Landcover Classification of Georgia by County 1988-1990
Identification_Information
Data_Quality_Information
Spatial_Data_Organization_Information
Spatial_Reference_Information
Entity_and_Attribute_Information
Distribution_Information
Metadata_Reference_Information
Identification Information
Section Index
Citation:
Citation Information:
Originator: Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Publication Date: 1995, 1996
Title: Landcover Classification of Georgia by County 1988-1990
Edition: 2.0
Description:
Abstract:
This landcover map file is based on LANDSAT Thematic Mapper satelite imagery with a spatial resolution of 100 ft. X 100 ft. Image dates are winter 1988-1990. Landcover classification was performed by ERDAS, Inc. and the Wildlife Resources Division of Georgia's Department of Natural Resources (GaDNR). LANDSAT Thematic Mapper Bands 1 through 5 were used in the classification. The landcover classification was derived from a limited number of field samples; the classification process groupe dareas with similar spectral characteristics as observed by LANDSAT sensors. Limited ground-truthing was performed on the landcover map files. Class determinations met a minimum accuracy level of 85%. In 1995 this database was partially revised by the GaDNR, Natural heritage Program to reflect alterations to the agricultural landcover information primarily in Southwest georgia. The data were also resampled to 200 ft. at this time in order to reduce file size.
Purpose:
This database was originally developed to support the State Planning Act of 1989. It is useful for regional and ocal environmental investigation and planning. This map file does not represent an attempt to define jurisdictional limits of any federal,state, or local government with respect to wetlands or any other landcover type. The Georgia Department of Natural resources, the Georgia Department of Community Affairs, and ERDAS, Inc. assume no liability in the use of this or related data.
Supplemental Information:
For use in mapping of the state, eleven full
scenes and two quarter scenes of Landsat Thematic
Mapper (TM) satellite data were purchased
Source_Citation_Abbreviation. Microfiche of
available images for appropriate acquisition dates
were checked for cloud cover and image quality at
the EOSAT field office in Orlando, Florida before
the order was made. Winter scenes were specified
to obtain maximum penetration of vegetation
canopies for wetland delineation. The best
available scenes ranged in acquisition dates from
December 1988 through January 1990. The project
was completed in two major phases. The northern
most portion of the State was completed in Phase I
of the project effort and stopped along the
physiographic fall line. Phase II of this study
included the central and southern part of the
State and included additional coastal land cover
classes.
Metadata is series level, meaning it is not specific
to each individual county.
Maps are in UTM Zone 16 or 17. Please refer to
http://gis.state.ga.us/gisfaq/zones.html for
further information for your county.
The bounding coordinates are listed for the entire
state, not each specific county.
Time Period of Content:
Time Period Information:
Range of Dates/Times:
Beginning Date: 1/1/1988
Beginning Time: Unknown
Ending Date: 1/1/1990
Ending Time: Unknown
Status:
Progress: Complete
Maintenance and Update Frequency: None planned
Spatial Domain:
Bounding Coordinates:
West Bounding Coordinate: -85.498619
East Bounding Coordinate: -80.650047
North Bounding Coordinate: 34.970295
South Bounding Coordinate: 30.347689
Keywords:
Theme:
Theme Keyword Thesaurus: None
Theme Keyword: Classification
Theme Keyword: Imagery
Theme Keyword: Landcover
Theme Keyword: Wetlands
Place:
Place Keyword Thesaurus: None
Place Keyword: GA
Place Keyword: Georgia
Place Keyword: State of Georgia
Place Keyword: Georgia Counties
Stratum:
Stratum Keyword Thesaurus: None
Temporal:
Temporal Keyword Thesaurus: None
Browse Graphic:
Data Quality Information
Section Index
Attribute Accuracy:
Attribute Accuracy Report:
Limited ground-truthing was done during accuracy
assessment of this landcover database. Class
determinations met a minimum accuracy level of 85
percent, although sample sizes may have been too
small for some classes and for some regions. No
confusion matrices or higher level accuracy
assessments were produced. The ground-truthing
of the landcover database as well as training
sample collection was performed by Georgia DNR
personnel. Training sample collection, which was
aided by paper plots of the satellite imagery and
an unsupervised classification for the region
being mapped, was conducted by driving to each
site and assessing it on the ground. A sample of
the sheet filled out for each sample is included.
