The Cooperative Land Cover map integrates data from multiple sources.
All sources were crosswalked into the Florida Land Cover Classification System (Kawula 2014)
All source datasets were received and processed as vector data.
A set of standard geoprocessing and topology operations were employed in ArcGIS
9.3, 10.1 to ensure no overlapping features within or among datasets. All data were
projected into the Florida Albers custom coordinate system with NAD 1983 HARN
datum. A minimum mapping unit of 0.5 acres was applied, and each polygon <0.5
acres was dissolved into its largest neighboring polygon except for scrub, pine
rockland and upland glade polygons for which we applied a minimum mapping unit
of 0.1 acres. Finally, lines between neighboring polygons with the same
classification were dissolved. Based on the review of each dataset, other
modifications were made as described in: Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 2010.
Development of a Cooperative Land Cover Map: Final Report (available from FNAI
upon request).
Explanation of confidence categories:
Datasets were evaluated based on metadata, discussions with data providers and a
general review of the spatial accuracy and classification. Based on this review, a
confidence category was assigned to each dataset that indicated how or if the
dataset, or certain classes within the dataset, would be integrated into the final land
cover map. A confidence category of 1 indicates the highest level of confidence;
these data spatially superseded all other intersecting sources. Category 2 data took
precedence over statewide datasets (FLUCCS, FLVEG) but did not supersede
category 1. Category 3 data were used with review and revision. Category 4 data
were used to identify additional areas for aerial photo review and help interpret
classification during the review process; these data, however, were not directly
integrated into the final map.
Process Date: 2010
Aerial Photography Review of Focal Communities:
Areas within existing source data in categories 1 through 3 (non-ancillary sources)
were excluded from the set of polygons to be reviewed. Scrub, scrubby flatwoods,
sandhill, dry prairie and mesic flatwoods (in SWF and SF only) were reviewed
simultaneously as a single set of review polygons. Review polygons as well as
proximal areas were inspected with the latest high resolution aerial photography
(2006 - 2009) and other ancillary data sources including aerial photography from
2004, 1999 and 1995, topographic maps, county soils maps and other land cover
datasets. Areas were reviewed at a scale of 1:5000 with a minimum mapping unit
of 0.5 acres with exception to include smaller polygons for scrub and pine rockland.
Polygons were spatially edited and new polygons were delineated where necessary
to identify focal communities and then assigned the polygon a land cover type.
Polygons were deleted from the set of review polygons that did not represent priority
communities and were otherwise correctly classified. A land cover type was
assigned to polygons classified as FLUCCS Coastal Scrub, Xeric Oak, Sand Pine,
or Longleaf Pine - Xeric Oak; in addition almost all review polygons in the SWF and
SF districts were assigned a land cover type. Any deleted polygon will default to its
FLUCCS class in the final land cover map.
FNAI biologists familiar with the focal communities both on the ground and through
aerial photo interpretation performed the initial polygon inspections. A second
reviewer then re-inspected the polygons that were assigned as one of the focal
communities. A locations were checked from the FNAI element occurrence
database that reference scrub, scrubby flatwoods, sandhill or dry prairie.
Areas were identified that appeared to be functioning as viable natural communities.
Areas that were historically scrub or sandhill but are now disturbed so that they
likely no longer support their characteristic ecological elements or that have
succeeded to another natural community type were excluded or classified as
another land cover type. Many former sandhills were reclassified as successional
hardwood forest. Pine plantation was reclassified as scrub or sandhill where it
appeared to function ecologically as a natural community. This was especially true
of planted sand pine scrub which can tolerate a high degree of disturbance. Aerial
photographs from 1995 and 1999 were examined to help determine the level of
past ground disturbance. Small patches within residential areas were not included,
although if there appeared to be functional large patches within low density or rural
residential areas we included them. Only obvious patches of scrubby flatwoods
were mapped. This community was sometimes difficult to distinguish from scrub and
we did not follow strict criteria for distinguishing the two. For dry prairie we strictly
followed the FNAI definition of treeless areas of low shrubs and grasses within the
buffered historic dry prairie extent. Many prairie-like areas are pine flatwoods in
which trees have been removed. To determine dry prairie from flatwoods we
considered geographic position, shrub patterns, proximity of wetlands and overall
landscape context.
Process Date: 2010
Assemblage of Data Sources into Final Map:
The data was separated into 3 components for assembly into statewide land cover:
1) Local Source data, which consisted of all local sources with confidence category
1 through 3; 2) FNAI Review data, which consisted of all datasets that were
inspected and classified through aerial photo review; and 3) FLUCCS. The
SWFWMD published a new version of FLUCCS based on 2008 photography in
spring 2010. Although we used 2007 FLUCCS for aerial photo review and
comparative analyses in that district, we incorporated the 2008 data in the final land
cover map. We converted all datasets into 15 m ESRI grids and combined them
based on the following rules: 1) Local Source data with confidence category 1 and
2 superseded FNAI Review data; 2) FNAI Review data superseded Local Source
data with confidence category 3; 3) all Local Source 1 through 3 and FNAI Review
data superseded FLUCCS.
Process Date: 2010
Vector Data Review, Editing, and Classification:
The Cooperative Land Cover Map (CLC) served as the foundation dataset for
revision efforts. Polygon vector data was compared against high resolution Digital
Ortho Quarter Quads (DOQQ) and Google Earth imagery. Google Earth s imagery
was the most effective imagery available for visual data editing, due to its clarity,
resolution, loading speed and data age. Vector data of individual land cover
classes were converted to *.KML format for use in Google Earth.
Errors identified through visual review were manually corrected. The most common
errors encountered included incorrect boundaries, mislabeling of classes, hard
edges between classes, and features containing multiple classes.
