percent of landscape that was classified as a given land cover type in the Land Use Land Cover (LULC) data set in the 1970s (columns) and their resulting classification in the 1992 National Land Cover Data (NLCD) data set (rows). Primary diagonal cells (highlighted in grey) show percent of landscape that the same classification in the two data sets. Note there was no comparable LULC category thus, class 85 is absent from that data set.

NLCD Land Cover Class	LULC Land Cover Class
	11	20	31	32	33	41	42	43	51	61	71	80	85	91	92
11	92.1%	1.9%	24.3%	3.6%	3.1%	0.6%	0.7%	0.8%	2.2%	1.6%	1.5%	0.7%		2.1%	12.9%
20	0.6%	53.7%	5.6%	5.1%	25.2%	1.1%	1.7%	1.3%	5.1%	7.5%	6.7%	2.0%		0.8%	1.1%
31	0.1%	0.3%	32.2%	1.1%	0.6%	0.0%	0.1%	0.0%	0.8%	0.1%	0.2%	0.1%		0.1%	0.3%
32	0.0%	0.3%	0.2%	20.8%	1.2%	0.2%	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.3%	0.4%	0.1%		0.1%	0.0%
33	0.1%	1.0%	0.8%	2.8%	3.7%	0.5%	6.1%	1.7%	1.3%	0.6%	1.8%	1.1%		1.5%	0.7%
41	1.3%	12.9%	10.1%	33.4%	15.4%	65.1%	16.4%	40.0%	19.6%	4.4%	0.0%	14.9%		4.2%	2.3%
42	1.3%	5.8%	5.3%	5.9%	15.5%	8.0%	39.0%	20.1%	11.0%	4.9%	17.3%	6.6%		17.0%	5.6%
43	0.9%	7.0%	4.9%	6.5%	7.6%	16.6%	17.2%	23.0%	8.4%	2.1%	0.0%	6.7%		4.5%	1.7%
51	0.1%	0.1%	0.5%	1.1%	1.0%	0.0%	0.5%	0.0%	2.5%	0.1%	0.3%	0.0%		0.2%	0.3%
61	0.0%	0.3%	0.1%	0.1%	0.7%	0.0%	0.1%	0.0%	1.2%	37.9%	2.2%	0.2%		0.2%	0.3%
71	0.1%	0.4%	1.1%	2.6%	6.4%	0.0%	1.0%	0.0%	4.4%	3.4%	25.6%	2.4%		1.1%	3.8%
80	0.7%	9.9%	1.6%	11.7%	8.1%	4.8%	6.1%	6.8%	16.0%	31.2%	13.1%	61.8%		4.0%	2.6%
85	0.0%	3.9%	0.6%	0.6%	1.3%	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	1.5%	0.3%	0.6%	0.3%		0.1%	0.1%
91	1.1%	1.7%	3.6%	2.4%	6.9%	2.6%	9.7%	5.4%	16.1%	2.9%	17.5%	2.4%		58.7%	15.1%
92	1.5%	0.9%	9.0%	2.1%	3.2%	0.3%	1.2%	0.5%	9.8%	2.7%	12.7%	0.7%		5.2%	53.1%

Land Cover Class Codes: 11: Open Water, 20: Developed, 31: Bare Rock/ Sand/Clay, 32: Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits, 33: Transitional, 41: Deciduous Forest, 42: Evergreen Forest, 43: Mixed Forest, 51: Shrubland, 61: Orchards/Vineyards/Other, 71: Grasslands/Herbaceous, 80: Planted/Cultivated, 85: Urban/Recreational Grasses, 91: Woody Wetlands, 92: Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 78