Accuracy assessment of the landcover database
involved examination of random samples by
helicopter. The random test sites were selected by
computer and stratified according to class
prevalence. In order to overcome problems of
accessibility, determining exact location, and the
large size of the regions to be covered in a
limited amount of time, a helicopter equipped with
a Loran system was utilized. The Loran enabled the
pilot to punch in coordinates for a site and be
electronically guided to its location. The DNR
personnel involved in the assessment were provided
paper prink of the satellite imagery for each site
with the 3 pixel X 3 pixel site delineated as well
as the Loran coordinates for each site. The
landcover class types found in the field for the
test sites were then compared with the class types
for the same pixels in the landcover database. As
each region was determined by DNR to meet the 85
percent overall accuracy requirement, it was
passed on to the next stage of the project
process. 1. Documentation review by Christopher
G. Canalos, GA DNR, Natural Heritage Program was
incorporated into the documentation narrative June
20, 1996. Mr. Canalos was responsible for initial
quality control and assurance procedures in the
development and revision of the landcover data
layer. 2. Colleague review June 20, 1996 by
Keith McFadden and Jonathan Musser Digital data
was reviewed with respect to positional accuracy,
contextual accuracy, attribute accuracy,
topological consistency, and metadata content.
3. Approved by Georgia District Chief, Tim Hale,
on June 21, 1996. 4. Additional Comments by
Chris Canalos, Georgia DNR, Natural Heritage
Program (July 12-16, 1996 comm.) Since the
published color color scheme for the landcover
dataset was developed specifically to separate and
highlight each class appropriately, it was agreed
upon to include the color lookup values for each
landcover value. See section on
Related_Spatial_and_Tabular_Data_Sets for the Red
Green Blue values for the color lookup table. A
summary of landcover statistics by county
including acreages and percentages was produced in
conjunction with the database and published as
Project Report No. 26, State of Georgia Landcover
Statistics by County. It is available through the
Georgia Geologic Survey, Georgia Department of
Natural Resources Map Sales office (GGS Phone
404-656-3214). (Added July 18, 1996 - Jack
Alhadeff) Color Lookup Table for each of 15
landcover categories expressed as Red Green Blue
(RGB) values. Class R G B 1 0 230
255 2 153 0 153 3 230 230 77
4 153 89 0 5 230 230 230 6
255 255 255 7 255 0 0 8 230
153 0 9 255 255 0 10 0 153
128 11 64 217 145 12 186 255 217
13 230 0 230 14 204 255 255 15
247 247 237 Nodata should be given a
white color when producing hardcopy (255 255 255).
Notes I. SAMPLE SURVEY FORM
TAKEN BY: DATE: TRAINING
SAMPLE #: FIELD VERIFICATION SAMPLE #:
ESTIMATED SAMPLE SIZE: TOPO QUAD NAME:
LOCATION MAP COORDINATES: INDICATE LOCATION AND
EXTENT ON MAP AND/OR PHOTO AERIAL PHOTO INDEX #:
LANDCOVER TYPE 1. OPEN WATER
4. CULTIVATED/EXPOSED EARTH
____Stream or Waterway ____Crop type
____Lake ____Irrigated
Non-irrigated ____Reservoir
____Gravel pit/quarry ____Bays or Estuary
____Sand bar/beach ____Other
(specify)_________ ____Other (specify)_______
2. CLEAR CUT/ 5. LOW DENSITY URBAN
YOUNG PINE PLANTATION ____Clearcut, not
planted Pct Vegetative cover_______
____Pine plantation Land
use_________________ ____Age/height of stand
_________________________ ____Understory
species _________________________ 3.
PASTURE 6. HIGH DENSITY URBAN
Pct Tree cover___________ PctVegetative
cover_______ Tree species___________
Land use_________________
_______________________
_________________________ Grass
species__________ _________________________
_______________________
_________________________ _____7. Emergent
Wetland _____10. Coniferous Forest ___13.Salt
Marsh _____8. Scrub/Shrub Wetland _____11.
Mixed Forest _____14.Brackish Marsh _____9.
Forested Wetland _____12. Hardwood Forest
_____15.Tidal Flats/ Beaches Pct Tree
canopy cover ________Average canopy
ht.__________Average dbh_____ Dominant tree
canopy (>2Oft.)
species:____________________________________
Pct Unnderstory or scrub/shrub cover:_________
Dominant under-to- or scrub/shrub (6-2Oft.)
species:____________________________________
Pct Groundlayer species cover:________________
Dominant groundlayer (<6f.)
species:____________________________________
Pct Bare
ground:______________Slope:______________________A
spect_____ Other notes (vegetation phenology,
evidence of disturbance, soil characteristics,
unusal land forms, surrounding land use, etc.)
