Coastal Bend Texas Benthic Habitat - San Antonio Bay (NODC Accession 0070784)

Metadata also available as - [Outline] - [Parseable text] - [XML]

Frequently anticipated questions:

What does this data set describe?

Title:
Coastal Bend Texas Benthic Habitat - San Antonio Bay (NODC Accession 0070784)
Abstract:
In 2006 and 2007 the NOAA Coastal Services Center purchased services to process existing digital multi-spectral imagery (ADS-40) and create digital benthic habitat data from this imagery for selected Texas coastal bend bays. The Center worked cooperatively with Fugro-Earthdata, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and the Texas A and M University Center for Coastal Studies to develop benthic habitat data, primarily Submerged Aquatic Vegetation(SAV) for several coastal bays. This data will support the state's recently adopted Seagrass Monitoring Program which calls for regional mapping of SAV for status and trends assessment. The Center, Texas A and M, and TPWD have coordinated on the requirements of this project.
Supplemental_Information:
The geographic extent of San Antonio and Espiritu Santo Bays is ~370mi2. Benthic habitat data was generated from 2007 orthoimagery collect with an UltraCam digital camera for all estuarine lands below mean high water within the study area. No benthic data was required for the marine side of the barrier beaches.
  1. How might this data set be cited?
    Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), Coastal Services Center (CSC), 20090213, Coastal Bend Texas Benthic Habitat - San Antonio Bay (NODC Accession 0070784): NOAA's Ocean Service, Coastal Services Center (CSC), Charleston, SC.

    Online Links:

  2. What geographic area does the data set cover?
    West_Bounding_Coordinate: -96.878809
    East_Bounding_Coordinate: -96.576873
    North_Bounding_Coordinate: 28.526800
    South_Bounding_Coordinate: 28.185683
  3. What does it look like?
  4. Does the data set describe conditions during a particular time period?
    Calendar_Date: 13-Feb-2009
    Currentness_Reference: Publication Date
  5. What is the general form of this data set?
    Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: map
  6. How does the data set represent geographic features?
    1. How are geographic features stored in the data set?
    2. What coordinate system is used to represent geographic features?
      Grid_Coordinate_System_Name: Universal Transverse Mercator
      Universal_Transverse_Mercator:
      UTM_Zone_Number: 14
      Transverse_Mercator:
      Scale_Factor_at_Central_Meridian: 0.999600
      Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: -099.000000
      Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: +00.000000
      False_Easting: 500000.000000
      False_Northing: 0.000000
      Planar coordinates are encoded using coordinate pair
      Abscissae (x-coordinates) are specified to the nearest 0.000128
      Ordinates (y-coordinates) are specified to the nearest 0.000128
      Planar coordinates are specified in Meters
      The horizontal datum used is North American Datum of 1983.
      The ellipsoid used is Geodetic Reference System 80.
      The semi-major axis of the ellipsoid used is 6378137.000000000000000000.
      The flattening of the ellipsoid used is 1/298.257222096042310000.
  7. How does the data set describe geographic features?
    Entity_and_Attribute_Overview: None
    Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation: Not applicable

Who produced the data set?

  1. Who are the originators of the data set? (may include formal authors, digital compilers, and editors)
  2. Who also contributed to the data set?
    NOAA Coastal Services Center
  3. To whom should users address questions about the data?
    Fugro EarthData, Inc.
    Attn: Becky Jordan
    Project Manager
    7320 Executive Way
    Frederick, MD
    USA

    301-948-8550 (voice)
    301-963-2064 (FAX)
    bjordan@earthdata.com
    Hours_of_Service: 9:00am - 5:00pm

Why was the data set created?

These data have been created to support change detection, and to inform coastal management research and decision making.

How was the data set created?

  1. From what previous works were the data drawn?
    Digital Orthoimagery (source 1 of 1)
    Sanborn Map Company, Inc, 20080310, San Antonio Espiritu Santo Bay Digital Orthoimagery.

