1 / 26

Common Ground: Developing a GCPOLCC Land Cover Database

Common Ground: Developing a GCPOLCC Land Cover Database. Chuck O’Hara MSU-GRI. John Tirpak GCPOLCC. GCPOLCC/LMVJV Interim Steering Committee Meeting Eureka Spring, Arkansas 8 June 2011. Outline. Orientation Need and challenge Prospective solution GCPOLCC Land Cover Database

sylvie
Download Presentation

Common Ground: Developing a GCPOLCC Land Cover Database

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Common Ground: Developing a GCPOLCC Land Cover Database Chuck O’Hara MSU-GRI John Tirpak GCPOLCC GCPOLCC/LMVJV Interim Steering Committee Meeting Eureka Spring, Arkansas 8 June 2011

  2. Outline • Orientation • Need and challenge • Prospective solution • GCPOLCC Land Cover Database • Partner feedback • Process and content • Ad hoc • Geomatics Working Group • Where we stand • Requested action

  3. Orientation

  4. Need and Challenge • Novel conservation challenges are emerging at continental and global scales • Global climate change • Developing strategies to meet these challenges will require seeing the system as a whole • Taxonomically • Geographically • Coping with change will require that we be able to track it Average Annual Temperature (F) 1956-2006 Average Annual Temperature (F) 2040-2069 Average Annual Temperature (F) 2070-2099 Average Annual Temperature (F) 2070-2099 Average Annual Temperature (F) 2040-2069 Average Annual Temperature (F) 1956-2006

  5. Beg, Borrow, or Steal • Evaluate what’s available • Spatial resolution • Consistent across entire LCC geography (scope) • Resolution is relevant to management decisions (scale) • Thematic resolution • Classes are not too coarse or too fine • All necessary classes are represented • Accuracy is adequate for confidence in use of data • Temporal resolution • Currentness • Regularity of updates

  6. Available Land Cover DatasetsNational Land Cover Dataset

  7. Available Land Cover DatasetsNational Land Cover Dataset

  8. Available Land Cover DatasetsNational Land Cover Dataset

  9. Available Land Cover DatasetsNational Agricultural Statistics Service – Crop Data Layer

  10. Available Land Cover DatasetsCoastal Change Analysis Program

  11. Available Land Cover DatasetsSoutheast Gap Analysis Project – Land Cover

  12. Available Land Cover DatasetsTexas Ecological Subsystems Classification

  13. Available Land Cover DatasetsLANDFIRE – Existing Vegetation Type

  14. Available Land Cover DatasetsNational Gap Analysis Program Available Land Cover DatasetsTake the Best

  15. Available Land Cover Datasets • There are currently no datasets available at the scope of the entire GCPOLCC that are at an accuracy or thematic resolution useful for conservation planning for the entire area

  16. Potential Solution • Develop a extensible land cover database that builds on the best of what’s available • Prospectus developed by MSU-GRI • NLCD change detection • Higher thematic resolution • Increased accuracy

  17. Partner Feedback – Ad Hoc • Ad Hoc Process • E-mail

  18. Partner Feedback – Ad Hoc • Content • Overall widely supported • Nearly everyone had questions • Uncertain benefits • Vague approach • Use existing datasets • Validation

  19. Partner Feedback – Ad Hoc • Summary of Comments – 8 Recommendations • Clarify value of GCPO-wide LCDB • Formally respond to comments • Catalog deficiencies of existing datasets • Identify necessary characteristics of LCDB • Spatial • Thematic • Temporal • Detail specific products of LCDB • Outline the workflow • Elaborate a validation strategy • Convene a Geomatics Working Group

  20. Partner Feedback – Formal • Formal Process • Geomatics Working Group • 26-27 April 2011 (Little Rock, AR)

  21. Partner Feedback – Formal • Content • Three perspectives reflecting available data emerged • Great value – Louisiana and Arkansas • Moderate value – Alabama and Tennessee • Little value – Texas and Missouri

  22. BenefitsImmediate for Individual Partners Higher resolution land cover More current land cover None

  23. BenefitsLong-term Higher resolution land cover Common Landuse Across LCC High-res, broad-scale view Common strategies Consistent design Standardized monitoring Leveraged capacities More current land cover None

  24. Partner Feedback – Formal • Content • Ideal • Thematic resolution of subsystems with high accuracy • Include additional mapping targets • Successional and structural attributes • Updated regularly • Reality • Achieve thematic resolution of ecological system • Include additional mapping targets • Incorporate CCAP and NASS data layers • Capitalize on NLCD change product

  25. Partner Feedback – Formal • Three approaches • Improve base classification product (i.e., NLCD) • Improve abiotic layers and site type descriptions • Improve the rule set that identifies ecological systems by linking the classification product to the abiotic layers and site type descriptions • Each of these avenues is currently being pursued • Capacity is coming from O’Hara @ MSU-GRI • Input is still needed from partners

  26. Requested Action • The continued investment of the Interim Steering Committee in the development of a GCPOLCC Land Cover Database will be sought

More Related