__________________________________________________
__________
__________________________________________________
__________
__________________________________________________
__________ Altered Wetland: Current Land
Cover/Use ____________________
__________________________________________________
__________ III.Sub-regional Analysis Based
On Physiographic Regions and Spectral Variation
*Physiographic regions have been modified to
allow for separation by Landsat Satellite
path. 1.) Cumberland Plateau 2.)
Southern Valley and Ridge 3.) Southern Blue
Ridge 4.) Upland Georgia Subsection of the
Southern Piedmont 5.) Midland Georgia
Subsection of the Southern Piedmont 6.) Sea
lsland Section - Barrier lslands Sequence 7.)
Sea lsland Section - Vidalia Upland District
(Portion of D) 8.) East Gulf Coastal Piain -
Fall line Hills District and Fort Valley
Plateau Distrist (Portions A, B, C and D) 9.)
East Gulf Coastal Plain Section - Tifton Upland
District 10.) Sea lsland Section - Bacon
Terraces District and Okefenokee Basin
District IV. Additional Classes For the
Barrier lsland Sequence District, the following
three classes were added: (13) Salt Marsh.
Extensive areas dominated by smooth cordgrass are
representative of this landcover class. It is
spectrally distinguished from brackish marsh
and emergent wetlands fairly accurately. This
class, the brackish marsh class, and the tidal
flat class were used only in the lower coastal
region. (14) Brackish Marsh. Brackish marsh is
typified by low-salinity emergent wetlands
dominated by needlerush or giant cordgrass. These
areas are usually found upstream or upslope
from the salt marsh, and often adjacent to
freshwater marsh and forested wetlands. Where
brackish marsh occurs in close proximity with
deciduous forested wetland, some spectral
similarity may exist. (15) Tidal Flats. This
class represents areas with little or no
vegetation in the coastal region and includes
mud flats, spoil areas, and beaches. It is
similar in concept to the cultivated/exposed earth
class, but spectrally different enough such
that for the lower coastal regions these areas
are generally distinguishable from other landcover
types. Spectral similarity with urban classes
may result in misrepresentation of some urban
areas as tidal flats.
Logical Consistency Report: None
Completeness Report: None
Positional Accuracy:
Horizontal Positional Accuracy:
Horizontal Positional Accuracy Report:
Limited ground-truthing was done on these
landcover map files. Class determinations met a
minimum accuracy level of 85 percent.
Quantitative Horizontal Positional Accuracy Assessment:
Horizontal Positional Accuracy Explanation: Resolution as reported
Vertical Positional Accuracy:
Vertical Positional Accuracy Report: None
Lineage:
Source Information:
Source Citation Abbreviation:
Path/Row Scene lD# Date Scene
Size 16/38 Y5175415245X0 12/19/88
NW 1/4 17/37 Y5I76115304X0
12/26/88 Full 17/38 Y5176115310X0
12/26/88 Full 17/39 YSI76115313X0
12/26/88 Full
Process Step:
Process Description:
The project was completed in two major phases. The
northern most portion of the State was completed
in Phase I of the project effort and stopped along
the physiographic fall line. Phase II of this
study included the central and southern part of
the State and included additional coastal land
cover classes. As part of the initial computer
processing, the satellite imagery was divided into
separate work regions before further analysis.
These work regions were a composite of major
physiographic regions within the state, the
Landsat satellite path (see Notes III), and the
state plane coordinate system zones. Division
according to physiographic region was done to
simplify the classification by isolating some of
the edaphic geomorphic and vegetative differences
which occur between regions. These regions include
: 1) Cumberland Plateau Section, 2) Southern
Valley and Ridge Section, 3) Southern Blue Ridge
Section, 4) Upland Georgia Subsection of the
Southern Piedmont Section, 5) Midland Georgia
Subsection of the Southern Piedmont Section, 6)
Sea lsland Section - Barrier lslands Sequence
District, 7) Sea lsland Section - Vidalia Upland
District, 8) East Gulf Coastal Plain Section -
Fall line Hills District and Fort Valley Plateau
District, 9) East Gulf Coastal Plain Section -
Tifton Upland District, and 10) Sea lsland
Section - Bacon Terraces District and Okefenokee
Basin District. These regions are from the
Physiographic Map of Georgia, 1976, by Wlliam Z.