    Type_of_Source_Media: Digital
    Source_Contribution:
    The orthoimagery was produced by Sanborn Map Company, Inc. for NOAA. The imagery for the San Antonio Espiritu Santo Bay project was acquired on December 5,2007 and the orthoimagery and horizontal analysis was completed on January 28, 2007.
  2. How were the data generated, processed, and modified?
    Date: 03-Feb-2009 (process 1 of 1)
    The original 1m DOQQs for the project area were resampled to 2m and mosaicked into a single four-band image. Image segmentation was performed using Definiens Professional. The classification of the habitat segments(as ESRI polygon shapefiles) was performed using CART analysis. The habitat map was refined with the aid of field data collected during May and July of 2008. The final habitat shapefile clipped to the final project area boundary. Each polygon has a unique polygon identification number in the attribute table (field"POLY_ID"). The final shapefile was checked for proper topology and to insure that each polygon has a correct habitat label, habitat code, modifier label if present, unique identification number, and an area calculation. Polygons below the 100m2 minimum mapping unit (MMU) were eliminated, though some polygons less than 100m2 were retained if their area changed to below the MMU due to the polygon boundary smoothing process. The habitat data also went through a independent validation review.Accuracy assessment was performed on seven classes with Patchy SRV and Continuous SRV being combined into a single SRV accuracy class. For field data collection, non-random sites in the form of polygons were chosen by analysts with an attempt to sample all available image signatures. These sites were visited in the field and data on each site was collected directly into digital format (ESRI shapefile) using a laptop or onto a paper form that was later entered into digital format.Sites were navigated to primarily using a Garmin GPS 76unit connected to a Panasonic Toughbook laptop displaying the project imagery and polygons in ArcMapv9.1 or using the GPS unit alone. Habitat classification was estimated as accurately as possible using methods or combination of methods which included above water observation, snorkeling, wading, and underwater video.This data were entered into an ESRI shapefile via a digital field form in ArcMap specifically developed for this type of field data collection. More sample polygon sites were collected in-office based on the in-field collected sites in order to meet the 30 sites per class accuracy assessment requirement. For each class, a random selector macro in ArcMap was used to randomly select 30 sites for accuracy assessment. The entire pool of accuracy sites was kept separate from the remaining sites and only used for accuracy assessment during the project. Anonymity of the accuracy sites was maintained throughout the project because it was unnecessary to ever visually review these sites in order to perform the accuracy analysis. More accuracy assessment sites were collected in a later field collection to add to the analysis. These sites were chosen by randomly selecting polygons within specific regions that were pre-determined to be visited. Information for these sites was collected using the same methods for the other sites. Accuracy information was compiled using ArcMap.The zonal stats tool in ArcMap was used to determine the majority map class each accuracy polygon intersected with. An accuracy assessment error matrix was generated using this information by importing it to Microsoft Excel and building the matrix. Both deterministic and fuzzy accuracy assessment were performed. The accuracy analysis and error matrices are presented and discussed in the Final Accuracy Assessment Report. Person who carried out this activity:
    Fugro EarthData, Inc.
    Attn: Becky Jordan
    Project Manager
    7320 Executive Way
    Frederick, MD
    USA

    301-948-8550 (voice)
    301-963-2064 (FAX)
    bjordan@earthdata.com
    Hours_of_Service: 9:00am - 5:00pm
    Data sources used in this process:
    • Digital Orthoimagery
  3. What similar or related data should the user be aware of?

How reliable are the data; what problems remain in the data set?

  1. How well have the observations been checked?
    Horizontal accuracy of the source imagery was verified to exceed the project specification of +/- 5 meters CE95 of position on the ground.Overall final thematic map deterministic accuracy is 90%and overall fuzzy accuracy is 91%, which exceeds the contract standard of 85%. Additionally, 13 of the 14 final individual class producer's and user's deterministic accuracies exceed the contract standard of 80%. The deterministic user's accuracy for emergent marsh is 76%.All of the individual class producer's and user's fuzzy accuracies exceed the contract standard of 80%. Detailed error matrices can be found in the thematic accuracy report.
  2. How accurate are the geographic locations?
  3. How accurate are the heights or depths?
  4. Where are the gaps in the data? What is missing?
    Compliance with the accuracy standard for the imagery was ensured by the placement of photo-identifiable ground control check points. Compliance with the accuracy standard for the final map product was ensured by field checks and manual editing.
  5. How consistent are the relationships among the observations, including topology?
    Eight photo-identified ground control check points were established for the purpose of assessing the accuracy of the final orthoimagery. These points were randomly distributed over the San Antonio Espiritu Santo Bay area. Two of the control points fell outside the project extent,and one additional point was discarded, as it was not associated with a well-defined feature. The five remaining points were used to calculate the accuracy of the orthoimagery. For the final map product Initial Map accuracy assessment was used as a tool to prioritize areas for further field examination and after field investigation to prioritize those areas where additional modeling or interpretation was needed. Error matrices showing both deterministic and fuzzy accuracies were compiled for the initial map. Based on the results compiled from the assessment, the team visit any classes exhibiting inaccuracy and addressed the classes through modeling, additional analysis or manual editing.

How can someone get a copy of the data set?

Are there legal restrictions on access or use of the data?
Access_Constraints: None
Use_Constraints: None
  1. Who distributes the data set? (Distributor 1 of 1)
    NOAA Coastal Services Center
    Attn: Clearinghouse Manager
    2234 South Hobson Avenue
    Charleston, SC
    USA

    843-740-1210 (voice)
    843-740-1224 (FAX)
    clearinghouse@noaa.gov
    Hours_of_Service: Monday-Friday, 8-5 EST
  2. What's the catalog number I need to order this data set? Downloadable Data
  3. What legal disclaimers am I supposed to read?
    Users must assume responsibility to determine the usability of these data.
  4. How can I download or order the data?

Who wrote the metadata?

Dates:
Last modified: 25-Jul-2023
Metadata author:
NOAA Coastal Services Center
Attn: Metadata Specialist
2234 S Hobson Ave.
Charleston, SC
USA

843-740-1210 (voice)
843-740-1224 (FAX)
clearinghouse@noaa.gov
Hours_of_Service: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST
Metadata standard:
FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (FGDC-STD-001-1998)
Generated by mp version 2.9.48 on Sun Apr 14 10:45:32 2024