Sliver polygons were eliminated based on two criteria:
1) Area
2) Perimeter to Area Ratio
1) Polygons with an area greater than or equal to 110 square meters were selected
and dissolved into the largest adjacent polygon utilizing the Eliminate tool. 110
square meters was selected because the final raster will have a 10 meter cell size
(100 square meters per cell) and the additional 10 square meters help to further
remove sliver polygons that would require significant time to remove manually during
the editing process.
2) Polygons with large ratios are less likely to accurately describe a significant
landcover at the statewide scale. Therefore, polygons with a perimeter to edge
ratio greater than or equal to 0.5 were eliminated into adjacent polygons sharing the
longest edge.
Process Date: Not complete
Remote Sensing Classification:
Once gross spatial and thematic errors were corrected in the vector data, Erdas
Imagine was employed to perform a series of unsupervised and supervised
classifications of each SPOT image with the corrected polygon data as a guide.
Process Date: Not complete
Edge Matching:
Following map classification, we conducted further visual inspection of classified
areas for consistency, errors, and edge matching between assembled data sets.
Process Date: 2014
Topology:
Rules were established to ensure that: 1) all areas within the mapping area (i.e.
Florida) are covered by a land class (polygon); and
2) that there is only one land class (polygon) defining a given area. Two topological
rules were created to ensure these requirements are met:
1) Land Classes Must Not Have Gaps
2) Land Classes Must Not Overlap
For errors that result from Land Classes Must Not Have Gaps , a polygon was
created to fill that gap. This new polygon created NULL
information in the attributes and must either: 1) be merged with an appropriate
adjacent polygon sharing the same land classification
characteristics or 2) be given a land classification indicating its uniqueness in
comparison with adjacent polygons.
For errors that resulted from Land Classes Must Not Overlap , areas were identified
that have more than one polygon. The overlapping area
was merged with the most appropriate land class, thereby removing the overlap.
Process Date: 2014
GeoPlan acquired this data on 3/7/2016 from the following website:
http://myfwc.com/research/gis/applications/articles/Cooperative-Land-Cover
The data was in Raster format and projected in Albers HPGN.
A reclass was performed using ERDAS Imagine. The reclass was run on the
STATE field in the raster feature class named CLC_v3_1_STATE. RGB values for
the reclass raster were manually derived using the legend provided in the layer file
named CLC_V3_1_Raster_STATE.lyr and the color selector tool in UltraEdit.
The output was loaded to SDE and renamed CLC_V3_1_STATE. The following
table represents the values in the reclass output raster:
VALUE STATE NAME_STATE
0 No data No data
1 1110 Upland Hardwood Forest
2 1120 Mesic Hammock
3 1130 Rockland Hammock
4 1140 Slope Forest
5 1150 Xeric Hammock
6 1200 High Pine and Scrub
7 1210 Scrub
8 1213 Sand Pine Scrub
9 1214 Coastal Scrub
10 1231 Upland Pine
11 1240 Sandhill
12 1300 Pine Flatwoods and Dry Prairie
13 1310 Dry Flatwoods
14 1311 Mesic Flatwoods
15 1312 Scrubby Flatwoods
16 1320 Pine Rockland
17 1330 Dry Prairie
18 1340 Palmetto Prairie
19 1400 Mixed Hardwood-Coniferous
20 1500 Shrub and Brushland
21 1600 Coastal Uplands
22 1640 Coastal Strand
23 1650 Maritime Hammock
24 1670 Sand Beach (Dry)
25 1700 Barren and Outcrop Communities
26 1720 Upland Glade
27 1800 Cultural - Terrestrial
28 1821 Low Intensity Urban
29 1822 High Intensity Urban
30 1830 Rural
31 1840 Transportation
32 1850 Communication
33 1860 Utilities
34 1870 Extractive
35 1880 Bare Soil/Clear Cut
36 2100 Freshwater Non-Forested Wetlands
37 2110 Prairies and Bogs
38 2120 Marshes
39 2121 Isolated Freshwater Marsh
40 2123 Floodplain Marsh
41 2200 Freshwater Forested Wetlands
42 2210 Cypress/Tupelo(incl Cy/Tu mixed)
43 2211 Cypress
44 2213 Isolated Freshwater Swamp
45 2214 Strand Swamp
46 2215 Floodplain Swamp
47 2220 Other Coniferous Wetlands
48 2221 Wet Flatwoods
49 2230 Other Hardwood Wetlands
50 2231 Baygall
51 2232 Hydric Hammock
52 2300 Non-vegetated Wetland
53 2400 Cultural-Palustrine
54 3000 Lacustrine
55 3100 Natural Lakes and Ponds
56 3200 Cultural - Lacustrine
57 4000 Riverine
58 4100 Natural Rivers and Streams
59 4200 Cultural - Riverine
60 5000 Estuarine
61 5220 Tidal Flat
62 5240 Salt Marsh
63 5250 Mangrove Swamp
64 5252 Scrub Mangrove
65 5300 Cultural - Estuarine
66 6000 Marine
67 7000 Exotic Plants
68 9100 Unconsolidated Substrate
69 18331 Cropland/Pasture
70 18332 Orchards/Groves
71 18333 Tree Plantations
72 18334 Vineyard and Nurseries
73 18335 Other Agriculture
74 22131 Dome Swamp
75 22132 Basin Swamp
76 52111 Keys Tidal Rock Barren
77 183313 Improved Pasture
78 1833121 Sugarcane
Note: two values had no entries in the legend file:
1700 Barren and Outcrop Communities
5300 Cultural - Estuarine
Process Date: 20160321
|