Clark, Jr. and Amold C. Zisa. Further separation
by satellite path avoided possible variations in
spectral response due to date or atmospheric
conditions (scenes in the same path were acquired
on the same day). The Landsat scenes were also
georeferenced to their respective Georgia State
Plane zones, with duplicate scenes of each zone in
places of overlap. Further separation by
satellite path avoided possible variations in
spectral response due to date or atmospheric
conditions (scenes in the same path were acquired
on the same day). The Landsat scenes were also
georeferenced to their respective Georgia State
Plane zones, with duplicate scenes of each zone in
places of overlap.
Process Date: Unknown
Process Contact:
Contact Information:
Contact Organization Primary:
Contact Organization: U.S. Geological Survey
Contact Address:
Address Type: Mailing Address
Address: 590 National Center
City: Reston
State or Province: Virginia
Postal Code: 22092
Country: USA
Contact Voice Telephone: 703-648-4533
Contact Facsimile Telephone: 608-783-8058
Contact Electronic Mail Address: ftp://fgdc.er.usgs.gov/
Hours of Service: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday Through Friday
Process Step:
Process Description:
IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNIQUES In classifying the
satellite imagery, both supervised and
unsupervised methods were used. The supervised
approach required the field identification and
plotting of suitable sites of homogeneous
landcover, typically numbering 60 - 100 per
region. These "training samples" were digitized on
the TM imagery to "train" the computer to group
pixels (individual cells of which the imagery is
comprised ) with similar spectral characteristics
into the same landcover class. In this way the
satellite image, which is a picture composed of
the brightness values of landcover measured at
different spectral ranges, was transformed into a
thematic map composed of a discrete number of
landcover classes. Unsupervised classification,
which creates a user-defined number of classes
based on spectral response, was used to aid in the
identification of potential training sites before
making the actual field observations. Unsupervised
classification was also used to help separate
spectrally similar landcover classes by breaking
these classes into spectral subset which could
then be reallocated to the proper landcover
classes. Visual checks were made on each class
individually by using the computer to overlay the
area assigned to a particular landcover type on
the satellite imagery and toggling the landcover
class off and on to check for proper location and
extent. Sample areas of the preliminary
classification were field-checked to find and
correct problems before the accuracy assessment
was conducted.
Process Date: Unknown
Process Contact:
Contact Information:
Contact Organization Primary:
Contact Organization: U.S. Geological Survey
Contact Address:
Address Type: Mailing Address
Address: 590 National Center
City: Reston
State or Province: Virginia
Postal Code: 22092
Country: USA
Contact Voice Telephone: 703-648-4533
Contact Facsimile Telephone: 608-783-8058
Contact Electronic Mail Address: ftp://fgdc.er.usgs.gov/
Hours of Service: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday Through Friday
Process Step:
Process Description:
RASTER TO VECTOR CONVERSION AND HARDCOPY MAPPING
The next stage was conversion from the ERDAS
raster landcover database to an ARC/INFO vector
database compatible with other geographic
databases kept at the Georgia Department of
Community Affairs. The landcover for each
physiographic region was mosaicked so that all of
the individual U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quadrangle maps
could be cut out. Each quad was then converted to
an ARC/INFO coverage with a minimum polygon size
of 2.5 acres. For quadrangles which fell on the
Georgia State Plane zone boundary, two separate
coverages were made, one for each state plane
zone.
Process Date: Unknown
Process Contact:
Contact Information:
Contact Organization Primary:
Contact Organization: U.S. Geological Survey
Contact Address:
Address Type: Mailing Address
Address: 590 National Center
City: Reston
State or Province: Virginia
Postal Code: 22092
Country: USA
Contact Voice Telephone: 703-648-4533
Contact Facsimile Telephone: 608-783-8058
Contact Electronic Mail Address: ftp://fgdc.er.usgs.gov/
Hours of Service: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday Through Friday
Process Step:
Process Description:
SURVEY FORM USED Color paper plots of the
generalized database were produced to correspond
with the U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quadrangles at 1
:24000 scale. Individual copies in both state
plane zones were produced for quadrangles which
fell on the state plane boundary. These plots were
prepared with a legend, scale bars, titles, and
other text. Three copies of each quad were
produced.
Process Date: Unknown
Process Contact:
Contact Information:
Contact Organization Primary:
Contact Organization: U.S. Geological Survey
Contact Address:
Address Type: Mailing Address
Address: 590 National Center
City: Reston
State or Province: Virginia
Postal Code: 22092
Country: USA
Contact Voice Telephone: 703-648-4533
Contact Facsimile Telephone: 608-783-8058
Contact Electronic Mail Address: ftp://fgdc.er.usgs.gov/
Hours of Service: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday Through Friday
Process Step:
Process Description:
This dataset was reprojected from Lambert Conformal Conic to UTM as per
"Standards and Guidelines in the State of Georgia". The grids were then clipped using gridclip and the county boundary.
Process Date: Unknown
Process Contact:
Contact Information:
Contact Organization Primary:
Contact Organization: Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse
Contact Position: Database Manager
Contact Address:
Address Type: Mailing and Physical Address
Address:
University of Georgia, 1180 East Broad St., Suite
2076
City: Athens
State or Province: Georgia
Postal Code: 30602-5418
Country: USA
Contact Voice Telephone: (706) 542-0246
Contact Facsimile Telephone: (706) 542-6535
Contact Electronic Mail Address: gischouse@state.ga.us
Cloud Cover: Unknown
Spatial Data Organization Information
Section Index
Direct Spatial Reference Method: Vector
Spatial Reference Information
Section Index
Horizontal Coordinate System Definition:
Planar:
Grid Coordinate System:
Grid Coordinate System Name: Universal Transverse Mercator 1983
Planar Coordinate Information:
Planar Coordinate Encoding Method: Coordinate Pair
Coordinate Representation:
Abscissa Resolution: 0.1
Ordinate Resolution: 0.1
Planar Distance Units: international feet
Geodetic Model:
Horizontal Datum Name: North American Datum of 1983
Ellipsoid Name: Geodetic Reference System 80
Semi-major Axis: 6378206
Denominator of Flattening Ratio: 294.9786982
Entity and Attribute Information
Section Index
Detailed Description:
Entity Type:
Entity Type Label: LANDCOVER.STA
Entity Type Definition: Statistics table
Entity Type Definition Source: GRID
Attribute:
Attribute Label: MAX
Attribute Definition: Maximum GRID cell VALUE (Real number)
Attribute Definition Source: Computed
Attribute:
Attribute Label: MEAN
Attribute Definition:
Standard Deviation of GRID cell VALUEs (Positive
real number)
Attribute Definition Source: Computed
Attribute:
Attribute Label: MIN
Attribute Definition: Mean GRID cell VALUE (Real number)
Attribute Definition Source: Computed
Attribute:
Attribute Label: STDV
Attribute Definition:
Standard Deviation of GRID cell VALUEs (Positive
real number)
Attribute Definition Source: Computed
Detailed Description:
Entity Type:
Entity Type Label: LANDCOV.VAT
Entity Type Definition: Arc/Info GRID VAT based on original classification of data
Entity Type Definition Source: Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Attribute:
Attribute Label: -
Attribute Definition: Arc/Info GRID VAT based on original classification of data
Attribute Definition Source: Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Attribute Domain Values:
Enumerated Domain:
Enumerated Domain Value: -
Enumerated Domain Value Definition: None
Enumerated Domain Value Definition Source: None
Attribute:
Attribute Label: COUNT
Attribute Definition: Number of GRID cells of a value
Attribute Definition Source: Computed
Attribute Domain Values:
Enumerated Domain:
Enumerated Domain Value: Integer
Enumerated Domain Value Definition: None
Enumerated Domain Value Definition Source: None
Attribute:
Attribute Label: VALUE
Attribute Definition: Internal feature number for GRIDs
Attribute Definition Source: Computed
Attribute Domain Values:
Enumerated Domain:
Enumerated Domain Value: Integer
Enumerated Domain Value Definition: None
Enumerated Domain Value Definition Source: None
Overview Description:
Entity and Attribute Overview:
All of the data from the original raster imagery
were classified into 15 landcover classes. Titles
for the classes represent the majority of the
landcover making up the class. Some of the data
points represent landcover that does not fall
clearly into any of the classes. These were
nevertheless included in the class that was
spectrally most similar. Some of the original data
points were spectrally similar to more than one
class, in which case the maximum likelihood
classifier algorithm selected the most likely
class to contain the data. With the possibilities
of classes containing data that does not clearly
fall into any one class and data that could fall
into more than one class, a description of the
intended and possible contents of the individual
classes is given below. (1-12, below; 13-15 see
Notes Section IV) (1) Open Water. Lakes,
reservoirs, coastal waters, ponds and wide stream
channels with little or no emergent vegetation are
included in this class. On the unclassified
imagery, open water appears dark, similar to
shadows behind northwest-facing slopes; therefore,
some shadow areas are included. (2) Clearcut/Young
Pine. The spectral characteristics recently
cleared in timber harvest operations and planted
to pine or left unplanted are usually quite
different from those of other landcover types. The
clearcuts are often large in area and regularly
shaped. The typical clearcut/young pine stand has
widely-spaced woody vegetation with a ground cover
of herbs and grasses. This vegetation type can be
seen as transitional to closed-canopy coniferous
forest. Any cleared land can be spectrally similar
to timber clearcuts, including some agricultural
land such as abandoned pasture and fallow
cropland. This class was under-estimated in
extreme South central Georgia. (3) Pasture.
Pasture land is distinguished from other
agricultural land by the presence of low-growing
herbaceous vegetative cover year round. This class
includes actual pastures, as well as lawns,
fields, and other open areas within urban areas.
Pasture can be spectrally similar to cultivated
fields that have vegetative cover during the
winter. Pixels of the clearcut/young pine and
cultivated/exposed earth classes are often found
intermingled. This class was underestimated in
Southwest Georgia. (4) Cultivated/Exposed Earth.
Agricultural fields with no winter vegetation, and
any other areas where vegetation has recently been
removed, exposing soil or rock, are represented by
this class. Exposed banks around reservoirs with
low water levels often are included in this class.
Some cultivated fields showing winter vegetation
are spectrally similar to pasture. This class may
be found within urban areas and in conjunction
with the pasture and clearcut/young pine classes
in other areas. (5) Low Density Urban. The high
reflectivity of man-made structures in urban areas
provides for some separation of urban classes from
the non-urban classes. The low density urban class
represents urban areas with moderate vegetative
cover. However any area with high reflectivity,
such as isolated industrial sites, may fall into
this or the high density urban class. The edges of
some bodies of water are spectrally similar to
this class. It is typical for residential areas to
be shown as a matrix of this class and forest
class pixels. Low density urban may be
interspersed with high density urban. (6) High
Density Urban. This class is distinguished from
low density urban by an even higher reflectivity
of the landcover. Paved areas with buildings
andlittle vegetation are typical of this landcover
class. Roads are often shown as linear features
composed of high and low density urban pixels.
High density urban pixels found outside of urban
areas are indicative of any type of highly
reflective structure/ feature such as power
substations, grain storage bldgs. (7) Emergent
Wetland. Emergent wetlands are spectrally and
ecologically transitional between open water and
scrub/shrub wetlands. Freshwater marsh vegetation
with few woody plants interspersed is typical of
the cover type. Where clusters of emergent
wetland pixels are found, other wetland types and
open water are often in proximity. This class may
show up in some non-wetland areas with
low-reflectivity cover. (8)
Scrub/Shrub Wetland. Intended for wetland
vegetation dominated by woody plants less than 20
feet in height, this class contains areas in
transition between emergent and forested wetlands.
This class is usually found in conjunction with
other wetland classes. Where uplands with woody
vegetation border open water, pixels from this
class may be shown. When found singly within a
matrix of low urban density and forest pixels, it
is more likely that cover spectrally similar to
but not actually scrub/shrub wetland is being
shown (i.e., scrubby vegetation over some
low-reflective surface). (9) Forested Wetland.
Where spectral differences are pronounced, this
class may be distinguished from scrub/shrub
wetland and upland forest types. Where upland tree
canopies overhang river banks or edges of water
bodies, pixels from this class may show. These
edges may or may not be actual wetlands. Areas of
swamp are often shown as mixtures of forested
wetland and hardwood forest pixels. Individual or
small clumps of pixels in this class when found
scattered throughout urban areas may be showing
non-wetland areas with spectral similarity to
wetlands, such as woody vegetation over
low-reflective surfaces. Classification of
forested wetlands dominated by deciduous trees is
probably more accurate than that in areas with
evergreen, closed canopies. In the latter case,
the low reflectivity of the wet areas underneath
the canopy may not be picked up by the sensor,
making them difficult to distinguish from upland
evergreen forest canopies. Spectral similarity
between this class and shadows behind
northwest-facing slopes may account for the
presence of forested wetland pixels shown on some
slopes. (10) Coniferous Forest. The uniformity of
large tracts of planted pines provides for
accurate classification of this landcover type in
upland areas. These stands may be fringed or
bisected by the other forest types. Spectral
similarity with evergreen hardwood forest in the
Coastal Plain may result in difficulty in
distinguishing between these two cover types.
Where pine canopies are dense, as is often the
case, it may be difficult to determine whether the
sites are upland or wetland. (11) Mixed Forest.
Typically, this class represents mixed stands of
hardwood and coniferous trees, neither type
exceeding 60-70 percent of the stand. Pine
plantations in transition from early stages to
forest may be shown in this class, although few if
any hardwood trees may be present. Edges of
coniferous stands and areas of transition between
coniferous and hardwood forest are often shown
with this class. Also included may be abandoned
cut-over areas. (12) Hardwood Forest. Stands of
deciduous hardwoods are generally distinguished
from forested wetlands and other forest classes
accurately. Evergreen hardwood forests may be
spectrally similar to mixed and coniferous
classes, and, due to a closed canopy, may be
difficult to distinguish from evergreen forested
wetlands. River floodplains are often depicted as
a mixture of forested wetland and hardwood forest
pixels, with drier areas shown as hardwood forest.
Cut-over lands with young, shrubby hardwood
growth, although not forest, may make up part of
this class.
Distribution Information
Section Index
Distributor:
Contact Information:
Contact Organization Primary:
Contact Organization: Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse
Contact Position: Database Manager
Contact Address:
Address Type: Mailing and Physical Address
Address:
University of Georgia, 1180 East Broad St., Suite
2076
City: Athens
State or Province: Georgia
Postal Code: 30602-5418
Country: USA
Contact Voice Telephone: (706) 542-0246
Contact Facsimile Telephone: (706) 542-6535
Contact Electronic Mail Address: gischouse@state.ga.us
Distribution Liability:
Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse is charged by the
State of Georgia with the development, maintenance
and distribution of the State's geographic
databases and, in cooperation with other
organizations, is committed to offering its users
accurate, useful, and current information about
the state. Although every effort has been made to
ensure the accuracy of information, errors and
conditions originating from physical sources used
to develop the corporate database may be reflected
in the data supplied. Users of this data must be
aware of data conditions and bear responsibility
for the appropriate use of the information with
respect to possible errors, original map scale,
collection methodology, currency of data, and
other conditions specific to certain data. The
Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse makes no warranty,
either expressed or implied, as to the accuracy or
completeness of any information archived and
distributed by the Clearinghouse. The digital
information is distributed on a "as is" basis, and
the Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse shall not be
responsible for any claims attributable to errors,
omissions or other inaccuracies in the
information. In no event shall Georgia GIS Data
Clearinghouse be liable for direct, indirect,
special, incidental or consequential loss or
damage of any nature caused to any person, party
or entity as a result of use of the information.
Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse does not support
secondary distribution of this data. The use of
trade names or commercial products does not
constitute their endorsement by the Georgia GIS
Data Clearinghouse or Georgia State Government.
The Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse hereby
disclaims liability for any such loss or damage.
Standard Order Process:
Digital Form:
Digital Transfer Information:
Format Name: Arc/Info Export
Format Version Number: 7.0.4
Digital Transfer Option:
Online Option:
Computer Contact Information:
Fees: None
Metadata Reference Information
Section Index
Metadata Date: 10/15/1999
Metadata Review Date:
Metadata Future Review Date:
Metadata Contact:
Contact Information:
Contact Organization Primary:
Contact Organization: Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse - Atlanta
Contact Position: Database Manager
Contact Address:
Address Type: mailing and physical address
Address: Georgia Institute of Technology, 276 5th Street NW
City: Atlanta
State or Province: GA
Postal Code: 30332-0695
Country: USA
Contact Voice Telephone: (404) 894-0502
Contact Facsimile Telephone: (404) 894-0450
Contact Electronic Mail Address: gischouse@state.ga.us
Hours of Service: Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm EST
Metadata Standard Name: FGDC Content Standards For Digital Geospatial Metadata
Metadata Standard Version: June 8, 1994
Metadata Time Convention: Local Time
Metadata Access Constraints: None
Metadata Use Constraints: None
Metadata Security Information:
Metadata Security Classification System: None
Metadata Security Classification: Unclassified
Metadata Security Handling Description: None
SMMS Metadata report generated 10/15/99